The obesity wars and the education of a researcher: A personal account – I knew that scientific debates can get heated but this story is just on a different level. It’s just one side of the story though so it would be interesting to hear the other side.

Who do we invent for? Patents by women focus more on women’s health, but few women get to invent – Fascinating study in Science from business school academics. The researchers find that all-female inventor teams tend to address problems that women face. This study implies that there is a need for better representation in the sciences across groups; otherwise, major issues faced by marginalized groups may not be addressed adequately.

Venture Idea Assessment (VIA): Development of a needed concept, measure, and research agenda – develops a scale to assess venture ideas, independent of any agents tasked with pushing it forward. I thought the paper would be about various dimensions that one should consider in evaluating an idea. But, the final scale, in the end, was more “academic” than practical. It’s a good thought experiment though to imagine a venture idea devoid of any entrepreneur.

Forecasting AI progress: A research agenda – as someone who doesn’t know much about forecasting, I like how they list all the different methods under three main categories:

• Statistical modeling using indicators or metrics (e.g. extrapolation, simulation, benchmarks, bibliometrics)
• Judgmental forecasting techniques (e.g. delphi, prediction markets, blue team / red team)
• Hybrid methods

Decision making under deep uncertainties: A review of the applicability of methods in practice – didn’t know about DMDU until this paper. It’s a good introduction to the various techniques such as:

• Robust Decision Making (RDM)
• Dynamic Adaptive Planning (DAP)
• Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP)
• Info-Gap Theory (IG)
• Engineering Options Analysis (EOA)

I am presenting our paper on the Science Mesh this week. FAIR data through a federated cloud infrastructure: Exploring the Science Mesh – it is a research-in-progress on the potential of FAIR data in unlocking new collaborative workflows.

Entrepreneurial space and the freedom for entrepreneurship: Institutional settings, policy, and action in the space industry – a study of the space industry where the researchers introduce the concept of entrepreneurial space. Great play on words. They define entrepreneurial space as the room for entrepreneurial change, which is often limited by policy and institutions.

Never the twain shall meet? Knowledge strategies for digitalization in healthcare – explores digitalization in healthcare through the lens of knowledge strategy. The researchers followed a hospital for almost a decade and then explored how they digitalized, exploring the following components:

• Vision – top management’s understanding of the role of knowledge in the organization
• Knowledge strategy objectives – goals for the organization and the role of knowledge management towards these goals
• Knowledge management tools – methods to enable the creation, application, leveraging and sharing of knowledge
• Implementation support mechanisms – organizational aspects including culture, structure, HR practices

Ecosystem policy roadmapping – combines innovation ecosystems with technology roadmapping. It’s a paper filled with cool illustrations of different frameworks to guide roadmapping. In the end, I really think the value of management research is providing frameworks for thinking about things and this is a great addition to that toolbox.

From ‘publish or perish’ to societal impact: Organisational repurposing towards responsible innovation through creating a medical platform – explores how an academic research project transformed itself to create larger societal impacts. I find it amazing how management academics can see any phenomenon in new light and make everything sound interesting. Definitely will be an inspiration for future studies that I do.

Digital transformation: What we have learned (thus far) and what is next – important review of digital transformation. They identify the following areas needing further research: measurement of success of DT initiatives; skills required for DT; organization of DT and societal impact. They also identified emerging research avenues including: the role of technology, the interaction between physical and digital environment, the interaction between technologies and organizing at a global scale.

The role of skill versus luck in new venture survival – instead of seeing entrepreneurs as gamblers, it’s better to see them as sailors. They cannot change the weather but they can adjust how their sails are positioned, motivate their crew and redirect their ships if needed.

Rapid Validity Testing at the Front-End of Innovation – Researchers explore RVT which aggregates lean innovation, prototyping, design thinking and pretotyping into one framework. It’s the first time I’ve heard of pretotyping which is the stripped-down version of a product to enable rapid testing. RVT’s components include:

• Problem framing
• Prototyping as test
• Prototyping as communication
• User integration
• Product iteration
• Commercial learning
• Business model iteration

Learning on knowledge graph dynamics provides an early warning of impactful research – A paper that got a lot of attention from reddit. The paper aims to predict which papers would be breakthroughs, by aggregating 29 metrics including from author and journal data, paper citations, and network characteristics. Using the method retrospectively, they were able to identify 19/20 seminal biotechnologies from 1980 to 2014. I need to spend more time reading the paper but the first thing that popped into my mind is this joke about economists predicting nine of the last five recessions.

