Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T03:13:09.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2023

Stephen K. Reed
Stephen K. Reed
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Encouraging Innovation
Cognition, Education, and Implementation
 , pp. 184 - 199
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abdulla, A. M., Paek, S. H., Cramond, B., & Runco, M. A. (2020). Problem finding and creativity: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14, 3–14.Google Scholar
Ackerman, R. & Thompson, V. A. (2017). Meta-reasoning: Monitoring and control of thinking and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21, 607–617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akpur, U. (2020). Critical, reflective, creative thinking and their reflections on academic achievement. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almaatouq, A., Alsobay, M., Yin, M., & Watts, D. J. (2021). Task complexity moderates group synergy. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 118, e2101062118.Google Scholar
Al-Noaimi, H. A., Durugbo, C. M., & Al-Jayyousi, O. R. (2021). Between dogma and doubt: A meta-synthesis of innovation in the public sector. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 81(1), 201–223.Google Scholar
Alt, N. P. & Phillips, L. T. (2022). Person perception, meet people perception: Exploring the social vision of groups. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(3), 768–787.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 123–167.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambos, T. C. & Tatarinov, K. (2022). Building responsible innovation in international organizations through intrapreneurship. Journal of Management Studies, 59(1), 92–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews-Todd, J. & Forsyth, C. M. (2020). Exploring social and cognitive dimensions of collaborative problem solving in an open online simulation-based task. Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 105759.Google Scholar
APA Task Force on Climate Change. (2022). Addressing the climate crisis: An action plan for psychologists (summary). American Psychologist, 77, 799–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arundel, A., Bloch, C., & Ferguson, B. (2019). Advancing innovation in the public sector: Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals. Research Policy, 48, 789–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atesgoz, N. N. & Sak, U. (2021). Test of scientific creativity animations for children: Development and validity study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 40, 100818.Google Scholar
Basadur, M. (1995). Optimal ideation-evaluation ratios. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 63–75.Google Scholar
Bassok, M. & Novick, L. R. (2012). Problem solving. In Holyoak, K. J. & Morrison, R. J. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 413–432). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bazerman, M. H. (2022). Complicit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beghetto, R. A. (2021). How times of crisis serve as a catalyst for creative action: An agentic perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(600685).Google Scholar
Bicer, A. (2021). Mathematical representations and mathematical creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100960.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay.Google Scholar
Boss, V., Dahlander, L., Ihl, C., & Jayaman, R. (2022). Organizing entrepreneurial teams: A field experiment on autonomy over choosing teams and ideas. Organization Science.Google Scholar
Bredow, C. A., Roehling, P. V., Knorp, A. J., & Sweet, A. M. (2021). To flip or not to flip? A meta-analysis of the efficacy of flipped learning in a higher education. Review of Educational Research, 91, 878–918.Google Scholar
Buehring, J. & Bishop, P. C. (2020). Foresight and design: New support for strategic decision making. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 408–432.Google Scholar
Butler, A. G. & Roberto, M. A. (2018). When cognition interferes with innovation: Overcoming cognitive obstacles to design thinking. Research-Technology Management, July-August, 61(4), 45–49.Google Scholar
Caeiro-Rodriguez, M., Manso-Vazquez, M., Mikic-Fonte, F. A., Llamas-Nistral, M., Fernandez-Iglesias, M. J., Tsalapatas, H., … Sorensen, L. T. (2021). Teaching soft skills in engineering education: An European perspective. IEEE Access, 9, 29222–29242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case, S. (2022). The rise of the rest: How entrepreneurs in surprising places are building the new American dream. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Catrambone, R. (1995). Aiding subgoal learning: Effects on transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 5–17.Google Scholar
Cezzar, J. (2020). Teaching the designer of now: A new basis for graphic and communication design education. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 213–227.Google Scholar
Chang, Y.-S., Chien, Y.-H., Yu, K.-C., Chu, Y.-H., & Chen, Y.-C. (2016). Effect of TRIZ on the creativity of engineering students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 112–122.Google Scholar
Chase, W. G. & Ericsson, K. A. (1982). Skill and working memory. In Bower, G. H. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 16, pp. 1–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chater, N. & Loewenstein, G. (2016). The under-appreciated drive for sense making. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 126, 137–154.Google Scholar
Chen, B. & Hong, H.-Y. (2016). Schools as knowledge-building organizations: Thirty years of design research. Educational Psychologist, 51, 266–288.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. (2021). Translating a theory of active learning: An attempt to close the research-practice gap in education. Topics in Cognitive Science, 13(3), 441–463.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 7–75). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Chi, M. T. H. & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49, 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chigova, L. E. & Hofisi, C. (2021). Challenges and opportunities of public sector innovation in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 10, 1717–1725.Google Scholar
