IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/ibrjnl/v11y2018i5p159-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Laboratory Environmental Conditions Influence Patent Inventors’ Creative Self-efficacy

Author

Listed:
  • Shih-Hao Wang
  • Chung-Lin Tsai
  • Han-Chao Chang

Abstract

A comfortable experimental environment usually enables stress relief among inventors, allowing them to focus on inventing. However, to facilitate smooth and continuous experimental procedures, the public spaces and computing environments of conventional laboratories are usually replete with heavy instruments and interconnected wires; consequently, inventors have limited space to conduct complex experiments. These public spaces and computing environments negatively affect the creative self-efficacy (CSE) of inventors. Based on CSE theory and modified information layout complexity theory, in this study, 100 inventors who had obtained patents were recruited. The results indicated that a wireless cloud public space and computing environment positively moderated and enhanced the relationship between low layout complexity and inventor CSE; conventional public spaces and computing environments featuring cables negatively moderated and weakened the relationship between high layout complexity and inventor CSE. More than 40% of participants highly supported using one electronic tablet to manipulate multiple instruments. The results also revealed that approximately 64% of participants did not think they were essential in promoting critical mass in the laboratory. This finding was significantly different from the degree centrality of creativity perspective. Critical indicators of inventor CSE were found to be inventors’ decision-making capabilities regarding innovative research directions and their communication skills with supervisors.

Suggested Citation

  • Shih-Hao Wang & Chung-Lin Tsai & Han-Chao Chang, 2018. "Laboratory Environmental Conditions Influence Patent Inventors’ Creative Self-efficacy," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(5), pages 159-166, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:ibrjnl:v:11:y:2018:i:5:p:159-166
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ibr/article/view/74990/41362
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ibr/article/view/74990
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Annette Alstadsæter & Salvador Barrios & Gaetan Nicodeme & Agnieszka Maria Skonieczna & Antonio Vezzani, 2018. "Patent boxes design, patents location, and local R&D," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 33(93), pages 131-177.
    2. Nandakumar, Karthik & Funk, Jeffrey L., 2015. "Understanding the timing of economic feasibility: The case of input interfaces for human-computer interaction," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 33-49.
    3. M.Muzamil Naqshbandi & Sharan Kaur, 2015. "Effectiveness of innovation protection mechanisms in Malaysian high-tech sector," Management Research Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 38(9), pages 952-969, September.
    4. Hohberger, Jan & Almeida, Paul & Parada, Pedro, 2015. "The direction of firm innovation: The contrasting roles of strategic alliances and individual scientific collaborations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(8), pages 1473-1487.
    5. Song, Kisik & Kim, Karp Soo & Lee, Sungjoo, 2017. "Discovering new technology opportunities based on patents: Text-mining and F-term analysis," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 60, pages 1-14.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gundert Hannah & Nicolay Katharina & Steinbrenner Daniela & Wickel Sophia, 2024. "The Tax Attractiveness of EU Locations for Corporate Investments: A Stocktaking of Past Developments and Recent Reforms," The Economists' Voice, De Gruyter, vol. 21(1), pages 97-132.
    2. European Commission, 2018. "Tax Policies in the European Union: 2018 Survey," Taxation Survey 2018, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    3. Annita Nugent & Ho Fai Chan & Uwe Dulleck, 2022. "Government funding of university-industry collaboration: exploring the impact of targeted funding on university patent activity," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 29-73, January.
    4. Jinzhu Zhang & Wenqian Yu, 2020. "Early detection of technology opportunity based on analogy design and phrase semantic representation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 551-576, October.
    5. Yun, Siyeong & Song, Kisik & Kim, Chulhyun & Lee, Sungjoo, 2021. "From stones to jewellery: Investigating technology opportunities from expired patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    6. Petros Gkotsis & Antonio Vezzani, 2016. "Advanced Manufacturing Activities of Top R&D investors: Geographical and Technological Patterns," JRC Research Reports JRC101970, Joint Research Centre.
    7. Mark Vancauteren & Michael Polder & Marcel van den Berg, 2019. "The Relationship between Tax Payments and MNE’s Patenting Activities and Implications for Real Economic Activity: Evidence from the Netherlands," NBER Chapters, in: Challenges of Globalization in the Measurement of National Accounts, pages 237-269, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Schwab, Thomas & Todtenhaupt, Maximilian, 2016. "Spillover from the haven: Cross-border externalities of patent box regimes within multinational firms," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-073, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Pietro Moncada-Paternò-Castello & Sara Amoroso & Michele Cincera, 0. "Corporate R&D intensity decomposition: different data, different results?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(4), pages 458-473.
    10. Yaliu Yang & Yuan Wang & Cui Wang & Yingyan Zhang & Cuixia Zhang, 2022. "Temporal and Spatial Evolution of the Science and Technology Innovative Efficiency of Regional Industrial Enterprises: A Data-Driven Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-21, August.
    11. European Commission, 2019. "Tax Policies in the European Union: 2020 Survey," Taxation Survey 2020, Directorate General Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission.
    12. Pollok, Patrick & Lüttgens, Dirk & Piller, Frank T., 2019. "Attracting solutions in crowdsourcing contests: The role of knowledge distance, identity disclosure, and seeker status," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 98-114.
    13. Vasily Astrov & Serkan Çiçek & Mahdi Ghodsi & Branimir Jovanović, 2021. "Monthly Report No. 3/2021," wiiw Monthly Reports 2021-03, The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies, wiiw.
    14. Ren, Haiying & Zhao, Yuhui, 2021. "Technology opportunity discovery based on constructing, evaluating, and searching knowledge networks," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    15. İrem Güçeri & Marko Köthenbürger & Martin Simmler, 2020. "Supporting Firm Innovation and R&D: What is the Optimal Policy Mix?," EconPol Policy Reports 20, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    16. Wu, Yingwen & Ji, Yangjian, 2023. "Identifying firm-specific technology opportunities from the perspective of competitors by using association rule mining," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    17. Bodo Knoll & Nadine Riedel, 2020. "Patent Shifing and Anti-Tax Avoidance Legislation," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 17(04), pages 25-29, January.
    18. Fabien Candau & Jacques Le Cacheux, 2018. "Taming Tax Competition with a European Corporate Income Tax," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 128(4), pages 575-611.
    19. Dhammika Dharmapala, 2016. "The Economics of Corporate and Business Tax Reform," CESifo Working Paper Series 5864, CESifo.
    20. Sharma, Rishi R. & Slemrod, Joel & Stimmelmayr, Michael, 2023. "Tax losses and ex-ante offshore transfer of intellectual property," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    public spaces and computing; creative self-efficacy (CSE); patent inventor;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:ibrjnl:v:11:y:2018:i:5:p:159-166. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.