Innovation, generative relationships and scaffolding structures: implications of a complexity perspective to innovation for public and private interventions

The linear model of innovation has been superseded by a variety of theoretical models that view the innovation process as systemic, complex, multi-level, multi-temporal, involving a plurality of heterogeneous economic agents. Accordingly, the emphasis of the policy discourse has changed over time. The focus has shifted from the direct public funding of basic research as an engine of innovation, to the creation of markets for knowledge goods, to, eventually, the acknowledgement that knowledge transfer very often requires direct interactions among innovating actors. In most cases, policy interventions attempt to facilitate the match between “demand” and “supply” of the knowledge needed to innovate. A complexity perspective calls for a different framing, one focused on the fostering of processes characterized by multiple agency levels, multiple temporal scales, ontological uncertainty and emergent outcomes. This contribution explores what it means to design interventions in support of innovation processes inspired by a complex systems perspective. It does so by analyzing two examples of coordinated interventions: a public policy funding innovating networks (with SMEs, research centers and university), and a private initiative, promoted by a network of medium-sized mechanical engineering firms, that supports innovation by means of technology brokerage. Relying on two unique datasets recording the interactions of the organizations involved in these interventions, social network analysis and qualitative research are combined in order to investigate network dynamics and the roles of specific actors in fostering innovation processes. Then, some general implications for the design of coordinated interventions supporting innovation in a complexity perspective are drawn

The Study of Mastery Testing Strategy Versus an Averaging Testing Strategy

In addition to the traditional learning style, an alternative approach is mastery learning. Traditional classroom settings typically include lectures and seat work. These methods are believed to support a masculine style of learning, as they are more individualistic and competitive. Boys tend to respond to questions quickly and confidently. Girls tend to wait longer and choose words more carefully. This leads to male students dominating the classroom. Mastery learning encourages a more cooperative style of learning. Mastery learning theorizes that if students are given the necessary amount of time needed to attain a mastery of a skill, and if the student spent that much time learning the skill, then the student would reach mastery. This master thesis examined the two different testing strategies to see if mastery learning can be appropriate for use in the school system. The study compared two testing strategies in a high school Regents chemistry class. The first allowed students to retake tests and quizzes up to three times, if desired, and the average for all taken would be recorded. The second strategy demanded an 80% or higher mastery level for each unit. Failure to reach 80% would result in a zero. Possible grades for this strategy were 0, 80, 90, and 100. Two teachers used both testing strategies using traditional methods alongside cooperative activities. Results show that there is no significant difference between testing strategies when examining exam averages and passing percentages, however students had a significantly higher percentage of achieving an 80 or higher in the mastery testing strategy. Girls in particular performed much better with the mastery strategy than with the averaging strategy

Divergence of opinion and risk : an empirical analysis of the Ex Ante beliefs of institutional investors

Bibliography: p. [24-25

Patterns in the Bankruptcy Reorganization of Large Publicly Held Companies

Several recent articles contend that Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code does not provide efficient procedures for redressing the financial distress of large firms. The authors of these articles argue that the creditors of a financially distressed firm would fare better if the corporation\u27s problems were resolved in some other way. The argument has proceeded principally on a theoretical level, since it is virtually impossible to know for certain how firms that have been in Chapter 11 would have fared under a different procedure. We recently completed an extensive empirical study of forty-three Chapter 11 cases involving large, publicly held firms. These cases constitute the universe of cases filed under the Bankruptcy Code by publicly held companies reporting at least $100 million in assets at filing in which a plan of reorganization was confirmed before March 15, 1988. In this Article we report what has happened to the corporations and businesses involved in these cases, both during reorganization and thereafter. This account of the outcome of these cases cannot establish whether the result of the cases would have been more or less favorable if a different procedure had been used. Nonetheless, any critique of Chapter 11 should begin with an understanding of what is actually occurring in the cases. We describe the outcomes of Chapter 11 cases by referring to several variables used in the literature or in conversation. We do not believe that all of these variables provide sensible criteria for a normative evaluation of the success of Chapter 11. However, one purpose of this Article is to provide information for others to use in their evaluations

Patterns in the Bankruptcy Reorganization of Large Publicly Held Companies

Several recent articles contend that Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code does not provide efficient procedures for redressing the financial distress of large firms. The authors of these articles argue that the creditors of a financially distressed firm would fare better if the corporation\u27s problems were resolved in some other way. The argument has proceeded principally on a theoretical level, since it is virtually impossible to know for certain how firms that have been in Chapter 11 would have fared under a different procedure. We recently completed an extensive empirical study of forty-three Chapter 11 cases involving large, publicly held firms. These cases constitute the universe of cases filed under the Bankruptcy Code by publicly held companies reporting at least $100 million in assets at filing in which a plan of reorganization was confirmed before March 15, 1988. In this Article we report what has happened to the corporations and businesses involved in these cases, both during reorganization and thereafter. This account of the outcome of these cases cannot establish whether the result of the cases would have been more or less favorable if a different procedure had been used. Nonetheless, any critique of Chapter 11 should begin with an understanding of what is actually occurring in the cases. We describe the outcomes of Chapter 11 cases by referring to several variables used in the literature or in conversation. We do not believe that all of these variables provide sensible criteria for a normative evaluation of the success of Chapter 11. However, one purpose of this Article is to provide information for others to use in their evaluations