Chou, Y.-Y. & Tversky, B. (2020). Changing perspective: Building creative mindsets. Cognitive Science, 44( 4), e12820.Google Scholar
Christoff, K., Irving, Z. C., Fox, K. C. R., Spreng, R. N., & Andrews-Hanna, J. R. (2016). Mind wandering as spontaneous thought: A dynamic framework. Nature Reviews|Neuroscience, 17, 718–731.Google Scholar
Coleman, P. T., Kugler, K., Vallacher, R. R., & Kim, R. (2019). Hoping for the best, preparing for the worst: Regulatory focus optimality in high and low-intensity conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30, 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constantino, S. M., Sparkman, G., Kraft-Todd, G. T., Bicchieri, C., Centola, D., Shell-Duncan, B., … Weber, E. U. (2022). Scaling up change: A critical review and practical guide to harnessing social norms for climate action. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 23, 50–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crilly, N. (2018). ‘Fixation’ and ‘the pivot’: Balancing persistence with flexibility in design and entrepreneurship. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 6, 52–65.Google Scholar
Cromwell, J., Amabile, T. M., & Harvey, J.-F. (2018). An integrated model of dynamic problem solving within organizational constraints. In Reiter-Palmon, R., Kennel, V. L., & Kaufman, J. C. (Eds.), Individual creativity in the workplace (pp. 53–81). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cropley, D. H. & Oppert, M. L. (2018). The fuzzy front-end – how creativity drives organizational innovation. In Kaufman, J. C. & Reiter-Palmon, R. (Eds.), Individual creativity in the workplace (pp. 35–51). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cukier, K., Mayer-Schoenberger, V., & de Vericourt, F. (2021). Framers: Human advantage in an age of technology and turmoil. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
Cukurova, M., Luckin, R., Millan, E., & Mavrikis, M. (2018). The NISPI framework: Analyzing collaborative problem-solving from students’ physical interactions. Computers & Education, 116, 93–109.Google Scholar
Daker, R. J., Cortes, R. A., Lyons, I. M., & Green, A. E. (2020). Creativity anxiety: Evidence for anxiety that is specific to creative thinking, from STEM to the arts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149, 42–57.Google Scholar
Dane, E. (2010). Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: A cognitive entrenchment perspective. Academy of Management Review, 35, 579–603.Google Scholar
DeAvila, J. & Pisani, J. (2022, September 15). Patagonia founder gives company away. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.Google Scholar
Donnellan, E., Aslan, S., Fastrich, G. M., & Murayama, K. (2022). How are curiosity and interest different? Naïve Bayes classification of people’s beliefs. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 73–105.Google Scholar
Dunbar, K. & Blanchette, I. (2001). The in vivo approach to cognition: The case of analogy. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 5, 334–339.Google Scholar
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 58(5), i.Google Scholar
Dwyer, C. P., Hogan, M. J., Harney, O. M., & Kavanagh, C. (2017). Facilitating a student-educator conceptual model of dispositions towards critical thinking through interactive management. Education Tech Research Dev, 65, 47–73.Google Scholar
Eichler, G. M. & Schwartz, E. J. (2019). What sustainable development goals do social innovations address? A systematic review and content analysis of social innovation literature. Sustainability, 11, 522.Google Scholar
Epstein, D. J. (2019). Range: Why generalists triumph in a specialized world. New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Eskreis-Winkler, L. & Fishbach, A. (2022). You think failure is hard? So is learning from it. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17, 1511–1524.Google Scholar
EUWIN Members & Honorary Advisors (2022). Workplace Innovation – Europe’s Competitive Edge: A manifesto for enhanced performance and working lives. European Journal of Workplace Innovation, 7, 132–141.Google Scholar
Fadell, T. (2022). Build: An unorthodox guide to making things worth making. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Finegan, T. (2021). Amplifiers. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Finke, R. A. (1990). Creative imagery: Discoveries and inventions in visualization. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Finke, R. A. (1996). Imagery, creativity and emergent structures. Consciousness and Cognition, 5, 381–393.Google Scholar
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fiore, S. M., Graesser, A., & Greiff, S. (2018). Collaborative problem-solving education for the twenty-first-century workforce. Nature Human Behavior, 2, 367–369.Google Scholar
First, Z. (2021, December 13). How to measure innovation? Here’s how we do it. The Wall Street Journal, p. R2.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.Google Scholar
Frederiks, A. J., Englis, B. G., Ehrenhard, M. L., & Groen, A. J. (2019). Entrepreneurial cognition and the quality of new venture ideas: An experimental approach to comparing future-oriented cognitive processes. Journal of Business Venturing, 34, 327–347.Google Scholar
Fries, L., Son, J. Y., Givvin, K. B., & Stigler, J. W. (2021). Practicing connections: A framework to guide instructional design for developing understanding in complex domains. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 739–762.Google Scholar
Gable, S. L., Hopper, E. A., & Schooler, J. W. (2019). When the Muses strike: Creative ideas of physicists and writers routinely occur during mind wondering. Psychological Science, 30, 396–404.Google Scholar
Garney, W. R., Wilson, K. L., Garcia, K. M., Muraleetharan, D., Esquivel, C. H., Spadine, M. N., … Ajayi, K. V. (2022). Supporting and enabling the process of innovation in public health: The framework for public health innovation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 10099.Google Scholar
