Search

The categorical imperative suggests that since the audience devalues offerings that do not fit within a category, producers should follow conventions to gain legitimacy, posing the paradox of optimal distinctiveness to innovative entrepreneurs. However, the extant research assumes homogeneous audience and crisp boundaries of the categories. We test these assumptions in the context of YouTubers nominated for the "Streamys" -- prestigious awards in online video. Our results inform policymakers on how to enable innovative entrepreneurship in emerging industries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The most common organizational form globally and historically, family businesses, are driven by the dynastic motive -to pass on the owners' status and wealth to the next generation. However, our understanding of the descendants' fate remains severely limited. Some evidence suggests that investors discount the family's next generations as nepotism and unwillingness to professionalize. Further, family owners tend to be conservative and eschew uncertainty. On the other hand, family players have dominated creative and cultural industries for generations that have considerable uncertainty about the producers and the final product. We suggest that the dynastic players use status and cultural capital handed down through the generations to navigate markets. We show that the dynastic roots of producers and superstars in Bollywood (Hindi movie industry) play a pivotal role in offering atypical films and enhancing box-office performance. However, the legacy also induces anxiety, lest dynastic players may be denigrated in the social hierarchy. Dynastic producers are conservative when working with superstars who may steal their thunder of novelty, and superstars with dynastic roots are constrained by the audience expectations set by their ancestors. We discuss the implications of our study on family firm and social evaluations theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The information about R&D activities can shift the competitive landscape and carry a substantial strategic value for firms. However, most of our understanding of R&D disclosures is either for early-stage projects (i.e., patents) or when firms voluntarily share their information. Mandatory disclosures of development projects, such as clinical drug trials, demanded by regulators often put firms in a paradoxical situation - on the one hand, they face regulatory pressures to comply, and on the other hand, they fear informing competitors of internal developments. By integrating the theories of knowledge management and strategic responses to institutional forces, we propose that firms under intense competition would be reluctant to comply and share the results of their clinical trials. However, when they do share their results, they would do so quickly to deter competition. Further, firms would also use rhetoric in their scientific publications linked to the clinical trials to paint a favorable picture to competitors. We test our theoretical model with 7,731 completed clinical trials under a US Act (FDAAA 801) purview between the years 2008-2019 (both inclusive) and find confirming results overall. We discuss the broader implications of our findings on both theory and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The existing literature suggests little about the nuanced differences between basic and applied knowledge. The general understanding that knowledge generated by the scientific research is primarily "basic" knowledge, while the R&D activities undertaken by industrial generate "applied" knowledge, is simplistic. However, in well-developed science-based industries, the divide between basic and applied research becomes fuzzy. The present study provides the exploratory analysis of patents using the lens constructed out of scientific knowledge. The study employs a novel text analysis technique to use scientific knowledge depicted in the scientific publications to decode the patents. Our findings reveal that the extent of the disconnect between the scientific and technological knowledge themes is rather large. We find that the technological map when looked at with the lens of scientific knowledge depicts a different picture about a firm's innovation. The finding implies that technological scholars just focusing on patents data have been missing on a crucial view of the technological trajectories and a firm's innovation focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]