Prestigious European grants might be biased, study suggests – In the study cited in the Nature article, the authors find that “applicants who shared both a home and a host organization with one panellist or more received a grant 40% more often than average.” Not really surprising. Scientists and grant funders are humans in the end.

Waiving IP – I’m teaching a class on life science patents and it’s impossible to talk about patents without discussing the various calls to waive patents for COVID vaccines. I’m also of the opinion that to some extent, patents can be beneficial to society.

Making the hard problem of consciousness easier – the idea of adversarial collaborations is really interesting. It’s when two groups with opposing ideas collaborate to come up with the experiment to test which theory is correct. In this case, it’s two groups having different theories of consciousness. I wouldn’t claim to understand global neuronal workspace theory and integrated information theory though.

Here are the interesting articles I’ve seen in the last 2 weeks.

The effects of university–industry collaboration in preclinical research on pharmaceutical firms’ R&D performance: Absorptive capacity’s role – study based on bibliographic, patent, financial and clinical trial data of big pharma firms. The researchers relate university-industry collaborations to firms R&D performance. Probably, not very surprising considering that big pharma is known to be reliant on public research institutes.

The contribution of Design Thinking to the R of R&D in technological innovation – in the past, design thinking has generally only been applied to the later phases of development. In the article, the researchers introduce the approach called proxemics which they say can be more useful for research (not intended to find product market). It has the following steps:

• scouting
• identification of interaction domains
• design of interaction scenarios
• ideation of interaction concepts
• development of interaction prototypes

Unveiling the role of risk-taking in innovation: antecedents and effects – very counterintuitive finding that having well-established innovation processes lead to worse risk-taking and innovation performance. Authors speculate that “innovation processes can include overly rigid gates and selection criteria, thereby blocking innovation ideas.” Instead, resources, support and clear goals were found to enable it.

Prospective collaborative sensemaking for identifying the potential impact of emerging technologies – I have heard of sensemaking in the past but never really looked much into it. Their article introduced me to the Stigliani and Ravasi (2012) framework on prospective sensemaking:

• Noticing and bracketing – individuals take environmental cues and determines whether these are worth noting.
• Articulating – actors organize information to gain a better understanding of the new situation
• Elaborating – group of actors interact iteratively to give meaning to the cue
• Influence – actors take the collectively created interpretation

Predicting social tipping and norm change in controlled experiments – It’s fascinating how social change can happen quickly, such as the acceptance of gay marriage and the weakening sensitivity towards privacy issues. I remember listening to a podcast episode from 80,000 hours and the theory put forward by the guest on why such changes can be unpredictable was really interesting. This sudden change is attributed to people not sharing their real preference and people having different thresholds of how much action they want to see from others before they themselves act.

Prospera – an experimental city of the future, libertarian paradise, being built on an island in Honduras. It’s based on the concept of charter cities proposed by Nobel prize economist Paul Romer. The idea is that less developed countries can lend a part of their land to countries with stronger institutions or companies who can then develop the land. A really exciting idea that hope works out.

The Invisible Cage: Workers’ Reactivity to Opaque Algorithmic Evaluations – Very timely article as algorithms continue to control our lives – from Youtube recommendations to Google search engine rankings. The article introduces the term Invisible Cage (a nod to Weber’s Iron Cage) which refers to “a form of control in which the criteria for success and changes to those criteria are unpredictable.”

Co-creative entrepreneurship – Having attended the OIS conference, I was introduced to the term co-creation, which refers to a design process where stakeholders like consumers are highly integrated. In this case, the authors depict co-creative entrepreneurship to “interactively construct both supply and demand, gradually resolving uncertainty.”

