That is a great question, because I was trained in the U.S. in a big communication program. My whole training, first of all, was probably the happiest years of my career in academia so far, because I was concerned about doing good research! I read papers and ask research questions, talk to my advisors about research projects that I was very excited about. But when I graduated and started my career in Asia, I found that culturally, universities have different ways to evaluate scholarship. In the U.S. schools are more concerned about, “Are you actively producing papers? We don't care where you publish those papers, but we need to see a healthy line of production.” In Asia, there are a lot more rules. Here in Hong Kong, universities want to have this elaborate quantifiable criteria to evaluate their faculty members, so you have to publish a paper in “this tier” of a journal in order for it to “count”, and you have to be the first author, lead author, or single author. I would say that in Asia, the schools place more emphasis on seeking grants and doing grant-funded research. The connotation of that, is forcing you to do research that would solve “real-world” problems. I can't just be concerned about asking theoretically meaningful questions, I have to find ways to marry theoretical contribution with practical contribution. So, one way that I can learn from established scholars, especially those who are successful at both, is where do they get their inspiration in terms of what they do for their next project? Where do they get ideas for writing grant proposals?