Information and Communication Technology Systems and Innovation: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Sofia Gomes
,
João M. Lopes

Entrepreneurship has become increasingly important for innovation and economic growth. The connection of innovation and entrepreneurship to Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is gradually being increasingly recognised as a catalyst and a facilitator of social and economic growth. Innovation, as a rule, causes companies to be more creative, experimenting with the development of new processes, services, and products, thus giving rise to new business models that allow companies to expand and improve overall competitiveness. ICTs have been pointed out as a key factor in developing innovation. 

  • open innovation dynamic
  • entrepreneurship
  • resource-based theory
  • information and communications technology (ICT)
  • total early-stage entrepreneurial activity (TEA)
  • entrepreneurial activity

1. Introduction

The connection of innovation and entrepreneurship to Information and Communications Technology (ICT) is gradually being increasingly recognised as a catalyst and a facilitator of social and economic growth [1]. The increasing evolution of digital technologies means businesses must adapt to an increasingly global market [2], and policymakers have been considering ICTs for formulating their regional and national development objectives. However, the practical mechanisms for implementing policies that assist in adopting entrepreneurship and open innovation dynamics based on ICTs vary significantly from economy to economy [1][3].
In more uncertain and dynamic economic environments, innovation, as a rule, causes companies to be more creative, experimenting with the development of new processes, services, and products, thus giving rise to new business models that allow companies to expand and improve overall competitiveness [4].
In this context, ICTs have been pointed out as a key factor in developing innovation. In turn, innovation has been pointed out as being the basis of the economic development achieved by some economies since the last decade of the twentieth century. However, ICTs alone do not guarantee greater socio-economic growth [5][6]. Thus, the use and availability of citizens’ access to ICTs helps to understand how much an economy has used and taken advantage of the new knowledge made available by the knowledge society and what their impacts have been on economic growth [5][7][8][9][10].
From this perspective, entrepreneurship plays a relevant role in economies and society, with the need to foster it [11][12][13]. However, there are significant differences in entrepreneurial activity globally and across different types of economies, and these differences should be further studied [5]. Some studies point to the predictors for new ventures’ success and growth [14][15]. However, little attention has been paid to the intersection of technological capabilities and innovations in new ventures, which are fundamental today [2]. More studies linking ICT development in different countries to entrepreneurial activity are still needed [16].
Thus, this entry aims to analyse the potential influence of ICT on entrepreneurial activity in OECD countries in the context of the open innovation dynamic. ICT, including mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions, individuals using the internet, and fixed-broadband subscriptions, were considered for this entry. Thus, the following research questions were formulated: (1) whether ICTs positively influence the rate of new firm creation in OECD countries, and (2) whether different ICTs have equal importance in stimulating entrepreneurial activity.
ICTs can help firms and economies improve their performance and achieve competitive advantages. However, both performance and competitive advantage typically depend on the internal resources that firms have access to and their ability to coordinate and combine the various resources [17][18][19]. The resource-based theory is relevant for addressing the implications of firms’ resources [20]. The resource-based theory is appropriate for addressing the implications of firms’ resources for organisational performance in economies [17][21]. The resource-based theory tells researchers that the possession of specific firm resources influences organisational performance. Therefore, resources are repeatedly considered the basis of wealth creation, allowing firms to develop competitive advantages by creating value for their customers [22][23][24]. In this way, access to ICTs is considered a necessary resource for business performance.

