Search results

Knowledge competencies and (R&D) activities are one of the most important sources of innovation and have been widely discussed in the literature. In comparison, the role of the competitive environment for the innovation activities of firms is still open to debate and has not been fully understood yet. Therefore, this paper intends to provide new evidence on the interaction between knowledge competencies and R&D activities of firms on the one side and their competitiveness in the market environment on the other. In particular, the moderating function of market competition is explored. In this respect, the analysis covers the main innovation types as well as both sectors, manufacturing and services.

The empirical analysis is based on a three years panel dataset of German manufacturing and service firms obtained from Mannheim Innovation Panel (MIP) and Community Innovation Surveys (CISs: 2011, 2013 and 2015). For the estimation, a binary instrumental variable treatment model with Heckman selection method is used. Also, it provides a suitable approach to estimating the binary variables in order to cope with endogeneity concerns.

The estimation results show that R&D activities and knowledge competencies are positively related to innovation activities of different types conditioned on firms' specific perception of their competitive environment, in terms of outdated products/services as well as strong competition from abroad. Most importantly, the results from the moderation estimation reveal that there is a significant difference between the manufacturing and service sector. Service firms engage more in internal R&D activities on generating product innovations while the manufacturing firms conduct more external R&D on specific types of innovation. Further, the authors find that strong competition from abroad positively and significantly reinforces the effect of knowledge competencies on innovation activities for more types in services than in manufacturing. In contrast, outdated products and services tend to decline the effect of knowledge competencies for some innovation types in both sectors. The authors also observe a positive and significant reinforcement effect on knowledge competencies. However, it is found more beneficial for service firms since they can employ more innovation strategies.

The focus of the study is mainly on the impact of firms' competitive environment on innovation activities in various types through its interaction with knowledge competencies and R&D activities, across manufacturing and service firms.

The purpose of this paper is to progress operations management theory and practice by organising contributions to knowledge production, in industrial sustainability, from disparate researcher communities. It addresses the principal question “What scholarly dialogues can be explicated in the emerging research field of industrial sustainability?” and sub-questions: what are the descriptive characteristics of the evidence base? and what thematic lines of scientific inquiry underpin the body of knowledge?

Using an evidenced-based approach, a systematic review (SR) of 574 articles from 62 peer-reviewed scientific journals associated with industrial sustainability is conducted.

This paper distinguishes three prevailing dialogues in the field of industrial sustainability, and uses Kuhn’s theory of paradigms to propose its pre-paradigmatic scientific status. The three dialogues: “productivity and innovation”, “corporate citizenship” and “economic resilience” are conjectured to privilege efficiency strategies as a mode of incremental reductionism. Industrial sustainability espouses the grand vision of a generative, restorative and net positive economy, and calls for a future research trajectory to address institutional and systemic issues regarding scaling-up and transition, through transformative strategies.

The review is limited by the nature of the inquiries addressed in the literatures by specific researcher communities between 1992 and 2014.

This study performs the first SR in the field of industrial sustainability, synthesises prevailing scholarly dialogues and provides an evaluation of the scientific status of the field.

Over recent years, public relations (PR) research has diversified in themes and theories. As a result, PR presents itself today as a multi-paradigmatic discipline with competing ideas of progress that mainly circle around questions of ontology and epistemology, i.e. around defining appropriate object and knowledge in PR research.

This conceptual article highlights a third crucial question underlying the debate drawing on a narrative approach: The question of axiology, hence, the normative question how PR research shall develop to contribute to societal progress.

The article presents a model, which describes how normative visions of progress in different PR paradigms – functional, co-creational, social-reflective and critical-cultural – manifest in each distinct combinations of four narrative plots – tragedy, romance, comedy and satire.

These findings complement the current debate on disciplinary progress in PR research by fostering reflection and debate on paradigm development and cross-paradigmatic tensions and exchange from an explicit axiological perspective.

