Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to review the emerging research field of open innovation and identify where the field is going as well as suggest future fields of research.Design/methodology/approach: All academic papers and books published until November 2007 under the label of open innovation were systematically reviewed. Also, nine key researchers were asked to contribute with their opinions on the research frontier.Findings: A number of key themes in the research were identified, and conclusions on the underlying structure were drawn. This reveals that there is a tendency towards a broader definition and application of the term, a growing critical perspective, and a concentration on theory development and managerial implications.Research limitations/implications: The paper suggests that thelocusof the innovation process and the extent of collaboration should be used as two dimensions in a model to further understanding of how open innovation develops. These dimensions have an important impact on both the human and the organizational side of innovation, areas that are highlighted as important fields for further research.Originality/value: Despite the interest in the open innovation topic, a comprehensive review of the academic publications in the area does not seem to exist. The review and the conclusions drawn support the understanding of the growing field.

University entrepreneurial activity strives to deliver commercial value from university research. Entrepreneurial education, while having the same fundamental purpose, focuses on the stimulus of the individual. Recognising a gap in the literature between the fields of university entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial education, this paper proposes a venture creation approach to learning within an integrated environment. A study of Chalmers School of Entrepreneurship shows how university entrepreneurship, in the form of incubation, and entrepreneurial education, can be integrated. This integration provides both opportunities and challenges, both of which are addressed by utilising conventional problem-oriented and solution-focused learning philosophies in tandem. The venture creation approach builds upon combined learning philosophies in order to allow students to 'test the water' while reflecting upon real-life situations and explore entrepreneurial behaviours when creating new ventures. The paper concludes that actors engaged in combined entrepreneurial education and venture creation need to recognise, adapt to, and appreciate the tension and dynamics of the integrated environment.

Given that the innovation landscape is changing, and new forms of organization and management are emerging, this study discusses the potential benefits of action research for innovation management (IM) as it provides closeness to living emergent systems, generates rich insights as well as knowledge for both rigorous theory development and change in practice. Drawing from a large‐scale action research study involving a complex collaborative organizational construct, we outline three challenges from employing action research: the process is both reflexive and progressive, the researcher is both an outsider and an insider, and the outcome is both general and specific. A model of three social spaces (the action research space, the academic space, and the practitioner space) is proposed to address the challenges and assist in navigating the multitude of processes, roles, and outcomes associated with action research. The study argues that action research for IM is well suited to exploring tacit aspects of practices and processes in the emergent or shifting study contexts to transform practices through interventions. Thus, if implemented carefully by experienced researchers, it can provide valuable data that are indispensable for theory development in the field of IM.