1 Introduction

Research methods in innovation management (IM) is not a topic that has attracted much scholarly attention – at least not in published articles in top‐ranked innovation and technology management journals. Indeed, very few articles to date have addressed methods‐related issues in IM, either to review existing methods and their use or to develop new methods (Antons et al., 2016). While certain methods have prompted lively debate in many management sub‐disciplines, IM research has not generally initiated discussion or interrogation of methodological issues. As one case in point, case study research is a widely used method that continues to attract contributions and discussion across many sub‐disciplines of management, but IM research remains absent in that space (Goffin et al., 2019).

That said, IM researchers are beginning to show more interest in methods, measures, and research designs. Recent examples include Henttonen et al.’s (2016) study of appropriate performance measures for innovation and development projects; Dziallas and Blind’s (2019) analysis of innovation indicators throughout the innovation process; Goffin et al.’s (2019) review of case study research in IM; and Micheli et al.’s (2019) review and synthesis of research on design thinking in IM. As part of this more active interest in methods, the IM research community has also begun to establish special interest groups and to organise specialised seminars (see for example Conn and Ritala, 2019).

This Special Issue joins this momentum and emerging developments by offering a stage for IM scholars to augment existing understanding of current and emerging methods and their application. As specified in the initial call for papers in 2018, we looked for contributions regarding methods for more rigorous examination of R&D and innovation activities and their management. Importantly, we do not question the utility of methods applied elsewhere in management; instead, we see potential for IM‐specific developments, applications, and debate in relation to research methods.

The call for papers attracted submissions covering a wide range of methodologies and developments, as well as reviews of established IM methods and proposals for new approaches. As Special Issue editors, we welcomed the opportunity to organise a workshop for authors at the 2019 ISPIM conference in Florence in collaboration with the ISPIM Special Interest Group in Innovation Research Skills. After the review process, we finally accepted the seven articles that feature in this Special Issue.

In fulfilling that original purpose, the studies included here draw on novel methods and data sources or propose interesting adaptations of existing methods. We believe that these articles contribute to advancing both the rigor and diversity of IM methods. As these individual contributions represent a limited selection of developments in the field, we hope this Special Issue and this editorial will also encourage researchers to pursue promising methodological directions, building on the methodological guidance and inspiration that each article and the Special Issue provide.

To that end, this editorial unfolds as follows. After a few notes regarding definitional issues in IM, we go on to reflect on some of the core methodological challenges in the field and how IM researchers can leverage these in pursuit of more rigorous, impactful, and interesting research. In particular, we address challenges related to conceptual and empirical ambiguity, levels of analysis, temporality, and context. Following a brief commentary on each of the articles featured here, we call for greater methodological rigor and diversity in IM research and acknowledge those colleagues whose reviews have helped to shape this Special Issue.

中文翻译：

---

创新管理研究方法：拥抱严谨和多元化

1引言

创新管理（IM）的研究方法并不是引起学术界广泛关注的话题-至少在顶级创新和技术管理期刊上发表的文章中没有。确实，迄今为止，很少有文章讨论IM中与方法有关的问题，以回顾现有方法及其使用或开发新方法（Antons等，2016）。尽管某些方法在许多管理子学科中引发了激烈的辩论，但IM研究通常并未启动对方法论问题的讨论或审问。作为一个恰当的例子，案例研究是一种广泛使用的方法，可以继续吸引许多管理子学科的贡献和讨论，但IM研究在该领域仍然不存在（Goffin等，2019）。

也就是说，即时消息研究人员开始对方法，措施和研究设计表现出更多的兴趣。最近的例子包括Henttonen等人（2016年）对创新和发展项目的适当绩效衡量指标的研究。Dziallas和Blind（2019）在整个创新过程中对创新指标的分析; Goffin等人（2019）对IM中案例研究的回顾; 和Micheli等人（2019）对IM中设计思维的研究进行了综述和综合。作为对方法更积极的兴趣的一部分，即时消息研究界也已开始建立特殊的兴趣小组并组织专门的研讨会（例如，参见Conn和Ritala，2019年）。

本期专刊为即时消息学者提供了一个平台，以加深对当前和新兴方法及其应用的现有了解，从而与这一势头和新兴发展相结合。正如在2018年首次征集论文中所指明的那样，我们寻求有关对研发和创新活动及其管理进行更严格审查的方法的贡献。重要的是，我们不质疑在管理中其他地方应用的方法的实用性；相反，我们看到了IM特定的开发，应用和与研究方法有关的辩论的潜力。

征集论文吸引了众多方法和发展方面的意见书，以及对已建立的IM方法和新方法建议的审查。作为特刊的编辑，我们很高兴有机会与ISPIM创新研究技能特别兴趣小组合作在佛罗伦萨举行的2019 ISPIM会议上为作者组织一次研讨会。经过审查，我们终于接受了本期特刊的七篇文章。

为了实现该原始目的，此处包括的研究借鉴了新颖的方法和数据源，或者提出了对现有方法的有趣修改。我们相信这些文章有助于提高IM方法的严格性和多样性。由于这些个人贡献仅代表该领域的发展，因此我们希望本期特刊和本社论还将鼓励研究人员在每篇文章和特刊所提供的方法论指导和启发的基础上，寻求有前途的方法论方向。

为此，本社论如下所述。在就IM中的定义性问题发表了一些笔记之后，我们继续反思该领域中的一些核心方法挑战，以及IM研究人员如何利用这些挑战来进行更严格，更具影响力和更有趣的研究。特别是，我们应对与概念和经验上的歧义，分析水平，时间性和上下文有关的挑战。在对此处的每篇文章进行简短评论后，我们呼吁IM研究在方法上更加严格和多样化，并感谢那些对其评论有所帮助的同事。