“We live at a hinge time in history, a threshold time when societies and cultures are being recomposed. We are learning that the way life used to work—or the way we thought it should— doesn’t work any longer” (Parks, 2009, p. xv). This article is about learning, culture change, practice and leadership. Many wise minds have articulated the leadership mindset we need for the future, and what remains stubbornly elusive is how we get there. We believe the difficult challenge of developing a new mindset--a new view of the world--to address the complexity and dynamic nature of the 21^st century is of central importance to leadership education today. As Einstein famously conveyed, we cannot address the problems of today with the same mindset that created those problems. Our inquiry explores the following questions: “How do we develop the skills, capacities and consciousness necessary for bringing creativity, innovation and a new mindset to our most strategic and pressing organizational challenges? How do we practice our way into a new paradigm of leadership?” We invite you to join us in this inquiry into leadership

Each of us has an implicit leadership theory, a mental model we are largely unaware of, that represents the skills, traits, and qualities that define effective leaders. Curiously, the peer- reviewed literature has reported almost exclusively on the ideal attributes of leaders, overlooking the axiomatic and taken-for-granted views people have about the activity we colloquially refer to as “leadership.” Some of these beliefs about leadership are so common and accepted as true that challenging them is counterintuitive, yet they can limit organizational effectiveness. In this article, we discuss four common leadership misunderstandings that contribute to the fabric of our self-evident, unexamined common sense view of leadership. Challenging these misconceptions provides the opportunity to create a new paradigm of leadership, one that could enhance organizational performance.

A topic currently receiving significant academic and practitioner attention is called evidence-based management. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that this approach is sometimes over-sold and may be a fad. Additionally, evidence-based management fails to fully recognize the importance of tacit knowledge, what Kahneman calls system 1. Evidence-based management does provide tools to better use what Kahneman calls system 2, rationality. Decision-makers need to take advantage of both rational and beyond rational processes.

This is an essay, it is not a report of a study. At this point in time, this paper needs thinking, reflection, pondering, more than a data-based study.

Advocates promote evidence-based management in part to help avoid fads, yet evidence-based management itself has many of the characteristics of a fad. Evidence-based management is based on an objective rational view of the world and suggests highly rational methods of decision-making. However, a rational fact-based might not give sufficient credit to instinct and feelings. Decision-makers should take into account facts, evidence, when making decisions, but not ignore intuition, hunches and feelings. This study is learning that decisions use a galaxy of approaches, with both cognitive and affective flexibility.

As with any opinion-based paper, this lacks empirical support. Proponents ask us to believe in evidence-based management. Neither we, the authors of this paper, nor the proponents of evidence-based management can empirically support the ideas offered. An additional limitation is that the paper is written in one language, English. Translation into another language might yield different meanings.

There are advantages for scholars and practitioners to look at the best available evidence. There can be disadvantages in overlooking non-quantifiable factors.

Those who use evidence-based management should also take into account feelings, ethics, aesthetics, creativity, for the betterment of society. To solve wicked problems one needs more than facts and rational analysis.

The overwhelming majority of those writing about evidence-based management are supporters. This study offers a different view. This paper brings new ideas and new thinking to both the extensive fad literature and the huge evidence-based management literature. Evidence-based management is discussed widely. Google Scholar lists more than two million papers in 2019, 2020 and 2021 on evidence-based management. Readers of this journal should critically evaluate this popular set of ideas.

The purpose of this paper is to present a conceptual framework of the relationship between technological transitions and hegemonic transitions in the international system from a historical perspective and discuss its consequences for technologically dependent countries and regions.

This paper analyzes the relationship between technological transitions and hegemonic transitions in the international system from a historical perspective. It then constructs four possible transition scenarios for China's international order and the USA's central role in defining the international order. IT closes with a discussion of how changes in ICT and global health public goods can impact China's position in the international order and opportunities for Latin America–China technology partnerships.