2. Entrepreneurship and Resource-Based Theory

Entrepreneurs and resources play a key role in global economies [2]. The entrepreneurs drive value creation through a correct combination and optimisation of resources. In this context, the relationship between entrepreneurship and resource-based theory has been recognised by academics [25]. This relationship has gradually developed new insights [24], and the resource-based theory can explain the success of entrepreneurial activity [26]. According to the resource-based theory, ICT is identified as a valuable and crucial source of heterogeneous resources, which help companies to gain a competitive advantage in terms of information and improve their efficiency and business performance [27][28][29]. Specifically, in this entry, three ICTs are considered through their accessibility and use, enabling them to increase business success.
In this follow-up, implementing an entrepreneurial institution and vision are fundamental in defining which resources contribute to achieving a sustainable competitive advantage [30]. Thus, internal resources are more relevant in formulating a competitive advantage strategy than external factors [20][31]. On the other hand, internal resources must be retained and developed within the organisations, that is, they cannot be obtained or even bought from the markets. [32][33]. There are six types of internal resources: (1) organisational resources (corporate culture, quality control systems, and relationships); (2) physical resources; (3) financial resources; (4) human resources; (5) intangible resources (e.g., goodwill, brand recognition, and reputation); and (6) technological capabilities (e.g., ICTs) [33][34].
Resources can also be intangible (e.g., employment of qualified personnel and internal knowledge of technology) or tangible (e.g., physical assets and financial capital) [17]. The shared use of tangible and intangible resources plays a vital role in firms’ performances and the economies where they are located [35]. At least two resources are considered important for high-tech entrepreneurial firms: (1) the level of education of the entrepreneur, and (2) the investments in technology [36][37]. Entrepreneurial education complements technological resources, that is, to increase the firm’s performance, human capital can help leverage the effects of technological resources [17][38].
Following the logic of the resource-based theory, a widespread access to ICT can provide entrepreneurs with access to new markets and new business ideas since a better knowledge and understanding of consumers, competitors, and markets is a critical and crucial resource for increasing responsiveness to markets and is a determinant of better business performance [27][39]. Thus, the great quantity of information qualified by access to ICTs is a valuable resource for entrepreneurs. Thus, the great quantity of information qualified by access to ICTs is a valuable resource for entrepreneurs, since this information is used as determinants for entrepreneurs to achieve competitive advantages [40].

3. Open Innovation Dynamic in Entrepreneurship

Open innovation has provided a new paradigm for businesses and economies [13][41]. Open innovation can be defined as using “intentional knowledge inputs and outputs” to accelerate internal innovation, allowing a firm to expand in markets for the external use of innovation [42]. Thus, open innovation is one of the approaches to innovation management that is, according to West and Gallagher [43], “systematically encouraging and exploring a wide range of internal and external sources for innovation opportunities, consciously integrating that exploration with firm capabilities and resources, and broadly exploiting those opportunities through multiple channels”. In recent years, globalisation and rapid technological advances have led to the increasing dynamics of open innovations, leading to a new paradox of open innovation called the open innovation dynamic [44].
Open innovation consists of two dimensions: (1) open innovation input; (2) open innovation output [1]. Open inbound innovation consists of establishing relationships with external individuals or organisations to access their scientific and technical expertise. This can enable the improvement of internal innovation performance. Open input innovation is further considered to be a practice of leveraging the discoveries of others, i.e., it suggests that a company cannot consider only its R&D [41][45][46]. Concerning outbound open innovation, it can be defined as a practice of establishing relationships with other external organisations to commercially exploit their technological knowledge [1][47]. Thus, the outgoing open innovation should look for the market (externally) organisations that contemplate business models that are more appropriate for the commercialisation of a particular technology [47][48][49].
Currently, the relationship between open innovation and entrepreneurship must be explored, taking into account the digital economy [50][51]. In this digital context, interactions between different actors are fast and global, creating ideal conditions for entrepreneurship [52]. Thus, technological innovations are considered essential sources of new value creation, leading organisations to maximise profits. The motives of open innovation, namely those of open inbound innovation, contemplate the acquisition of new knowledge as well as increasing customer satisfaction [53][54].
It is necessary to study the benefit and proper development of open innovation activities from an external perspective, considering the elements that best use information [55]. Therefore, it is convenient to anticipate which capabilities benefit the information flow, both at the internal environment level (e.g., communication processes and culture) and the external environment level (e.g., information technology used and external collaboration) [56][57]. The ICT adoption by organisations is considered a key factor in the value creation process [55][58], and the ICTs can lower the costs of the open innovation dynamic and the complexity of innovation. Thus, an open innovation dynamic could eliminate the harmful consequences of inadequate knowledge [59]. If open innovation is implemented effectively, its momentum can drive new business creation activity and cause companies to have significant growth from small businesses to world leaders. In this way, open innovation not only changes companies and the business structure but can lead to economic growth [59][60].
Nowadays, technological tools process, store information, and allow the communication and exchange of information in different ways, contributing to the inclusion of innovation activities at various external and internal levels. ICTs enable the frequent cooperation of the actors involved in actions that work together, regardless of how complex they are, as the innovation process [57][61][62]. On the other hand, ICTs are considered key elements by organisations for transforming and assimilating knowledge and information into competitive advantages, which come from the innovation process [55].

