[[EVD - highly novel papers had higher variance in their citation outcomes over a 15-year window, biased towards the higher impact tail of the distribution - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

[[EVD - In general, MechE students' ideas when given near analogies were at least as novel, and sometimes moreso, then ideas generated with far analogies, or seeing nothing - @tsengRoleTimingAnalogical2008]]

In the one case, analogical distance was measured post-hoc from the analogies that the sample of engineering students turned out to use (think of; not given). They found a positive correlation between % far analogy use and originality/value: [[EVD - designs that were measured during an ideation session to have come from a higher percentage of far analogies were perceived as more original and valuable by potential customer judges - @dahlInfluenceValueAnalogical2002]]

In the other case, analogical distance was not varied directly in terms of the stimuli, but was manipulated in a "one or more stimuli vs. no stimuli" way. All stimuli were near analogies. They found a negative effect of the near stimuli compared to seeing nothing: [[EVD - Engineering students who were given one or more near analogies as stimuli generated design ideas that were perceived as less original and valuable by potential customer judges, compared to being given no stimuli - @dahlInfluenceValueAnalogical2002]]

[[EVD - papers with high median conventionality and high tail atypical combinations of journals they cited were 2x more likely than average to be in top 5 percent of citation distribution - @uzziAtypicalCombinationsScientific2013]]

[[EVD - highly novel papers were more likely to be in the top 1% of citations in the long run, but not in the short run, and particularly in other fields - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

[[EVD - Far analogies' effects on MechE students' ideation fluency and diversity were different depending on timing: more ideas (but with more functional repeats) before ideation began, vs. more functionally distinct designs after problem solving began (during a break), both compared to seeing nothing - @tsengRoleTimingAnalogical2008]]

[[EVD - Far analogies' effects on MechE students' novelty of ideas were different depending on timing: more novel ideas when seeing them after problem solving began vs. before - @tsengRoleTimingAnalogical2008]]

[[EVD - Self-rated technical distance from open innovation contest problems was slightly positively correlated with submitting winning solutions - @jeppesenMarginalityProblemsolvingEffectiveness2010]]

Near associated with fixation: [[EVD - Undergrad MechE students who saw near analogies (clocks) for a time-keeping problem preferred discrete (drip-based) solutions to continuous (e.g., flow/fill) solutions - @tsengRoleTimingAnalogical2008]]

For example, Dunbar traced the discovery process of four top molecular biology labs, and found that they rarely used far analogies to generate novel scientific concepts: [[EVD - Molecular biologists with a reputation for innovation rarely used very far analogies in their lab meetings while generating novel scientific concepts; instead, they relied mainly on analogies to the same or other biological organisms - @dunbarHowScientistsThink1997]]

A very similar result was found by Saner et al (1999), who found that far analogies were basically never used in reasoning in psychology lab meetings, but were used in colloquia while ideas were being communicated with new audiences: [[EVD - Far analogies were rare and never used in psychology lab group meetings for reasoning (vs. mere mentions); far analogies were rare in colloquia as well, but were frequently used for reasoning - @sanerAnalogiesOutBlue1999]]

Related to this is [[EVD - In a design team, concepts tended to be more similar to their immediately preceding concepts after far analogy use compared to using near or no analogies - @chanImpactAnalogiesCreative2015]]. This isn't *quite* a measure of novelty as we normally think of it (the reference for similarity is concepts generated in the last 10 or 5 lines). But it at least opposes the idea that you might be primarily using far analogies to get some distance from where you currently are.

Dunbar also claims that [[CLM - far analogies are systematically overrated in their importance for creative breakthroughs due to memory bias - @dunbarHowScientistsThink1997]]

[[EVD - In general, MechE students' ideas when given near analogies were at least as novel, and sometimes moreso, then ideas generated with far analogies, or seeing nothing - @tsengRoleTimingAnalogical2008]]

{{synthesis}}

this is Supported By

@chanBenefitsPitfallsAnalogies2011

@chiuInvestigatingEffectsOppositely2012

@henderExaminationImpactStimuli2002

@malagaEffectStimulusModes2000

@tsengRoleTimingAnalogical2008

@fuMeaningFarImpact2013

@althuizenSupportingCreativeProblem2014

@chanBestDesignIdeas2015

@gilonAnalogyMiningSpecific2018

@kalogerakisDevelopingInnovationsBased2010

@sioFixationInspirationMetaanalytic2015

@bergPrimalMarkHow2014

@wilsonEffectsBiologicalExamples2010

@goncalvesInspirationPeakExploring2013

@wang2019wikipedia

ease of mapping

@gentnerStructureMappingAnalogy1997

@holyoakMentalLeapsAnalogy1996

@pozeAnalogicalConnectionsEssence1983

@wardAnalogicalDistancePurpose1998

{{DONE}} @kneelandExploringUnchartedTerritory2020

{{DONE}} @artsParadiseNoveltyLoss2018a

{{DONE}} @uzziAtypicalCombinationsScientific2013

{{DONE}} @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017

[[EVD - patents filed by inventors who was new to the patent's field tended to be more novel; this was less true if they collaborated with an expert in the new field - @artsParadiseNoveltyLoss2018a]]

[[EVD - patents filed by inventors who was new to the patent's field tended to receive slightly fewer citations, except when they collaborated with an expert in the new field - @artsParadiseNoveltyLoss2018a]]

[[EVD - papers with high median conventionality and high tail atypical combinations of journals they cited were 2x more likely than average to be in top 5 percent of citation distribution - @uzziAtypicalCombinationsScientific2013]]

[[EVD - patenting teams with a greater number of prior patenting fields were more likely to generate patents that were technological outliers - @kneelandExploringUnchartedTerritory2020]]

[[EVD - highly novel papers had higher variance in their citation outcomes over a 15-year window, biased towards the higher impact tail of the distribution - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

[[EVD - highly novel combinations of cited journals in a paper were almost always cross-disciplinary, but cross-disciplinary combinations were infrequently novel - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

[[EVD - highly novel papers were more likely to be in the top 1% of citations in the long run, but not in the short run, and particularly in other fields - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

[[EVD - highly novel papers were more likely to be published in lower impact journals - @wangBiasNoveltyScience2017]]

These are technically not analogies, but are somewhat relatinoal in that the stimulus words are verbs

Telling that I previously classified this study as "anecdotal"! Yikes... This was a rigorously done multiple-case-study analysis.