Rethinking Openness: How Complex Thinking Can Bridge Open Science and Open Innovation

Redacción HC
28/06/2024

In today’s fast-changing world, the convergence of open science and open innovation is widely celebrated as the future of knowledge production and technology transfer. Governments encourage open data. Universities promote transparency. Startups thrive on collaboration. Yet despite all this progress, a critical gap remains: most frameworks lack the intellectual tools to manage complexity and uncertainty—the very traits that define our modern challenges.

A recent study published in the International Journal of Innovation Studies argues that bridging open science and open innovation requires more than access or tools. It demands a shift in mindset—a paradigm grounded in complex thinking that helps researchers, policymakers, and industries navigate competing interests, protect data integrity, and foster sustainable, socially responsible innovation.

The Challenge: More Than Just Open Access

Open science emphasizes transparency in research methods and results. Open innovation promotes collaboration between academia, industry, and governments. But the intersection of these two movements often reveals conflicting priorities.

According to the authors—Sanabria, Cruz-Sandoval, Moreno-Romo, Bosch-Gómez, and Montoya—simply making knowledge accessible does not guarantee it will be used effectively or ethically. Instead, they ask: Can complex thinking serve as the glue that binds these movements into a coherent innovation ecosystem?

Mapping the Literature: A Decade of Insights

The study employs a Mapping Literature Review to analyze more than a decade of research across Europe and globally. It categorizes themes, identifies conceptual gaps, and traces how open science and open innovation have evolved in parallel—but rarely in synergy.

Key areas examined include:

• Open access and open data policies
• Public–private collaboration dynamics
• Data protection vs. transparency dilemmas
• Governance models in innovation networks

The analysis reveals that Europe leads the conceptual integration, but practical implementation often stalls due to limited communication between sectors and a lack of frameworks for interdisciplinary cooperation.

Complex Thinking: A Missing Link

At the core of the article is the argument that complex thinking is the missing methodological and ethical foundation needed to align open science and innovation. This cognitive framework:

• Embraces uncertainty and multiple perspectives
• Integrates environmental, social, and technological dimensions
• Recognizes systems as dynamic and non-linear

“Thinking in silos—disciplinary, institutional, or methodological—prevents truly open and impactful innovation,” the authors argue.

They also point to a critical oversight in current models: the absence of an "environmental helix"—a fourth stakeholder layer (alongside academia, industry, and government) that brings ecological concerns into innovation ecosystems.

Without this dimension, even the most open research systems risk being socially disconnected and environmentally unsustainable.

Conceptual and Practical Gaps

Despite robust theoretical work on open access and innovation platforms, several conceptual voids persist:

1. Few studies examine how complex thinking is applied in real-world research settings.
2. There is minimal dialogue between proponents of open science and innovation in environmental contexts.
3. Communication and governance tools to manage cross-sector tensions remain underdeveloped.

The study urges researchers to move beyond digital tools and licensing protocols. Instead, they must learn to manage openness as a system of relationships, values, and long-term visions.

Toward a More Integrated Future

The authors provide actionable recommendations:

1. Embed complex thinking into researcher training programs, focusing on systems theory, ethics, and intersectoral collaboration.
2. Reform governance structures to actively engage civil society and environmental actors—not just commercial or academic interests.
3. Develop innovation strategies that balance openness with contextual sensitivity—recognizing when, where, and how data should be shared or protected.

Implications for Latin America and Beyond

While the literature reviewed is predominantly European, the findings hold global relevance. In Latin America, where social inequality, biodiversity, and institutional complexity intersect, the need for complex thinking in open innovation is particularly acute.

Countries like Mexico, Brazil, and Chile are advancing open data policies, but often lack the governance ecosystems needed to translate openness into impact. Including local communities, environmental groups, and indigenous knowledge holders in innovation initiatives could help build more inclusive and resilient futures.

Final Thoughts: Openness Needs Depth

This article is not a critique of open science or open innovation—it’s a call to deepen them. Without the tools to navigate complexity, openness can become superficial, even counterproductive. But when guided by systems thinking, ethical awareness, and inclusive governance, it can transform research from a linear pipeline into a dynamic, adaptive force for collective well-being.

Topics of interest

Open Access