4. ICT Access and Entrepreneurship

Access to ICTs facilitates the creation of new enterprises and boosts their development and growth [63]. Thus, entrepreneurs can benefit from access to ICTs for several reasons: (1) the development of ICTs increases and facilitates the ability of entrepreneurs to create, collect, process, and interpret information [64]; (2) it boosts an environment conducive to new ideas and new business opportunities namely, in online markets, encouraging the creation of new businesses [63]; (3) it increases entrepreneurs’ motivation through the social influence on ICT-facilitated interactions of an entrepreneur with other entrepreneurs, making entrepreneurs more aware of the benefits of ICT use and endowing them with greater market intelligence capable of more assertive and quicker responses [65][66][67]; (4) it enhances the effective communication and information exchange, enabling entrepreneurs to coordinate multiple consumers in entrepreneurial activities, reducing uncertainty and increasing the possibility of greater entrepreneurial success [67].
In this entry, the access to ICTs is represented by mobile-cellular telephone subscriptions, individuals using the internet, and fixed-broadband subscriptions. Researchers use these ICTs as determinants of entrepreneurial activity for several reasons. First, the growth of mobile-cellular telephones, the internet, and fixed-broadband subscriptions is stagnating due to their increasingly widespread access, but the conditions and ease of access are not equal in all countries. That is, in all countries, the efficient access to these ICTs should be a primary condition. On the other hand, internet access is a fundamental resource for mobile technology, integral to the information society [16]. The use of mobile phones and the internet has catapulted the diffusion of ICTs [68], and as such, has increased the quality and quantity of the information available for innovations, enhancing the crucial role of entrepreneurship [69][70]. The access to broadband internet has also boosted the business environment, accelerating entrepreneurship through the lower costs of starting a new business and facilitating the creation of networks between entrepreneurs, customers, suppliers, and competitors [63][71][72]. The effective and efficient communication and information exchange among the various participants in entrepreneurial activity is facilitated by access to ICTs, reducing the risk and uncertainties inherent in the entrepreneurial process and increasing the chances of business success [67].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/joitmc8020102