Gates, B. (2021). How to avoid a climate disaster: The solutions we have and the breakthroughs we need. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2022). Simple heuristics to run a research group. PsyCh Journal, 11, 275–289.Google Scholar
Gilhooly, K. J., Ball, L. J., & Macchi, L. (2015). Insight and creative thinking processes: Routine and special. Thinking & Reasoning, 21, 1–4.Google Scholar
Gino, F. (2018). Rebel talent: Why it pays to break the rules at work and in life. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Girn, M., Mills, C., Roseman, L., Carhart-Harris, R. L., & Christoff, K. (2020). Updating the dynamic framework of thought: Creativity and psychedelics. Neuroimage, 213, 116726.Google Scholar
Glaveanu, V., Lubert, T., Bonnardel, N., Botella, M., de Biaisi, P.-M., Desainte-Catherine, M., … Zenasni, F. (2013). Creativity as action: Findings from five creative domains. Frontiers in Psychology, 4(176), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gobet, F. & Sala, G. (2022). Cognitive training: A field in search of a phenomenon. Perspectives in Psychological Science.Google Scholar
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goel, V. (2014). Creative brains: Designing in the real world. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(241), 1–14.Google Scholar
Goel, V. & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395–429.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2017). Design thinking: A method or a gateway into design cognition? She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3, 107–112.Google Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Fiore, S. M., Greiff, S., Andrews-Todd, J., Foltz, P. W., & Hesse, F. W. (2018). Advancing the science of collaborative problem-solving. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 59–92.Google Scholar
Grant, A. (2016). Originals: How non-conformists move the world. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Grant, A. (2021). Think again: The power of knowing what you don’t know. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Gray, C. M., McKilligan, S., Daly, S. R., Seifert, C. M., & Gonzalez, R. (2019). Using creative exhaustion to foster idea generation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29, 177–195.Google Scholar
Greene, J. A., Freed, R., & Sawyer, R. K. (2019). Fostering creative performance in art and design education via self-regulated learning. Instructional Science, 47, 127–149.Google Scholar
Greeno, J. G. (1978). Natures of problem solving abilities. In Estes, W. K. (Ed.), Handbook of learning and cognition (Vol. 5). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gube, M., & Lajoie, S. (2020). Adaptive expertise and creative thinking: A synthetic review and implications for practice. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100630.Google Scholar
Guenther, A., Eisenbart, B., & Dong, A. (2021). Creativity and successful product concept selection for innovation. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 9, 3–19.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Gullich, A., Macnamara, B. N., & Hambrick, D. Z. (2021). What makes a champion? Early multidisciplinary practice, not early specialization, predicts world-class performance. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 17, 6–29.Google Scholar
Gupta, A., Dey, A., & Singh, G. (2017). Connecting corporations and communities: Towards a theory of social inclusive open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 3(17), 1–34.Google Scholar
Guss, C. D., Ahmed, S., & Dorner, D. (2021). From da Vinci’s flying machines to a theory of the creative process. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16, 1184–1197.Google Scholar
Hari, J. (2022). Stolen focus: Why you can’t pay attention – and how to think deeply again. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Haupt, G. (2018). Hierarchical thinking: A cognitive tool for guiding coherent decision making in design problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28, 207–237.Google Scholar
Henriksen, D., Henderson, M., Creely, E., Carvalho, L., Cernochova, M., Dash, D., … Mishra, P. (2021). Creativity and risk taking in teaching and learning settings: Insights from six international narratives. International Journal of Educational Research Open, 2, 100024.Google Scholar
Herborn, K., Stadler, M., Mustafic, M., & Greiff, S. (2020). The assessment of collaborative problem solving in PISA 2015: Can computer agents replace humans? Computers in Human Behavior, 104, 105624.Google Scholar
Hernandez-Torrano, D., & Ibrayeva, L. (2020). Creativity and education: A bibliometric mapping of the research literature (1975 to 2019). Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100625.Google Scholar
Herz, N., Baror, S., & Bar, M. (2020). Overarching states of mind. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24, 184–199.Google Scholar
Heyes, C. (2018). Cognitive gadgets: The cultural evolution of thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hills, T. T. (2019). The dark side of information proliferation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14, 323–330.Google Scholar
Hilpert, J. C. & Marchand, G. C. (2018). Complex systems research in educational psychology: Aligning theory and method. Educational Psychologist, 53, 185–202.Google Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. V., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107.Google Scholar
