朱熹与图斐利理性主义特色的确认与比较--兼论"李约瑟难题"

"李约瑟难题"的提出既是对中国乃至东方世界科技发展一直滞后的思考,又为东西方文化的比较找到了一条颇具特色的入路.朱熹与伊本@图斐利分别是中阿哲学史中具有理性特色和科学精神的代表,通过对二者的哲学思想特别是认识论方面的比较与思考,就成为一种合理的尝试.     

高等职业教育试题库系统

本文系统阐述了高等职业教育试题库的分析和开发过程。该系统分为输入、抽题和输出三部分。使用的工具语言是 Borland公司的 C+ + Builder     

呼应与叛离——当前文学批评与创作关系的成因

文学创作与文学批评本身存在无法回避的悖论,它们之间相互印证与相互牵制的微妙关系,必然导致现实中它们之间的错位与种种剪不断理还乱的纠葛。当前文坛,两者之间存在同盟关系、对抗关系、"自说自话"关系等种种非正常关系。     

极性思维:悖论构造与消解的相同犯规--兼评黄展骥先生的解悖方案

极性思维是将思维的某些方面加以夸大，将某一概念或理论推向极端的一种思维方式。认识史上主要表现为还原论和机械论，它是追求简单化的产物。说谎悖论和罗素集合论悖论都是极性思维的后果。现当代西方三大解悖方案仍未能摆脱这种极性思维。我国香港学黄展骥先生的解悖方案与西方解悖方案的实质区别在于它力求克服“不全则无”的极性思维。     

The boundary-spanning role of a cooperative support organization: managing the paradox of stability and change in non-traditional organizations

This project provides an interpretation of how one cooperative support organization, the Nebraska Cooperative Council, discursively functions to help its constituent cooperatives consolidate resources in order to better intersect with organizations in a larger bureaucratic system. In analyzing qualitative data collected through in-depth interviews, surveys, and organizational documents, we found the paradox of stability and change a revealing prism through which to make sense of participants' experiences. We work toward locating and describing how the Council, through its boundary-spanning activities, helps cooperatives manage the paradox of stability and change while protecting their core participatory ideologies. By providing networks of learning, promoting the legitimacy of cooperative forms of organizing, and protecting cooperatives' interests, the Council is an entity helping cooperatives to reconcile their internal requirements for democracy with the external demands of the marketplace.     

Coherence or flexibility? The paradox of change for developers’ digital innovation trajectory on open platforms

Innovation is a cumulative process in which past knowledge created by others can be both a source for predictable outcomes and also a barrier to significant change. The recent literature on digital innovation suggests that open platforms, which encourage their developers to build upon each other's knowledge when innovating their add-on apps in the periphery, face a related paradox. Developers face the tension of either being coherent with the past, or flexible to adjust to the future. In this paper, we examine how the trade-off between coherent and flexible search mechanisms affects the individual developer's choice of innovating a certain app as well as his or her cumulative impact, i.e., the degree of modifications to the app. We study an open platform in the multi-disciplinary field of nanotechnology, in which 480 developers perform more than 30,000 problem-solving actions over a period of 10 years. We use relational event modeling to differentially assess the effect of the coherent and flexible search strategies. We find that developers are significantly more likely to choose a certain app that is consistent with both a coherent and flexible strategy. However, a coherent strategy leads to greater cumulative impact on an app compared to a strategy of being mutually coherent and flexible. Thus, our findings indicate both a complementary and a contradictory logic in how the tension between coherence and flexibility unfolds. We make contributions to the recent literature on digital innovation as well as the innovation literature more broadly. Further, our results inform innovation policy and platform design.     

Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing

The paradox of openness describes the fundamental tension between knowledge sharing and knowledge protection in open innovation. While sharing is vital for value creation, protecting is critical for value appropriation. Prior research has examined this paradox of openness from the perspective of the seeking firm, focusing on the firm-level challenges of inbound open innovation. In this article, we complement that research by illuminating the tensions between sharing and protecting in individual-level outbound open innovation, where we argue that the paradox of openness is most prevalent, yet much less well understood. Drawing on the experience of individual participants, or solvers, in intermediated crowdsourcing contests, we analyze textual data from 2,149 answers to five open-ended narrative questions embedded in a large-scale solver survey, as well as 43 in-depth interviews of solvers. Our findings indicate that individual solvers face fundamental sharing-protecting tensions that carry considerable economic and psychological costs. We also document how solvers attempt to navigate the paradox of openness by employing three formal and four informal value appropriation practices. They build elaborate configurations of these practices, which they tailor to the idiosyncrasies of each contest. They also dynamically adjust these configurations over time, as the contest and the interaction with the seeker unfold. We end by outlining how these findings contribute to a more multifaceted conceptualization and a richer understanding of the paradox of openness.     

A Classic Probability Puzzle

A classic probability puzzle, presenting an absurd result, is analysed. Clearing the confusion caused by this problem sheds light on basic concepts of probability theory.     

非虚构叙事与时代精神

＂非虚构＂一般涉及文学性＂非虚构＂与非文学的＂非虚构＂两大类型。＂非虚构＂体现着一种时代精神。＂非虚构＂自身存在着一些深层悖论,远不像预想的那样简单。     

Paradoxical transparency? Capital market responses to exploration and exploitation disclosure

We draw on information risk theory and paradox theory to examine the additive and combined effects of disclosing exploration and exploitation information on cost of equity capital. We build on theory that presupposes that the information disclosed by a firm about its innovation activities will reduce information risk of investors. However, we contend that disclosure of exploration and exploitation innovation activities could convey potentially paradoxical expectations about a firm's future value. Based on longitudinal data of the UK FTSE 350 firms from 2011–2016, we show that firms tend to disclose more information related to exploration than exploitation. However, the bulk of market benefits are driven by exploitation rather than exploration disclosures—except for R&D-active firms that are rewarded for exploration disclosure. We also find that the combined disclosure is negatively associated with cost of equity capital, with the sub-population of R&D-active firms particularly accruing synergies from combined disclosure of both exploration and exploitation. These findings suggest that the market differentiates between exploration and exploitation information in addressing information risk, more so than previously assumed. We discuss implications for information-type-dependency in information-risk theory, the outward projection of internal paradoxes, capital market valuations of disclosure by R&D-active firms, opportunity-seeking by large publicly listed corporations, and policy implications.