References

  1. Cunningham, P.M.; Cunningham, M.; Ekenberg, L. Factors Impacting on the Current Level of Open Innovation and ICT Entrepreneurship in Africa. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 2016, 73, 1–23.
  2. Mohsen, K.; Saeed, S.; Raza, A.; Omar, S.; Muffatto, M. Does using latest technologies impact new venture innovation? A contingency-based view of institutional environments. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2021, 59, 852–886.
  3. Cunningham, P.M.; Cunningham, M.; Ekenberg, L. Baseline analysis of 3 innovation ecosystems in East Africa. In Proceedings of the 2014 14th International Conference on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions (ICTer), Colombo, Sri Lanka, 10–13 December 2014; pp. 156–162.
  4. Parida, V.; Örtqvist, D. Interactive Effects of Network Capability, ICT Capability, and Financial Slack on Technology-Based Small Firm Innovation Performance. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2015, 53, 278–298.
  5. González-Sánchez, V.M. ‘Information and Communication Technologies’ and Entrepreneurial Activity: Drivers of Economic Growth in Europe. Serv. Ind. J. 2013, 33, 683–693.
  6. Sánchez, V.M.G. Education and ICT: Key factors to improve the development in the world. In International Political Economy; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 171–190.
  7. BarNir, A. Starting technologically innovative ventures: Reasons, human capital and gender. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 399–419.
  8. Battistella, C.; Biotto, G.; De Toni, A.F. From design driven innovation to meaning strategy. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 718–743.
  9. Cegarra-Navarro, J.; Sánchez-Vidal, M.E.; Cegarra-Leiva, D. Balancing exploration and exploitation of knowledge through an unlearning context. Manag. Decis. 2011, 49, 1099–1119.
  10. Goktan, A.; Miles, G. Innovation speed and radicalness: Are they inversely related? Manag. Decis. 2011, 49, 533–547.
  11. Chaston, I.; Scott, G.J. Entrepreneurship and open innovation in an emerging economy. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 1161–1177.
  12. Huarng, K.H.; Yu, T.H.-K. Entrepreneurship, process innovation and value creation by a non-profit SME. Manag. Decis. 2011, 49, 284–296.
  13. Lopes, J.; Oliveira, M.; Silveira, P.; Farinha, L.; Oliveira, J. Business Dynamism and Innovation Capacity, an Entrepreneurship Worldwide Perspective. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 94.
  14. Hopp, C.; Sonderegger, R. Understanding the Dynamics of Nascent Entrepreneurship—Prestart-Up Experience, Intentions and Entrepreneurial Success. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2015, 53, 1076–1096.
  15. Aparicio, S.; Urbano, D.; Audretsch, D. Institutional factors, opportunity entrepreneurship and economic growth: Panel data evidence. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2016, 102, 45–61.
  16. Alderete, M.V. Mobile Broadband: A Key Enabling Technology for Entrepreneurship? J. Small Bus. Manag. 2017, 55, 254–269.
  17. Siqueira, A.C.O.; Bruton, G.D. High-Technology Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies: Firm Informality and Contextualisation of Resource-Based Theory. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2010, 57, 39–50.
  18. Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120.
  19. Lopes, J.; Farinha, L.; Ferreira, J.J.; Silveira, P. Does regional VRIO model help policy-makers to assess the resources of a region? A stakeholder perception approach. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 659–670.
  20. Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 171–180.
  21. Farinha, L.; Lopes, J.; Sebastião, J.R.; Ferreira, J.J.; Oliveira, J.; Silveira, P. How do stakeholders evaluate smart specialisation policies defined for their regions? Compet. Rev. Int. Bus. J. 2021, 31, 594–624.
  22. Sirmon, D.G.; Hitt, M.A.; Ireland, R.D. Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value: Looking Inside the Black Box. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 273–292.
  23. Grant, R.M. The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1991, 33, 114–135.
  24. Lopes, J.; Ferreira, J.J.; Farinha, L. Entrepreneurship and the resource-based view: What is the linkage? A bibliometric approach. Int. J. Entrep. Ventur. 2021, 13, 137.