The role of Proof-of-Concept programs in facilitating the commercialization of research-based inventions – With one of my projects, ATTRACT, being a proof-of-concept fund taken to the next level, this article caught my attention. It highlights three roles of POCs:

• Relational – bridge gap between the stakeholders in tech development and users
• Structural – lower barriers to research development in their specific context
• Cultural – give space to think about external applications and overcome old beliefs

“Who are you going to call?” Network activation in creative idea generation and elaboration – an experimental study exploring which kind of ties (strong or weak) are more important for different phases of idea generation and elaboration.

The art of discovering and exploiting unexpected opportunities: The roles of organizational improvisation and serendipity in new venture performance – a straightforward quantitative study on the role of improvisation and serendipity towards performance. It’s very exciting that there’s so much interest on serendipity in the academic literature recently.

Beyond bricolage: Early-stage technology venture resource mobilization in resource-scarce contexts – a great example of a qualitative study that any researcher should aspire to do in the future. The amount of data they collected and the way they analyzed and presented them through graphs is just very admirable.

Distilling and renewing science team search through external engagement – follows a medical technology research team for 5 years to see how they engaged with the external world including clinicians, patients and industry actors. They found three processes including “devising and coordinating external engagement, assimilating external engagement, and distilling external engagement.” Very similar to absorptive capacity but in the context of research groups. 

From trash to treasure: A checklist to identify high-potential NPD projects from previously rejected projects – In my opinion, the ultimate value of management research is to provide employees and companies with actionable checklists to guide their decisions. In this research, they do just that, providing a checklist to help identify previous failed projects that are worth revisiting

The impact of public funding on science valorisation: an analysis of the ERC Proof-of-Concept Programme – Being involved in the ATTRACT project, this is an interesting study which explores another proof of concept grant by the ERC. They find that:

 “By all measures of valorisation success that we employed – licensing, start-up creation, research contracts, and consulting, as well as access to follow-on funding – projects that had received the grant performed significantly better than those that had not. “

Explaining Ignoring – Working with Information that Nobody Uses – fascinating study on why people ignore data that they themselves produce. They describe rationales for ignoring data including people thinking that it is not their responsibility, people worrying that they may be interfering with others’ business, people uncertain about the data’s usefulness in the current context and people believing that they may be worse off if the current system is disrupted.

Getting the Picture Too Late: Handoffs and the Effectiveness of Idea Implementation in Creative Work – When employees are made to implement an idea without having much input in their prior development, they tend to create less creative final output. Reminds of the not-invented-here syndrome where employees tend to not leverage well technologies that are not developed in-house.

I’ve been attending the Open Innovation in Science conference this week virtually and it has been a blast to be introduced to this wonderful community. I presented our poster on the Science Mesh in the conference:

The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science – research output has been maintaining a steady-state progress despite the exponentially increasing cost. Meanwhile, economic growth from innovation has also been decreasing, attributed to the following:

• We have already picked the low-hanging fruits in science, making novel discoveries much more difficult to find.
• Incentives lead researchers away from high-risk, high reward breakthrough research.
• Tensions between the ideals of open science and the rewards from closed science.

The author recommends open science partnerships as a solution to reinvigorate research impact to the commercial realm.

Attention to Exploration: The Effect of Academic Entrepreneurship
on the Production of Scientific Knowledge – normally, we explore how scientific knowledge impacts academic entrepreneurship. In this study, they study the reverse and explore how entrepreneurship affects academics’ research directions. Through an attention-based perspective, they find that “entrepreneurship prompts a shift of an academic’s search toward new topics, which enables them to produce better and more impactful science.” This seems intuitive since engaging in more activities, leads to more collisions and higher chances of serendipitous interactions.

Fundamental elements in Technology Transfer: an in-depth analysis – lays out all the components that make up technology transfer. It’s a good reference just by the illustrative models that they have compiled from previous publications.

Training across the academy: The impact of R&D funding on graduate students – explores how receiving funding from the US NSF’s Graduate Research Fellowship program affect the careers of the awardees. The researchers find that “the award increases degree completion, placement in a post-doctoral or academic research position, research productivity and impact, and network size.” Inspired by Caplan’s book The Case against Education, An interesting follow-up would be trying to understand whether these effects are from signalling, selection effects or from human capital development. I suspect that a large chunk of its benefits come from the cumulative halo effect that awardees receive from winning already a prestigious grant.