Search results

By taking a micro-level perspective, this paper aims to examine the influence of the ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on principal investigators (PIs) and thereby links the two emerging research fields of entrepreneurial ecosystems and social innovation. The purpose of this paper is to build the basis for future empirical analyses.

The paper is a conceptual paper and therefore focuses on theoretical considerations. Taking a quadruple helix approach, PIs are outlined as central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and transformative agents of the innovation process.

PIs can proactively shape the innovation process and thus the shift from technological to social innovation, through various channels. They can affect all other actors of the quadruple helix, e.g. by exerting influence on the process of scientific change, on the public opinion and/or on the industry partners. Further, the paradigm shift might change the universities' role in the quadruple helix, substantiating their importance in the process of social change.

As PIs are influencing all other actors of the quadruple helix, they are central actors of entrepreneurial ecosystems and thus crucial players in the innovation process. Hence, they need to be supported in fulfilling their role of transformative agents, accelerating and shaping the paradigm shift from technological to social innovation. Universities should therefore reconsider their missions and vision as well as their role within the society.

This paper considers the influence of an ongoing paradigm shift from technological to social innovation on entrepreneurial ecosystems. This work focuses especially on the PIs' role as transformative agents. Therefore, it builds a bridge from entrepreneurial ecosystems to social innovation and thus contributes to both research fields. Moreover, the paper shows the great potential of PIs to influence and shape social innovation.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

GUEST editor of this South African issue of THE LIBRARY WORLD is Hendrik M. Robinson, Director of Library Services, Transvaal Provincial Administration, Pretoria.

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is effective in the treatment of treatment-resistant major depression. The fear of cognitive impairment after ECT often deters patients from choosing this treatment option. There is little reliable information regarding the effects of ECT on overall cognitive performance, while short-term memory deficits are well known but not easy to measure within clinical routines. In this pilot study, we examined ECT recipients' pre- and post-treatment performances on a digital ascending number tapping test. We found that cognitive performance measures exhibited good reproducibility in individual patients and that ECT did not significantly alter cognitive performance up to 2 hours after this therapy was applied. Our results can help patients and physicians make decisions regarding the administration of ECT. Digital measurements are recommended, especially when screening for the most common side effects on cognitive performance and short-term memory.

Recent academic studies, as well as media reporting, have devoted substantial attention to the ongoing “crisis of democracy.” Democratic “backsliding” of Central and Eastern Europe – sometimes referred to as an effort to establish a new system of “illiberal democracy” – is one of the most visible symptoms of this crisis. This narrative is supported by the quantitative metrics of democratic quality, reflecting professional community views on the appropriate criteria to define and assess democracy. However, once general public views expressed in the survey item of “satisfaction with democracy” are taken into account, the picture changes markedly. This chapter analyzes quantitative metrics reflecting expert community consensus and the general public assessment of the quality of democracy in the 27 EU members over the period 2010–2019. It documents substantial divergence between the perspectives of the experts and the general public – while expert-based indexes portray Central and Eastern European backsliding as the most significant trend in the EU democratic landscape, public opinion identifies a very different set of democracy's successes and failures. As experts and the general public fail to arrive at mutually accepted criteria of democratic performance evaluation, public debate has become futile. Meaningful discussion and systemic corrections have become unlikely, creating conditions easily exploitable by the populists, eager to frame it as an example of “elite” detachment from the “ordinary people”.