  25. Alvarez, S.A.; Busenitz, L.W. The entrepreneurship of resource-based theory. J. Manag. 2001, 27, 755–775.
  26. Lee, C.; Lee, K.; Pennings, J.M. Internal capabilities, external networks and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 615–640.
  27. Zhang, F.; Li, D. Regional ICT access and entrepreneurship: Evidence from China. Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 188–198.
  28. Rivard, S.; Raymond, L.; Verreault, D. Resource-based view and competitive strategy: An integrated model of the contribution of information technology to firm performance. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2006, 15, 29–50.
  29. Wade, M.; Hulland, J. The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Q. 2004, 28, 107–142.
  30. Conner, K.R. A Historical Comparison of Resource-Based Theory and Five Schools of Thought within Industrial Organization Economics: Do We Have a New Theory of the Firm? J. Manag. 1991, 17, 121–154.
  31. Barney, J.B. Strategic Factor Markets—Expectations, Luck and Business Strategy. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32, 1230–1241.
  32. Dierickx, I.; Cool, K. Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainability of Competitive Advantage. Manag. Sci. 1989, 35, 1504–1511.
  33. Braganza, A.; Brooks, L.; Nepelski, D.; Ali, M.; Moro, R. Resource management in big data initiatives: Processes and dynamic capabilities. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 70, 328–337.
  34. Mahoney, J.T.; Pandian, J.R. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1992, 13, 363–380.
  35. Chang, S.J.; Hong, J. Economic Performance of Group-Affiliated Companies in Korea: Intragroup Resource Sharing and Internal Business Transactions. Acad. Manag. J. 2000, 43, 429–448.
  36. Bruton, G.D.; Rubanik, Y. Resources of the firm, Russian high-technology startups and firm growth. J. Bus. Ventur. 2002, 17, 553–576.
  37. Storey, D.J.; Tether, B.S. New technology-based firms in the European union: An introduction. Res. Policy 1998, 26, 933–946.
  38. Powell, T.C.; DentMicallef, A. Information technology as competitive advantage: The role of human, business and technology resources. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 375–405.
  39. Morgan, N.A.; Vorhies, D.W.; Mason, C.H. Market orientation, marketing capabilities and firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2009, 30, 909–920.
  40. Newbert, S.L. Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 121–146.
  41. Lopes, J.M.; Gomes, S.; Oliveira, J.; Oliveira, M. International Open Innovation Strategies of Firms in European Peripheral Regions. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 7.
  42. Chesbrough, H. The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2003, 45, 33–58.
  43. West, J.; Gallagher, S. Challenges of open innovation: The paradox of firm investment in open-source software. RD Manag. 2006, 36, 319–331.
  44. Yun, J.J.; Zhao, X.; Jung, K.; Yigitcanlar, T. The Culture for Open Innovation Dynamics. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5076.
  45. Bianchi, M.; Campodall’Orto, S.; Frattini, F.; Vercesi, P. Enabling open innovation in small- and medium-sized enterprises: How to find alternative applications for your technologies. RD Manag. 2010, 40, 414–431.
  46. Bogers, M.; Zobel, A.-K.; Afuah, A.; Almirall, E.; Brunswicker, S.; Dahlander, L.; Frederiksen, L.; Gawer, A.; Gruber, M.; Haefliger, S.; et al. The open innovation research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis. Ind. Innov. 2017, 24, 8–40.
  47. Chesbrough, H.; Crowther, A.K. Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. RD Manag. 2006, 36, 229–236.
  48. West, J.; Salter, A.; Vanhaverbeke, W.; Chesbrough, H. Open innovation: The next decade. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 805–811.
  49. Gruber, M.; Henkel, J. New ventures based on open innovation—An empirical analysis of startup firms in embedded Linux. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2006, 33, 356–372.
  50. Caputo, A.; Pizzi, S.; Pellegrini, M.M.; Dabić, M. Digitalization and business models: Where are we going? A science map of the field. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 123, 489–501.