Historically, technological transitions and hegemonic transitions in the international system simultaneously occur, with the country winning the technological dispute emerging as the international system's hegemon. The USA and China are currently involved in technological races in several next-generation technologies. The outcome of these technological races will define each country's position in the international system in the coming decades and the transformations in the international order.

This paper is limited to discussing the technologies/sectors: ICT, specifically 5G, and AI technologies, and medical technologies with the potential of global public health goods. Research on other technologies/sectors will provide a deeper understanding of the likely outcomes of the current technological transition and its implications for the balance of power in the international system.

This paper makes a case for Latin American countries to (1) engage in a pragmatic bargain with China and the USA to establish technological partnerships in emerging technologies and (2) to develop national technology strategies aimed at promoting autonomous technology development capabilities.

This paper addresses the need for Latin America to take a strong stance for technological autonomy, stressing the differences in buying technology and making technology.

This paper presents an original framework of the relationship between technological transitions and hegemonic transitions in the international system. It discusses how technological leadership impacts the international order by establishing relations of technological dominance and technological dependency.

It is rather common for China’s current academic circles to use western doctrines that originated in situ to explain China’s economic problems, a suspicion of scenario misplacement may thus arise. The root cause lies in the lack of reflection about the current relationship between economic thoughts and realities. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Correctly understanding economic thoughts associated with the brand of “that era” and effectively deducing its characteristics is of great significance to finding new features of this era and constructing new ideas with the characteristics of “this era.”

This motif is exactly the keynote on which to base the study of economic history and economic thought.

In a period of major historical turning points, the economic realities on which the economic thinking about that era (the era of economists) relied was undergoing major changes, and re-emphasizing the ancient topic of the relationship between economic thoughts and economic realities became particularly urgent.

In the past 70 years since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, China’s economic studies have been constantly centered on major issues such as national modernization, social economic development and the establishment, reform and improvement of socialist economic system. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

It has experienced a process of transition from the establishment of traditional Soviet’s paradigm of political economics to that of modern economics, during which drastic changes have been observed in various aspects of China’s economics, including research content, scope and methods.

Based on that, a discipline system of economics in line with international economics has been initially established. Currently, under the guidance of Marxism, scholars in China’s economics actively draw on the beneficial knowledge system and analytical methods from modern economics, emancipate their minds, seek truth from facts and constantly fortify confidence in the socialist path, theory, system and culture, continuously enhance the discourse power of China’s economics in global economic governance system, so as to push forward to the building of a theoretical system of socialist economics with Chinese Characteristics in the new era.

Economics is a discipline that studies resource allocation and human’s behavior of making a choice based on rationality. Emerged in the industrial revolution and developed in the exploration of a large-scale socialized mode of production and resource allocation system, this discipline has gradually become a broadly explanatory force in social sciences which profoundly affects the economic decision-making behaviors of the government and various economic entities.

There has been an unprecedented increase in online learning worldwide, including in teacher education. However, student lurking can be a common issue, leading to a non-interactive learning environment.

The authors employed a qualitative case study with thematic analysis to examine a novel “self-directed” pre-service teacher online degree module that engaged students in regular peer-feedback, which intended to promote student engagement and interactivity. The research questions were as follows: To what extent did the seminar series represent the principles of self-directed learning and were learning outcomes effective from the process? And, how effective was the use of peer feedback?

The thematic analysis revealed that student progression and course completion was successful, and it represented some principles of self-directed learning; but (a) it cannot be presumed that pre-service teachers are competent in giving (peer) feedback and (b) pre-service teachers may need specific guidance and training for providing competent feedback.

This paper is highly original in respect of its combination of the self-directed learning framework with use of peer feedback, to engage students in an interactive learning environment. The present paper identifies that peer feedback is a powerful tool in online learning; peer feedback can supplement self- and teacher-assessment; but it should not be assumed that pre-service teachers are competent in providing (peer) feedback – pre-service teachers may need specific training in providing feedback.