Using a large firm-level panel dataset for Japan, this paper examines the effects of the structure of supply chain networks on productivity and innovation capability through knowledge diffusion. We find that ties with distant suppliers improve productivity (as measured by sales per worker) more than ties with neighboring suppliers, which is likely because distant firms’ intermediates embody more diversified knowledge than those from neighboring firms. Ties with neighboring clients improve productivity more than ties with distant clients, which is likely because neighboring clients more effectively diffuse disembodied knowledge than distant clients. By contrast, ties with distant suppliers and clients improve innovative capability (as measured by the number of registered patents), whereas ties with neighboring suppliers or clients do not affect innovative capability. In addition, the density of a firm's ego network (as measured by how densely its supply chain partners transact with one another) has a negative effect on productivity and innovative capability, implying knowledge redundancy in dense networks. These results suggest that access to diversified ties is important for improving productivity and innovation capability through knowledge diffusion

Background: It is increasingly acknowledged that technical expertise is not sufficient for engineers today, given the complex intercultural global contexts in which they are required to work. This article, therefore, examines how the concept of culture is typically operationalized in engineering education and discusses possible reasons for this approach.Purpose/Hypothesis: The specific research question explored here is “How is culture conceptualized in engineering education?”Design/Method: To examine this previously unasked question, a mixed‐methods methodology was developed, one that uses both quantitative and qualitative tools. More specifically, a corpus‐assisted discourse analysis of relevant engineering education articles published in leading academic journals between 2000 and 2015 was combined with a close reading of each and a critical discussion of two representative articles.Results: Our findings reveal that, first, intercultural communication has not received the attention it deserves, given the multidisciplinary, diverse, global nature of the engineering profession. Furthermore, when intercultural concerns are discussed, the predominant approach is essentialist, meaning that culture is regarded as given (rather than constructed), framed in terms of differences between nations and potentially offering a causal explanation for individual behavior. This approach has been criticized for reinforcing stereotypical thinking and offering simplistic answers to complex problems.Conclusions: We conclude by exploring reasons for the relatively wide‐spread acceptance of the “culture‐as‐given” approach in engineering education, then by urging educators to adopt a “small culture” approach for constructing culture in engineering, and finally by suggesting alternative ways for developing intercultural communicative competence.