  51. Beliaeva, T.; Ferasso, M.; Kraus, S.; Damke, E.J. Dynamics of digital entrepreneurship and the innovation ecosystem. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2020, 26, 266–284.
  52. Allen, D.W.E.; Berg, C.; Markey-Towler, B.; Novak, M.; Potts, J. Blockchain and the evolution of institutional technologies: Implications for innovation policy. Res. Policy 2020, 49, 103865.
  53. Yun, J.J.; Park, K.; Kim, J.; Yang, J. Open Innovation Effort, Entrepreneurship Orientation and their Synergies onto Innovation Performance in SMEs of Korea. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2016, 21, 366–390.
  54. Yun, J.-H.J.; Park, S.; Avvari, M.V. Development and Social Diffusion of Technological Innovation: Cases Based on Mobile Telecommunications in National Emergency Management. Sci. Technol. Soc. 2011, 16, 215–234.
  55. Cuevas-Vargas, H.; Aguirre, J.; Parga-Montoya, N. Impact of ICT adoption on absorptive capacity and open innovation for greater firm performance. The mediating role of ACAP. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 140, 11–24.
  56. Nestle, V.; Täube, F.A.; Heidenreich, S.; Bogers, M. Establishing open innovation culture in cluster initiatives: The role of trust and information asymmetry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 146, 563–572.
  57. Jimenez-Jimenez, D.; Martínez-Costa, M.; Sanchez Rodriguez, C. The mediating role of supply chain collaboration on the relationship between information technology and innovation. J. Knowl. Manag. 2019, 23, 548–567.
  58. Howell, R.; van Beers, C.; Doorn, N. Value capture and value creation: The role of information technology in business models for frugal innovations in Africa. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2018, 131, 227–239.
  59. Skordoulis, M.; Ntanos, S.; Kyriakopoulos, G.L.; Arabatzis, G.; Galatsidas, S.; Chalikias, M. Environmental Innovation, Open Innovation Dynamics and Competitive Advantage of Medium and Large-Sized Firms. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2020, 6, 195.
  60. Yun, J.J.; Won, D.; Park, K. Entrepreneurial cyclical dynamics of open innovation. J. Evol. Econ. 2018, 28, 1151–1174.
  61. Alshubiri, F.; Jamil, S.A.; Elheddad, M. The impact of ICT on financial development: Empirical evidence from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. 2019, 11, 1847979019870670.
  62. Chen, J.-S.; Tsou, H.-T. Information technology adoption for service innovation practices and competitive advantage: The case of financial firms. Inf. Res. Int. Electron. J. 2007, 12, 472–477.
  63. Giudice, M.; Straub, D. Editor’s comments: IT and entrepreneurism: An on-again, off-again love affair or a marriage? MIS Q. 2011, 35, 3–8.
  64. Niles, S.; Hanson, S. A new era of accessibility. URISA J. 2003, 15, 35–41.
  65. Agarwal, R.; Animesh, A.; Prasad, K. Research Note—Social Interactions and the “Digital Divide”: Explaining Variations in Internet Use. Inf. Syst. Res. 2009, 20, 277–294.
  66. Wang, Y.; Ahmed, P.K. The moderating effect of the business strategic orientation on eCommerce adoption: Evidence from UK family run SMEs. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2009, 18, 16–30.
  67. Chen, Y.; Wang, Y.; Nevo, S.; Benitez-Amado, J.; Kou, G. IT capabilities and product innovation performance: The roles of corporate entrepreneurship and competitive intensity. Inf. Manag. 2015, 52, 643–657.
  68. Majeed, M.T.; Ayub, T. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and Economic Growth Nexus: A Comparative Global Analysis. Pak. J. Commer. Soc. Sci. 2018, 12, 443–476.
  69. Ahmadi, M.; Osman, M.H.M. Exploitative dominant balanced ambidexterity solving the paradox of innovation strategies in SMEs. Int. J. Bus. Innov. Res. 2020, 21, 79–107.
  70. El-Haddadeh, R. Digital Innovation Dynamics Influence on Organisational Adoption: The Case of Cloud Computing Services. Inf. Syst. Front. 2020, 22, 985–999.
  71. Ishida, H. The effect of ICT development on economic growth and energy consumption in Japan. Telemat. Inform. 2015, 32, 79–88.
  72. Xing, Z. The impacts of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and E-commerce on bilateral trade flows. Int. Econ. Econ. Policy 2018, 15, 565–586.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback