Breaking Barriers: How Creativity Drives Research

The search for innovation in Chinese international relations research and, in particular, the innovation of a ‘Chinese school’ of IR theory, has drawn the attention of scholars both in and beyond China in recent years. This agenda has been driven forward by a number of influential Chinese academics and public intellectuals. Indeed, since as early as the 1980s there have been calls for innovation in Chinese international relations studies and, specifically, for the creation of a new (and distinctly Chinese) brand of international relations theory. Some scholars have argued quite strongly against such a project but few have failed to participate in the debate. This chapter considers the wider context of this drive for innovation – the specifics of the ‘Chinese School project’ as I call it are taken up in greater detail in the chapter that follows and in my other work (Cunningham-Cross 2011). In looking at the academic discipline of international relations in China in a wider sense, this chapter uncovers a fixation with the notion of innovation amongst Chinese IR scholars. It uncovers the origin of this ‘innovation imperative’ in disciplinary storytelling, which I argue is particularly widespread in the field of IR in China and key to understanding recent debates. The chapter questions the ways in which such disciplinary narratives, their telling and their re-telling, impact upon China’s changing relationships with other parts of the world, arguing that Chinese scholars’ drive for innovation both shapes and is shaped by a particular relationship between the West (and/or the US) and China that is both spatially and teleologically hierarchical.

An Invitation to Discomfort in Pursuit of Diversity, Inclusion, and Excellence

“Open innovation” and “external search” for new ideas are central topics in the recent discourse in innovation research. External search helps firms to identify new opportunities for innovation and alleviates the risks of local search. It is widely acknowledged that novel ideas regularly emerge from the combination of distant pieces of knowledge and interaction with “idea suppliers” from distant knowledge domains. However, the current discussion on open innovation has hardly touched upon the question of how firms can systematically search for cross-industry innovation inputs in the fuzzy front-end of the innovation process. This paper links relevant concepts of cognitive psychology and management theory — such as analogical problem solving and the principle of isomorphism — with open innovation in the front-end. It discusses relevant dimensions of systematic search for innovation across industries. A piloted framework is presented that assists firms in systematically and interactively searching for external innovation inputs in distant industries. This framework supports external innovation search in distant industries for a fuzzy customer problem. The results of this participatory action research indicate that a systematic and interactive search process is of practical value to innovation managers. It also points out contingencies of cross-industry innovation search.

"Open innovation" and "external search" for new ideas are central topics in the recent discourse in innovation research. External search helps firms to identify new opportunities for innovation and alleviates the risks of local search. It is widely acknowledged that novel ideas regularly emerge from the combination of distant pieces of knowledge and interaction with "idea suppliers" from distant knowledge domains. However, the current discussion on open innovation has hardly touched upon the question of how firms can systematically search for cross-industry innovation inputs in the fuzzy front-end of the innovation process. This paper links relevant concepts of cognitive psychology and management theory — such as analogical problem solving and the principle of isomorphism — with open innovation in the front-end. It discusses relevant dimensions of systematic search for innovation across industries. A piloted framework is presented that assists firms in systematically and interactively searching for external innovation inputs in distant industries. This framework supports external innovation search in distant industries for a fuzzy customer problem. The results of this participatory action research indicate that a systematic and interactive search process is of practical value to innovation managers. It also points out contingencies of cross-industry innovation search.

Applying artificial intelligence (AI), especially natural language processing (NLP), to harness large amounts of information from patent databases, online communities, social media, or crowdsourcing platforms is becoming increasingly popular to help organizations find promising solutions. In the era of non-human innovation intermediaries, we should begin to view NLP not only as a useful technology applied in different innovation practices but also as an intermediary orchestrating valuable information. Previous research has not taken this perspective, and knowledge about its intermediation activities and functions is limited. This study reviews 167 academic articles to better understand how NLP approaches can enrich intermediation in early-stage innovation search. It identifies 18 distinctive innovation practices taking over activities like forecasting trends, illustrating technology and idea landscapes, filtering out distinctive contributions, recombining domain-specific and analogous knowledge, or matching problems with solutions. While certain NLP capabilities complement each other, the analysis shows that the choice of the most appropriate approach depends on the characteristics of the innovation practice. Innovation researchers and practitioners should rethink current roles and responsibilities in AI-based innovation processes. As seen in the recent emergence of large language models (LLMs), the rapidly evolving field offers many future research opportunities and practical benefits.

