1,720,996 research outputs found
Start with “Why,” but only if you have to: The strategic framing of novel ideas across different audiences
Full text linkResearch Summary: Building on social psychology research and entrepreneurship work on linguistic framing, we argue that the appreciation of novel ideas varies with the mental construal that members of different audiences use to evaluate them. Specifically, we theorize that the congruency between idea framing and audiences' mental construals depends on audiences' level of expertise in evaluating novel ideas. In four experiments, we found that innovators benefit from deploying framing strategies congruent with audiences' mental construals: novices (e.g., lay people, crowdfunders) appreciate more novel ideas framed in abstract why terms, while experts (e.g., professional investors, innovation managers) novel ideas framed in concrete how terms. Integrating the strategic framing of novel ideas with construal level theory and audience heterogeneity contributes to research on entrepreneurship, innovation, and impression management. Managerial Summary: One of the critical challenges that innovators (e.g., entrepreneurs) face is to persuade relevant audiences (e.g., users, crowdfunders, professional investors, and innovation managers) to support their novel ideas. This article integrates various literatures concerned with the evaluation of novelty to examine the impact of different framing strategies on the reception of novel ideas by different audiences. By demonstrating that the framing of a novel business idea affects audience members' evaluation, and that the effectiveness of different frames (why vs. how) varies with the target audiences (novices vs. experts), we offer actionable insights into how innovators can strategically use linguistic framing to increase the likelihood of eliciting favorable evaluations and resource commitment for their ideas
Radically concrete or incrementally abstract? The contingent role of abstract and concrete framing in pitching novel ideas
Full text linkEntrepreneurs pitching new ideas are hard-pressed to frame their message in the most compelling way to win the attention and support of relevant audiences. But could a simple shift in framing sanction the success or failure of their communication efforts? Drawing on recent scholarship on the recognition of novel ideas and language, we compare the effectiveness of two framing approaches to idea pitching: abstract vs. concrete framing. We suggest that the best framing strategy to rally audience support depends on the novelty of the idea. Two controlled experiments where we investigate the combined impact of an idea’s degree of novelty and the abstractness level (why vs. how) of the framing strategy used to pitch it on the idea’s evaluation by members of a lay audience (e.g. crowdfunders, students, or other non-professional evaluators) confirm our intuition. The findings indicate that radical ideas are significantly more likely to elicit favourable evaluation from lay audience members when those ideas are framed in concrete ‘How’ terms; whereas incremental ideas fare better when framed in abstract ‘Why’ terms. By focusing on the framing strategies that entrepreneurs can use to communicate their new ideas, our study contributes to the growing research on the role of language in shaping the recognition of novelty. More generally, it provides entrepreneurs with actionable insights that they can leverage to attract attention and support from a general (lay) audience
Endoluminar Sclerotherapy (ES) of Oesophageal Varices: Technique and Preliminary Results
No full textCorrection of congenital chordee penis by ventral separation and outward rotation of corpora
No full text
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Endoluminar sclerotherapy of oesophageal varices in chirdren with intrahepatic portal hipertension
No full text- …