Isaacson, W. (2014). The innovators: How a group of hackers, geniuses, and geeks created the digital revolution. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Isaacson, W. (2021). The code breaker: Jennifer Doudna, gene editing, and the future of the human race. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Jaskyte, K. & Liedtka, J. (2022). Design thinking for innovation: Practices and intermediate outcomes. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 32(4), 555–575.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. L., McDaniel, M. A., Woodward, S. M., & Kummer, T. A. (2014). Teaching to the test … or testing to teach: Exams requiring higher order thinking skills encourage greater conceptual understanding. Educational Psychology Review, 26, 307–329.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48, 63–85.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1982). On the study of statistical intuitions. In K. D., P. Slovic, & Tversky, A. (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 493–508). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kapur, M. & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 45–83.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. (2018). Finding meaning with creativity in the past, present, and future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13, 734–749.Google Scholar
Keiser, J. D. (2022). Using The New Yorker magazine’s cartoon caption contest to stimulate creative group problem solving: An in-class exercise. Management Teaching Review, 7(2), 124–131.Google Scholar
Kennedy, P. (2016). Inventology: How we dream up things that change the world. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Khazanchi, S., Sprinkle, T. A., Masterson, S. S., & Tong, N. (2018). A spatial model of work relationships: The relationship-building and relationship-straining effects of workspace design. Academy of Management Review, 43, 590–609.Google Scholar
Kirk, E. & Lewis, C. (2017). Gesture facilitates children’s creative thinking. Psychological Science, 28, 225–232.Google Scholar
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. C. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41, 75–86.Google Scholar
Kirshner, P. A., Sweller, J., Kirshner, F., & Zambrano, J. R. (2018). From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 13, 213–233.Google Scholar
Klahr, D. & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1–55.Google Scholar
Klahr, D. & Simon, H. A. (1999). Study of scientific discovery: Complementary approaches and convergent findings. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 524–543.Google Scholar
Kline, S. J. & Rosenberg, N. (2010). An Overview of Innovation Studies on science and the innovation process: The selected works of Nathan Rosenberg (pp. 173–203).Google Scholar
Kohler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
Kramarski, B. & Heaysman, O. (2021). A conceptual framework and a professional development model for supporting teachers’ “triple SRL-SRT processes” and promoting students’ academic outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 56, 298–311.Google Scholar
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41, 212–218.Google Scholar
Kuhn, D. (2022). Metacognition matters in many ways. Educational Psychologist, 57, 73–86.Google Scholar
Kyvik, O. (2018). The global mindset: A must for international innovation and entrepreneurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 14, 309–327.Google Scholar
Lacerenza, C. N., Marlow, S. L., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Salas, E. (2018). Team development interventions: Evidence-based approaches for improving teamwork. American Psychologist, 73, 517–531.Google Scholar
Laughlin, P. R. (2011). Group problem solving. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, J. (2012). IMAGINE: How creativity works. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Leijten, J. (2019). Innovation policy in international relations: Directions for EU diplomacy. European Journal of Futures Research, 7(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Levari, D. E., Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2022). Tips from the top: Do the best performers really give the best advice? Psychological Science, 33, 685–698.Google Scholar
Levy, O., Beechler, S., Taylor, S., & Boyacigiller, N. A. (2007). What we talk about when we talk about “global mindset”: Managerial cognition in multinational corporations. Journal of International Business Studies, 8, 231–238.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. (2016). The undoing project: A friendship that changed our minds United Kingdom: Penguin.Google Scholar
Li, J., Ye, H., Tang, Y., Zhou, Z., & Hu, X. (2018). What are the effects of self-regulation phases and strategies for Chinese students? A meta-analysis of two decades research of association between self-regulation and academic performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(2434).Google Scholar
Li, R., Mayseless, N., Balters, S., & Reiss, A. L. (2021). Dynamic inter-brain synchrony in real-life inter-personal cooperation: A functional near-infrared spectroscopy hyperscanning study. Neuroimage, 238(118263).Google Scholar
Liao, Z. (2018). Market orientation and FIRMS’ environmental innovation: The moderating role of environmental attitude. Business strategy and the environment, 27, 117–127Google Scholar
Liedtka, J. (2020). Putting technology in its place: Design thinking’s social technology at work. California Management Review, 62, 53–83.Google Scholar
List, J. A. (2021). How field experiments in economics can complement psychological research on judgment biases. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30, 431–436.Google Scholar
List, J. A. (2022). The voltage affect: How to make good ideas great and great ideas scale. New York: Currency.Google Scholar
Lombardi, D. & Shipley, T. F. (2021). The curious construct of active learning. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22, 8–43.Google Scholar
Ludwig, D., Blok, V., Garnier, M., MacNaghten, P., & Pols, A. (2022). What’s wrong with global challenges? Journal of Responsible Innovation, 9, 6–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnuson, W. (2022). For Profit: A History of Corporations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Makransky, G. & Petersen, G. B. (2021). The cognitive affective model of immersive learning (CAMIL): A theoretical research-based model of learning in immersive virtual reality. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 937–958.Google Scholar
Mandumpal, J. B., Ferdinand-James, D. S., Ziarati, P., Hussein, E. K., Umachandran, K., & Kennedy, I. G. (2022). Innovation-based learning (InnBL): Turning science and engineering undergraduate degree programmes towards innovation. Journal of Creativity, 32(10013), 1–5.Google Scholar
Mani, G. (2021). Artificial intelligence’s grand challenges: Past, present, and future. AI Magazine, 42, 61–75.Google Scholar
Marta, S., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2005). Leadership skills and the group performance: Situational demands, behavioral requirements, and planning. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 97–120.Google Scholar
McCaffrey, T. (2012). Innovation relies on the obscure: A key to overcoming the classic problem of functional fixedness. Psychological Science, 23, 215–218.Google Scholar
McChrystal, S. A. & Butrico, A. (2021). Risk: A user’s guide. New York: Penguin Random House LLC.Google Scholar
McMahon, C. (2021). Situation, patterns, exploration, and exploitation in engineering design. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 7(1), 71–94.Google Scholar
Mease, L. A., Gibbs-Plessl, T., Erickson, A. L., Reddy, C. M., & Lubchenco, J. (2017). Designing a solution to enable agency-academic scientific collaboration for disasters. Ecology and Society, 22(2).Google Scholar
Melgarejo-Torralba, M., Parras-Burgos, D., & Fernandez-Pacheco, D. G. (2022). Hand-developed creative prototyping. Methodological proposal and experimentation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44(101025).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meneses, L. F. S. (2020). Critical thinking perspectives across contexts and curricula: Dominant, neglected, and complementing dimensions. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35(100610).Google Scholar
Metcalfe, J., & Wiebe, D. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 15, 238–246.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing design education for the twenty-first Century. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 13–49.Google Scholar
Mickle, T. & Fitch, A. (2019, April 17). Apple, Qualcomm End Legal Feud. The Wall Street Journal.Google Scholar
Morrison, A., & Doussineau, M. (2019). Regional innovation governance and place-based policies: Design, implementation and implications. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 6, 101–116.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, K. (2021). Integrating technology, innovation and policy: COVID-19 and HTA. Health Policy and Technology, 10, 16–20.Google Scholar
Mumford, M. D., Antes, A. L., Caughron, J. J., & Freidrich, T. L. (2008). Charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leadership: Multi-level influences on emergence and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 144–160.Google Scholar
Newell, A. & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nobis, F., Stevenson, M., Baragheh, A., & Carey, T. (2022). Engaging students with an adaptable model for workplace innovation capability. In Remenyi, D. (Ed.), Anthology of Case Stories: Innovation & Entrepreneurship Teaching Excellence Awards 2022. An Anthology of Case Histories (pp. 1–18). Reading, UK: Academic Conferences International.Google Scholar
Noel, G. (2020). Fostering design learning in the era of humanism. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 119–128.Google Scholar
Norman, D. A. (2013). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Oeij, P. R. A., van der Torre, W., Vaas, F., & Dhondt, S. (2019). Understanding social innovation as an innovation process: Applying the innovation Journey model. Journal of Business Research, 101, 243–254.Google Scholar
Ohlsson, S. (2018). The dialectic between routine and creative cognition. In Vallee-Tourangeau, F. (Ed.), Insight: On the origins of new ideas (pp. 8–27). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oleteanu, A.-M. & Falomir, Z. (2016). Object replacement and object composition in a creative cognitive system. Towards a computational solver of the Alternative Uses Test. Cognitive Systems Research, 39, 15–32.Google Scholar
Olsson, P., Moore, M.-L., Westley, F. R., & McCarthy, D. D. P. (2017). The concept of the Anthropocene as a game changer: A new context for social innovation and transformations to sustainability. Ecology and Society, 22(2), 31.Google Scholar
Paik, J. H., Scholl, M., Sergeev, R., Randazzo, S., & Lakhani, K. R. (2020). Innovation contests for high-tech procurement. Research-Technology Management, 63, 36–45.Google Scholar
Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing Instruction and Study to Improve Student Learning (NCER 2007–2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research.Google Scholar
Pedersen, K. (2020). What can open innovation be used for and how does it create value? Government Information Quarterly, 37, 101459.Google Scholar
Perry, A. & Karpova, E. (2017). A comparison of teaching creative thinking skills: A comparison of multiple creativity assessments. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 118–126.Google Scholar
Phan, H. P. & Ngu, B. H. (2021). A case for cognitive entrenchment: To achieve optimal best, taking into account the importance of perceived optimal efficiency and cognitive load imposition. Frontiers in Psychology, 21, 662898, 1–19.Google Scholar
Preckel, F., Golle, J., Grabner, R., Jarvin, L., Kozbet, A., Mullensiefen, D., … Worrell, F. C. (2020). Talent development in achievement domains: A psychological framework for within- and cross-domain research. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 15, 691–722.Google Scholar
Rabb, N., Fernbach, P. M., & Sloman, S. (2019). Individual representation in a community of knowledge. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 891–201.Google Scholar
Rackham, N. (1980/2007). The behavior of successful negotiators. In Lewicki, R., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. (Eds.), Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Raghavan, A., Demircioglu, M. A., & Taeihagh, A. (2021). Public health innovation through cloud adoption: A comparative analysis of drivers and barriers in Japan, South Korea, and Singapore. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18, 334.Google Scholar
Raoelison, M., Thompson, V. A., & De Neys, W. (2020). The smart intuitor: Cognitive capacity predicts intuitive rather than deliberate thinking. Cognition, 204(104381).Google Scholar
Ratzmann, M., Pesch, R., Bouncken, R., & Climent, C. M. (2018). The price of team spirit for sense making through task discourse in innovation teams. Group Decision and Negotiation, 27, 321–341.Google Scholar
Reed, S. K. (2016). The structure of ill-structured (and well-structured) problems revisited. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 691–716.Google Scholar
Reed, S. K., & Vallacher, R. R. (2020). A comparison of information processing and dynamical systems perspectives on problem solving. Thinking & Reasoning, 26, 254–290.Google Scholar
Reed II, A., Jones, S., & Dik, B. J. (2022). Work identity and future research on work as a calling. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31, 457–463.Google Scholar
Reich, R., Sahami, M., & Weinstein, J. M. (2021). System error: Where big tech went wrong and how we can reboot. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Reizes, O., Low, M., Josyula, V. P., Ellis, J., & Vince, G. D. (2021). New programs for translating research to patient care: Lessons learned at the NIH Center for Accelerated Innovations at Cleveland Clinic. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 5, e176, 1–6.Google Scholar
Ridley, M. (2020). How innovation works: And why it flourishes in freedom. New York: HarperCollinsGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.Google Scholar
Robson, D. (2019). The intelligence trap: Why smart people make dumb mistakes. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Root-Bernstein, R. (2003). Problem generation and innovation. In Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.), International Handbook on Innovation (pp. 170–179): Elsevier.Google Scholar
Root-Bernstein, R., & Root-Bernstein, M. (2003). Intuitive tools for innovative thinking. In Shavinina, L. V. (Ed.), International Handbook of Innovation (pp. 377–387). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Rosen, D. S., Oh, Y., Erickson, B., Zhang, F., Kim, Y. E., & Kounios, J. (2020). Dual-process contributions to creativity in jazz improvisations: An SPM-EEG study. Neuroimage, 213(116632).Google Scholar
Rosen, Y., Wolf, I., & Stoeffler, K. (2020). Fostering collaborative problem-solving skills in science: The Animalia project. Computers in Human Behavior, 104(105922).Google Scholar
Rosso, B. D. (2014). Creativity and constraints: Exploring the role of constraints in the creative processes of research and developmental teams. Organization Studies, 35, 551–585.Google Scholar
Rubenstein, L. D., Callan, G. L., Neumeister, K. S., & Ridgley, L. M. (2020). Finding the problem: How students approach problem identification. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35(100635).Google Scholar
Rubenstein, L. D., Callan, G. L., & Ridgley, L. M. (2018). Anchoring the creative process within a self-regulated learning framework: Inspiring assessment methods and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 921–945.Google Scholar
Ruecker, S., de la Rosa, J., Qladeji, F., & Melton, R. B. (2020). Expanding knowledge about the past and preferred futures using systemic, values-based mapping. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 254–274.Google Scholar
Russ, S. W. (1993). Affect and creativity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sala, G. & Gobet, F. (2019). Cognitive training does not enhance general cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23, 9–20.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2013). Zig zag: The surprising path to greater creativity. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2017). Teaching creativity in art and design studio classes: A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 99–113.Google Scholar
Sawyer, R. K. (2021). The iterative and improvisational nature of the creative process. Journal of Creativity, 31, 100002.Google Scholar
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (2014). Knowledge building and knowledge creation: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2 ed., pp. 397–417).Google Scholar
Scheffer, M., Baas, M., & Bjordam, T. K. (2017). Teaching originality? Common habits behind creative production in science and arts. Ecology and Society, 22(2).Google Scholar
Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S. R., Lenton, T. M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W., Dakos, V., … Vandermeer, J. (2012). Anticipating critical transitions. Science, 338, 344–348.Google Scholar
Schleider, J. (2021). National Institutes of Health high-risk, high-reward research program. APS Observer, 34(6), 32–33.Google Scholar
Schroeder, N. L., Nesbit, J. C., Anguiano, C. J., & Adesope, O. O. (2018). Studying and constructing concept maps: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 431–455.Google Scholar
Seow, O., Tiong, E., Teo, K., Silva, A., Wood, K. L., Jensen, D. D., & Yang, M. C. (2018, August 26, 2018). Design signatures: Mapping design innovation processes. Paper presented at the 30th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology.Google Scholar
Shahid, M., Finnegan, A., Kilburn, K., Udayakumar, K., & Baumgartner, J. N. (2022). The health innovation impact checklist: A tool to improve the development and reporting of impact models for global health innovations. Global Health Action, 15, 2056312.Google Scholar
Sharif, R. A. & Pokharel, S. (2022). Smart city dimensions and associated risk: Review of literature. Sustainable Cities and Society, 77, 103542, 1–14.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. (1988). The imagination of the scientist. In Egan, K. & Nadaner, D. (Eds.), Imagination and education (pp. 153–185). New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
Sider, A. (2022, August 17). American bets on supersonic jet. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.Google Scholar
Siegler, R. S. (2005). Children’s learning. American Psychologist, 60, 769–778.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–201.Google Scholar
Simonton, D. K. (2014). Historiometric studies of genius. In Simonton, D. K. (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 87–106): Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Singh, S., Akbani, I., & Dhir, S. (2020). Service innovation implementation: A systematic review and research agenda. The Service Industries Journal, 40, 491–517.Google Scholar
Sinha, T. & Kapur, M. (2020). When problem-solving followed by instruction works: Evidence for productive failure. Review of Educational Research, 9, 761–798.Google Scholar
Sio, U. T. & Ormerod, T. C. (2009). Does incubation enhance problem solving? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 94–120.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. (2022). How do we believe? Topics in Cognitive Science, 14, 31–44.Google Scholar
Slootman, F. (2022). Amp It Up. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Fischoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1976). Cognitive processes and societal risk taking. In Carroll, J. S. & Payne, J. W. (Eds.), Cognition and social behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Smith, S. M. & Tindell, D. R. (1997). Memory blocks in word fragment completion caused by involuntary retrieval of orthographically related primes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 355–370.Google Scholar
Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Schumacher, J. S. (1993). Constraining effect of examples in a creative generation task. Memory & Cognition, 21, 837–845.Google Scholar
Soleas, E. K. (2020). What Factors and Experiences Motivate Innovators? An Expectancy-Value-Cost Approach to Promoting Student Innovation (Doctoral Dissertation), Queen’s University (Canada).Google Scholar
Soto, C. J., Napolitano, C. M., & Roberts, B. W. (2021). Taking skills seriously: Toward an integrative model and agenda for social, emotional, and behavioral skills. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 30, 26–33.Google Scholar
Souder, W. (2020). Mad at the world: A life of John Steinbeck. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Sowden, P. T., Pringle, A., & Gabora, L. (2015). The shifting sands of creative thinking: Connections to dual process theory. Thinking & Reasoning, 21, 40–60.Google Scholar
Spikol, D., Ruffaldi, E., Dabisias, G., & Cukurova, M. (2018). Supervised machine learning in multimodal learning analytics for estimating success in project-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34, 366–377.Google Scholar
Stahl, B. C., Obach, M., Yaghmaei, E., Ikonen, V., Chatfield, K., & Brem, A. (2017). The responsible research and innovation (RRI) maturity model: Linking theory and practice. Sustainability, 9, 1036, 1–19.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. (2018). Miserliness in human cognition: The intersection of detection, override and mindware. Thinking & Reasoning, 24, 423–444.Google Scholar
Stasser, G. & Abele, S. (2020). Collective choice, collaboration, and communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 589–612.Google Scholar
Steen, M. & Nauta, J. (2020). Advantages and disadvantages of societal engagement: A case study in a research and technology organization. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 7, 598–619.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities are forms of developing expertise. Educational Researcher, 27, 11–20.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2007). A systems model of leadership. American Psychologist, 62, 34–42.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2018). A triangular theory of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12, 50–67.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2021). Adaptive intelligence: It’s nature and implications for education. Education Sciences, 11(12), 823.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 676–688.Google Scholar
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubllus, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3–54.Google Scholar
Sun, H., Xie, Y., & Lavonen, J. (2022). Exploring the structure of students’ scientific higher order thinking in science education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 43(100999), 1–11.Google Scholar
Sweller, J., van Merrienboer, J. G., & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261–292.Google Scholar
Tabares, R., Loeber, A., Nieminen, M., Bernstein, M. J., Griessler, E., Blok, V., … Frankus, E. (2022). Challenges in the implementation of responsible research and innovation across Horizon 2020. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 9(3), 291–314.Google Scholar
Tackett, J. L., Reardon, K. W., Fast, N. J., Johnson, L., Kang, S. K., Lang, J. W. B., & Oswald, F. L. (2022). Understanding the leaders of tomorrow: The need to study leadership in adolescence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17456916221118536 1–14.Google Scholar
Tan, S. C., Chan, C., Bielaczyc, K., Ma, L., Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2021). Knowledge building: Aligning education with needs for knowledge creation in the digital age. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 2243–2266.Google Scholar
Teng, L. S. & Zhang, L. J. (2020). Empowering learners in the second/foreign language classroom: Can self-regulated learning strategies-based writing instruction make a difference? Journal of Second Language Writing, 48(100701).Google Scholar
Terlep, S. (2022, May 21–22). Peloton’s big, busted bet on manufacturing. The Wall Street Journal, pp. B1-B2.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). NUDGE: The final edition. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Thayer, A. L., Petruzzelli, A., & McClurg, C. E. (2018). Addressing the paradox of the team innovation process: A review and practical considerations. American Psychologist, 73, 363–375.Google Scholar
Tindale, R. S. & Winget, J. R. (2019). Group Decision-Making Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.262Google Scholar
Torchia, M., Calabro, A., Gabaldon, P., & Kanadli, S. B. (2018). Women directors contribution to organizational innovation: A behavioral approach. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 34, 215–224.Google Scholar
