25 years of knowledge creation processes in pharmaceutical contemporary trends

The pharmaceutical industry is knowledge and research-intensive. Due to technological, socio-political and organisational changes there has been a continuous evolution in the knowledge base utilized to achieve and maintain competitive advantages in this global industry. There is a gap in analysing the linkages and effects of those changes on knowledge creation processes associated with pharmaceutical R&D activities. Our paper looks to fill this gap. We built on an idiosyncratic research approach – the systematic literature review – and looked to unearth current trends affecting knowledge creation in international/global pharmaceutical R&D. We reviewed scientific papers published between 1980 and 2005. Key findings include promising trends in pharmaceutical innovation and human resource management, and their potential implications on current R&D practices within the pharmaceutical industry, from managerial and policy-making perspectives.

Analytic and heuristic processes in the detection and resolution of conflict

Previous research with the ratio-bias task found larger response latencies for conflict trials where the heuristic- and analytic-based responses are assumed to be in opposition (e.g., choosing between 1/10 and 9/100 ratios of success) when compared to no-conflict trials where both processes converge on the same response (e.g., choosing between 1/10 and 11/100). This pattern is consistent with parallel dualprocess models, which assume that there is effective, rather than lax, monitoring of the output of heuristic processing. It is, however, unclear why conflict resolution sometimes fails. Ratio-biased choices may increase because of a decline in analytical reasoning (leaving heuristic-based responses unopposed) or to a rise in heuristic processing (making it more difficult for analytic processes to override the heuristic preferences). Using the process-dissociation procedure, we found that instructions to respond logically and response speed affected analytic (controlled) processing (C), leaving heuristic processing (H) unchanged, whereas the intuitive preference for large nominators (as assessed by responses to equal ratio trials) affected H but not C. These findings create new challenges to the debate between dual-process and singleprocess accounts, which are discussed.