It seemed risky to try something new midway to my tenure review. Since I started my dream job as an assistant professor at a small liberal arts college, the gist of the advice I heard and read was to stick with what I know, and then I could branch out after tenure. I didn't necessarily disagree—it made sense that I could contribute most in my formal area of expertise. But as I chugged along on my research using the same old tried-and-true benchtop assays, my excitement about the work was fading. I needed something new to inspire me again. ![Figure][1] ILLUSTRATION: ROBERT NEUBECKER > “Expertise … can also mean the willingness to move outside of your comfort zone.” I was intrigued by big data projects, long touted as the future of my field of microbiology. But I thought of myself as computer illiterate. Computational biology was intimidating, so I had steered clear of it. But I knew that my field was changing, and I could either get onboard or be left behind. “If I don't try it now, I may never have the courage to try it at all,” I thought. Besides, I had an idea for a big data microbiome project that excited me more than any project had for years. If I was this motivated, surely it would turn out OK … right? “I shouldn't have to be pigeonholed into my ‘formal area of expertise' for the rest of my career,’ I thought to myself. “Doesn't a Ph.D. demonstrate that you have the ability to learn and master something new?” My other research projects were in good shape, and I was feeling comfortable with my status and reputation among my peers. It was time to trust my instincts and give it a shot. My plan was to ditch the comfort of my benchtop and biosafety cabinet and embark on a 10-week project that would combine field research with bioinformatics. I was almost laughably outside of my comfort zone, and honestly a bit naive about what was involved, but I was willing to risk a summer to see where it would lead. And so we began, my talented undergraduate research student and I, with our computers, a huge stack of papers, and a heck of a lot of let's-try-this attitude. We hit our first roadblock earlier than we had expected to: on the very first day. It took us more than 5 hours to download the program we needed to use. Then there was the language barrier—the commands for data analysis might as well have been hieroglyphics. Even the online help forums assumed a level of knowledge we did not have. But, I reminded myself that there was no pressure to succeed. My motto was, “We'll throw everything we have at this, and then see where we stand.” For the first several weeks, progress was slow and steady, with an emphasis on slow. Day after day, we encountered new roadblocks. But we overcame each one and gained confidence. After the 10 weeks we just kept going. Now, more than a year after starting that work, we may not be experts, but we are far from beginners. Finding success in a new area made me feel proud and pretty wicked smart—a lot smarter and more capable than academia sometimes makes me feel. Accepting my status as a novice also freed me to conduct research for the simplest reason, the one that drew me to the field in the first place: my love of the science. Freed from the pressure of acting the part of an expert, I was able to make it an incredibly productive year. The momentum extended to my other work in sometimes unexpected ways. I resurrected and remastered old techniques and applied them imaginatively. Branching out might have been a bit of a risk, but the reward more than made up for it. To earn tenure, you must prove to a committee of your peers that you have the skills and capacity for long-term success. But with this particular project, I proved the same thing to myself—which in the long run is just as valuable, if not more. Expertise might be defined by the things you can reliably do and do reliably well, but I've learned that it can also mean the willingness to move outside of your comfort zone; the courage to take a risk, even when failure is a real possibility; and the perseverance and stamina to overcome whatever obstacles you may encounter along the way. [1]: pending:yes

The relationship between business managers and their counterparts in a firm’s R&D laboratory has a fairly long history and is still an inconclusive debate. This is also true, to some extent, regarding the relationship between scientists in industry and their former research colleagues and mentors in the university, as well as their peer groups elsewhere. Although not much definitive and systematic research has been undertaken to understand the nature of these types of transactional relationships, nevertheless at least some qualitative understanding of such relationships is extremely important as they determine the effectiveness of R&D in industry and its impact on business performance. The nature of human relationships and interactions determines the quality, productivity and flow of knowledge across vast but somewhat amorphous networks, traversing business organisations, academia and other R&D institutions, which ultimately determine the innovation intensity in most businesses. Even in industries which trace their origins to some unique scientific discoveries or high-technology venture capital kick-starts, as these companies grow, there appears, in due course, a gradual drift between the business end and their R&D end

The evolution of Science and Technology is decisive for many companies to obtain innovative products. A hypothesis is that students with research experience are more prepared to contribute in the search for innovation. The experience we have in Brazilian Universities shows that this hypothesis is true. Undergraduate students with experience in research projects, together with master and PhD students, finish the course with a bigger knowledge than the ones that don’t have the research experience. We observed that the research experience motivates students to proceed in their undergraduate courses, also increasing retention and success. A large number of these students are motivated to start a master or PhD. It will be shown how this procedure works, some experiences, and some examples of success.

This article presents some preliminary results from the research project “4.0 Technologies in SMEs: Public Policies, Expectations, and Current Conditions for Their Integration.” Specifically, it refers to the specific objective focused on determining the expectations, needs, and experiences of SMEs in the Information and Communications and Transportation and Storage sectors regarding the incorporation of 4.0 technologies.A qualitative methodology was used, based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with managers of SMEs selected in three cities in Argentina.The preliminary results show that SMEs are at different levels of digitization, depending on the sector in question, using everything from basic software to advanced technologies such as AI, AA, and IoT. The main motivations are improved efficiency and productivity, as well as the search for innovation. Key challenges include implementation costs, lack of internal knowledge, resistance to change, and financing difficulties. Among the perceived risks, the possible displacement of employees due to automation stands out. A need for public policies that support access to financing and training is identified.The conclusions highlight that the adoption of 4.0 technologies is in its infancy but growing. There is a recurring need for public policies that support access to financing and training, with awareness of these policies being limited.

Catalyst for innovation in European forest policy sciences. Evaluation of the EFI Research Program 3: policy analysis

The Selfless Leader We Know: Lauri Wright, PhD, RDN, LDN, FAND.

Alternative Measures of Physiological Stress in Nursery Pigs and Broiler Chickens

数字化创新是指不同主体对数字化资源进行重新组合的活动，以产生新的产品、服务、流程、商业模式。通过对数字化创新领域核心期刊论文进行内容分析，归纳了数字化创新过程和结果两个视角下的概念内涵，厘清了数字化创新的技术和管理两方面的特征，比较了数字化创新与IS创新、IT创新的区别，对数字化创新价值创造的机理归纳了主体、架构、行动三方面的理论解释，并梳理了其价值创造的效率、融合、生成三种方式，结合数字化创新的重要意义，讨论了数字化创新未来研究的方向。本文的研究有助于系统性梳理数字化创新的知识脉络，有助于促进数字化创新的进一步研究。

National Society of Genetic Counselors Natalie Weissburger Paul Lifetime Achievement Award Address: <b><i>The Power of Connecting</i></b>

On behalf of the CODES+ISSS 2009 Program Committee, we would like to welcome you to the 7th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Hardware/Software-Co-Design and System Synthesis. CODES+ISSS is the premier conference for system-level design, with a focus on the design of embedded systems hardware, software, and tools. This year we continue the tradition of maintaining a high-quality forum for active discussion on current and innovative topics on embedded systems that bring together the latest in academic and industrial research and development. We selected the best submitted papers through a rigorous review process, and have assembled an exciting program with a mix of keynotes, tutorials, special sessions, panels, and regular papers. This year we received a new record of 157 full paper submissions and selected 51 papers for publication, with an acceptance rate of 32%. The Program Committee carefully reviewed all papers, with an average of 4 reviews per paper. The Committee then met face to face for detailed discussions on the papers. Final paper selections were based on overall quality and novelty. Active interaction between presenters and audience has been traditionally extremely important in this conference. To encourage this we have organized poster sessions for all papers right after their 30 minute oral presentations. This will give you the opportunity to discuss with all presenters independently of which of the two parallel tracks you attended. We trust you will find this year's program to be exciting and stimulating. It truly contains important advances in theory and practice of system-level design and related areas. We also continue the tradition of complementing the CODES+ISSS program with tutorials and workshops. This year's tutorials cover timely and emerging topics such as Smart Cameras and Visual Sensor Networks, Future Embedded Systems, Multimedia Power Management. Several workshops on Thursday and Friday promise a full week of hot topics. Please also note that on Wednesday for the first time we have a full industry track ("industrial day") with a final panel discussion at the end of the day. CODES+ISSS is part of the growing Embedded Systems Week (ESWEEK) event that is becoming the premier international event in embedded systems research and development. CODES+ISSS is complemented by two other flagship sister conferences: EMSOFT (focused on embedded software), and CASES (focused on architecture and compilers). Registrants to ESWEEK are affiliated with a primary conference, but may attend sessions in any of the three conferences. Moreover, the technical programs of the three conferences, including keynotes, special sessions, panels, tutorials and workshops, have been carefully planned to avoid major overlaps and complement each other. The high technical quality of the CODES+ISSS program is a direct result of the dedicated efforts of the Steering Committee, Organizing Committee, Technical Program Committee and numerous reviewers who contributed their time and expertise, as well as the authors who submitted their work to the conference. We are grateful to all of them for their efforts and thank them whole heartedly. We would also like to thank our sponsoring societies: ACM SIGBED, SIGDA, SIGMICRO, and IEEE Circuits and Systems Society (CAS), Computer Society (CS) and the Council of Electronic Design Automation (CEDA). This year the conference takes place in Grenoble, France. We hope you enjoy the conference and the location and we look forward to your participation in CODES+ISSS 2009!