Totterdill, P. (2015). Closing the gap: The fifth element and workplace innovation. European Journal of Workplace Innovation, 1(1), 55–74.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207–232.Google Scholar
Valine, Y. A. (2018). Why cultures fail: The power and risk of Groupthink. Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions, 11, 301–307.Google Scholar
Vallacher, R. R., Coleman, P. T., Nowak, A., & Bui-Wrzosinska, L. (2010). Rethinking intractable conflict: The perspective of dynamical systems. American Psychologist, 65, 262–278.Google Scholar
Van de Calseyde, P. P. F. M., & Efendic, E. (2020). Taking a disagreeing perspective improves the accuracy of people’s quantitative estimates. Psychological Science, 33, 971–983.Google Scholar
van Hooijdonk, M., Ritter, S. M., Linka, M., & Kroesbergen, E. (2022). Creativity and change of context: The influence of object-context (in)congruency on cognitive flexibility. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 45(101044).Google Scholar
Vecchiato, R. (2017). Disruptive innovation, managerial cognition, and technology competition outcomes. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 116, 116–128.Google Scholar
Vermaas, P. E. & Pesch, U. (2020). Revisiting Rittel and Weber’s dilemmas: Designerly thinking against the background of new societal distrust. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 530–545.Google Scholar
Vinsel, L. & Russell, A. L. (2020). The innovation delusion: How our obsession with the new has disrupted the work that matters most. New York: Currency.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S. (2013). Conceptual change in learning and instruction: The framework theory approach. In Vosniadou, S. (Ed.), International handbook of research on conceptual change (2 ed., pp. 11–30). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vosniadou, S. & Skopeliti, I. (2014). Conceptual change from the framework theory side of the fence. Science & Education, 23, 1427–1445.Google Scholar
Voute, E., Stappers, P. J., Giaccardi, E., Mooij, S., & van Boeijen, A. (2020). Innovating a large design education program at a university of technology. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 50–66.Google Scholar
Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., & Sifonis, C. M. (2004). The role of specificity and abstraction in creative idea generation. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 1–9.Google Scholar
Watkins, M., Casamayor, J. L., Ramirez, M., Moreno, M., Faludi, J., & Pigosso, D. C. A. (2021). Sustainable product design education: Current practice. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 7, 611–637.Google Scholar
Wegner, D. M. & Erber, R. (1992). The hyperassessability of suppressed thoughts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 903–912.Google Scholar
Wegener, C., Stenholt, B. V., & Lovring, I. (2021). ‘No mental surplus’: Workplace innovation from problem solving to problem framing. In Elkjaer, B., Lotz, M. M., & Nickelsen, N. C. M. (Eds.), Current practices in the workplace and organizational learning (pp. 69–81). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.Google Scholar
Weisberg, R. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: WH Freeman.Google Scholar
Wei, Y., Hong, J., & Tellis, G., J. (2021). Machine learning for creativity: Using similarity networks to design better crowdfunding projects. Journal of Marketing, 86, 87–104.Google Scholar
Whitney, P. G. (2015). Design and the economy of choice. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1(1), 58–80.Google Scholar
Whitney, P. G. & Noguiera, A. (2020). Cutting cubes out of fog: The whole view of design. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 129–156.Google Scholar
Wilde, D. (2020). Design education and global concerns. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6, 170–212.Google Scholar
Wilson, E. O. (2017). The origins of creativity. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Wong, Z. Y. & Liem, G. A. D. (2022). Student engagement: Current state of the construct, conceptual refinement, and future research directions. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 107–138.Google Scholar
Wong, J., Baars, M., Davis, D., Van Der Zee, T., Houben, G.-J., & Paas, F. (2019). Supporting self-regulated learning in online learning environments and MOOCs: A systematic review. International Journal of human-computer interaction, 35, 356–373.Google Scholar
Woo, H. (2019). New CEOs’ previous experience and acquisition performance. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 27, 745–758.Google Scholar
Wrede, M., Velamuri, V. K., & Dauth, T. (2020). Top managers in the digital age: Exploring the role and practices of top managers in firms’ digital transformation. Managerial and Decision Economics, 41, 1549–1567.Google Scholar
Yeager, D. S. & Dweck, C. S. (2020). What can be learned from growth mindset controversies? American Psychologist, 75, 1269–1284.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, S., Seifert, C. M., Daly, S. R., & Gonzalez, R. (2016). Design heuristics in innovative products. Journal of Mechanical Design, 138(071102), 1–12.Google Scholar
Zapalska, A., McCarty, M. D., Young-McLear, K., & White, J. (2018). Design of assignments using the twenty-first century Bloom’s revised taxonomy model for development of critical thinking skills. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 16, 291–305.Google Scholar
Zhang, T., Harrington, K. B., & Sherf, E. N. (2022). The errors of experts: When expertise hinders effective provision and seeking of advice and feedback. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 91–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhao, X. & Yang, J. (2021). Fostering creative thinking in the family: The importance of parenting styles. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41(100920), 1–18.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learning: An overview. Theory and practice, 41, 64–70.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×