河南省体育竞赛表演市场的开发策略研究

运用文献资料法、"特尔菲"专家问卷调查法、数理统计法等方法,对体育系统职能部门、现场观看体育比赛消费者以及体育界专家学者进行了问卷调查,深入分析河南省体育竞赛表演市场现状,找出目前体育竞赛表演市场存在的问题,结合河南省各地市的实际情况,提出发展河南省体育竞赛表演市场的基本思路与对策(适合开展的体育赛事、有效的营销方法以及未来的发展战略),以促进河南省体育竞赛表演市场快速良性发展。     

少数民族传统体育的竞技化与弱竞技化研究——以全国少数民族传统体育运动会为例

运用文献资料法、逻辑分析法分析了少数民族传统体育的竞技化与弱竞技化问题,采用专家访谈法提出少数民族传统体育的竞技化与弱竞技化,应根据不同项目的特点区别对待。目的在于为日后少数民族传统体育的科研、教学、训练等方面提供一定的理论借鉴。     

基于生态位理论的体育院校本科专业竞合系统动力学分析

从生态位角度剖析了中国体育院校本科专业现状及竞合的生态内涵,在此基础上构建了中国体育院校本科专业竞合的系统动力学模型,并运用Vensim软件对本科专业竞合的系统动力学模型进行了仿真研究。旨在寻求中国体育院校本科专业竞合的理论与模型支撑,以实现生态学与我国体育院校本科专业竞合在思想、理论与方法上的有机统一。     

小群体体育教学模式研究

以培养大学生面对竞争的合作能力为教育目标,改变传统的竞争性奖励结构的体育教学模式,围绕"在竞争中合作,在合作中竞争"的教育理念,制定小群体体育教学的原则和实施策略,根据不同体育选项课程的特点,构建了"分层合作式"、"问题合作式"和"探究合作式"的小群体体育教学模式。     

中美职业体育劳资关系管理模式的对比研究

职业体育的劳资关系影响着我国职业体育的可持续发展,通过对中美职业体育劳资管理模式的演进过程和现状进行分析,同时对中美两国的职业体育劳资管理模式进行对比研究,在此基础之上提出了基于"5×1"系统分析理论的职业体育劳资关系模型,进而构建了基于职业体育价值文化子系统、职业体育环境子系统、职业体育体制子系统、职业体育心理子系统、职业体育技术子系统五位一体的新型职业体育劳资关系体系,以期为新时期职业体育劳资关系的管理提供理论参考。     

高水平太极拳运动员大赛前心理训练方法浅析

太极拳是中国体育文化中的瑰宝,它以丰富的哲理内涵、医学原理及优美绵柔的形体动作,吸引着海内外的爱好者。由于太极拳具有与其它拳种截然不同的特点,太极拳运动员的心理训练则更具有特殊意义。太极拳入门训练的时间较长,特别注重自我控制和意念引导,而在赛场上因动作缓慢、演练时间较长(5-6分钟)更容易显现心理情绪方面的问题,进而影响技术水平的发挥。     

企业间关系行为对创新柔性的影响研究

基于资源依赖理论和权变理论,本文构建了开发型关系和利用型关系对创新柔性影响的理论模型;并将环境竞争性和环境动态性作为调节变量,来探索外部环境如何影响关系类型对创新柔性的影响作用。通过对194家企业的实证研究,研究结果表明利用型关系和开发型关系均有利于提升企业创新柔性;并进一步发现环境动态性正向调节开发型关系对创新柔性的影响,而环境竞争性负向调节开发型关系对创新柔性的影响,正向调节利用型关系对创新柔性的影响。说明环境竞争性强,减弱企业通过开发型关系来提升创新柔性,企业更多地采用利用型关系提升创新柔性;环境动态性强,增强企业通过开发型关系来提升创新柔性。     

专利预期理论及其批判

预期理论着眼于减少后续发明竞赛中的重复投入,主张宽的专利宽度。发明竞赛理论与预期理论针锋相对,认为窄的专利宽度可以激励后续发明竞赛。租金耗散理论则提出了被预期理论所忽视的问题,即宽专利诞生前的发明竞赛同样导致专利租金耗散。本文认为,预期理论虽然曾一度主导着对专利宽度的研究、甚至主导了一些国家的专利政策,对专利宽度的研究要引入新的变量和新的视角,才能寻得促进新兴技术领域创新的最佳专利宽度。     

Competition processes and the management of innovation

This paper presents two different forms of research practices: Mode 1 and Mode 2. These forms of knowledge production are adumbrated not so much to demonstrate their radical differences, though there are some, but as a way of calling attention to the fact that, in both modes, static and dynamic competition are at work. It will come as no surprise to academics to be told that their research is carried out in a competitive context. Competition for ideas and for intellectual leadership in a particular field or sub‐field is the bread and butter of academic life. In industry, too, the observation that research takes place in a competitive environment would be uncontentious were it not for the fact that researchers in business management seem reluctant to take on board the uncertainties that competition generates and to put their intellectual energies into developing specific strategies that are appropriate to two diverse forms of competition. The argument moves on to spell out the differences that specify static and dynamic competition, as they occur in the innovation process. This raises the crucial question of the importance of boundary work in generating innovation in both academic and industrial contexts. The nature of boundary work is then related to different types of competition and then to the appropriate organisational imperatives of each. The paper concludes by asking for how much longer can research into business management carry on ignoring the fact that fundamentally different approaches to management are required in these two radically different environments.     

The Integration of Innovation Policies: The Case of Canada1

Innovation is by definition a complex process, but policies geared towards stimulating innovation have tended to focus too narrowly on the production of new knowledge—on the funding and performance of research and development. Successful innovation is a matter of the identification, application and diffusion of knowledge—of creativity. It is therefore not simply a function of gross investments in science nor is it a function of the new production of knowledge. Innovation becomes more than a matter of ‘science policy’ and increasingly a matter to be integrated into trade, investment, monetary, industrial, labor, tax and competition policies. Yet this is extremely problematic for governments interested in creating a ‘knowledge‐based economy’. The integration of innovation into the core raison d'?tre of traditional policy is key.