In the long-term theoretical thinking and practical exploration process, Xi Jinping put forward a series of important views on building a maritime power. Xi Jinping's important views on building a maritime power have experienced three phases: being the first to issue the call to ″go to the sea″ (1985-1999），clearly proposing the construction of a strong marine economy province (1999-2012)，and solemnly declaring the construction of a maritime power (2012-）. The development from economic construction to marine economic construction is a major expansion of the construction field from land to sea,of the construction vision from domestic to international, and of the strategic thinking from passive to active. From the construction of a marine economy to the construction of a strong province of marine economy, it is the process of expanding the construction scope from the local city to the provincial province, the construction level from the prefecture level to the provincial level, and the construction goal from a big marine economy to a strong marine economy. From the construction of a strong province of marine economy to the construction of a maritime power, it is the process of improving the development level from the provincial level to the national level. It is the process of expanding the development content from marine economy to marine ecology, marine science and technology, and maritime rights and interests. It is the process of changing the development mode from bottom-up to top-down. Xi Jinping's important views on building a maritime power mainly include the development of the marine economy, the protection of marine ecology, the innovation of marine science and technology, and the maintenance of maritime rights, etc. The main arguments for the development of the marine economy include the expansion of the ocean economy, the optimization of the marine industry structure, the strengthening of marine infrastructure, the cultivation of strategic marine emerging industries, and the advancement of the marine economic system. The arguments for the protection of marine ecology mainly include four theories: ″marine ecological life″, ″blue sea silver beach resources″, ″marine ecology for the people″, and ″co-ordinate land and sea″. The main arguments for the innovation of marine science and technology include four theories: ″marine science and technology bottleneck″, ″key science and technology innovation″, ″marine science and technology transformation″, and ″smart ocean construction″. The arguments for safeguarding maritime rights and interests mainly include enhancing marine sovereignty and security awareness, negotiating maritime disputes, improving marine rights protection capabilities, and promoting ocean-friendly cooperation among nations. Xi Jinping's important exposition on building a maritime power has three distinct features: In terms of the purpose of the construction of a maritime power, he has proposed an overall plan for the co-ordination of the country's prosperity and the people's benefit. In terms of the methodology of the construction of a maritime power, he has provided us with the co-ordination methods such as contradiction and system theory. In the governance of the construction of a maritime power, he has guided us to the co-ordination of international governance and state governance. Therefore, Xi Jinping's maritime power thought has great significance. On the one hand, his view guides the coastal provinces in China to create demonstration zones for strong marine provinces. On the other hand, it strongly promotes the construction of a maritime power and has achieved major breakthroughs. Moreover, it provides ″China Program″ and ″China Experience″ for global marine governance. Under the guidance of Xi Jinping's important view on building a maritime power, the quantity and quality of China's marine economy have risen steadily, the marine environment has begun to improve, marine technology has achieved major breakthroughs, maritime rights has been effectively maintained, and global marine governance has accelerated.

In recent years, with the rapid development of Internet and Information Technology and the subsequent cybersecurity problems, it appears to be of particular significance to provide legislative guarantee to cybersecurity by establishing the legislative system. Therefore, various jurisdictions have introduced cybersecurity laws and regulations and supporting polices to regulate cyberspace behaviors so as to safeguard national cybersecurity and public interests. With three specially created corpora of cybersecurity laws and regulations of the United States, China and European Union, this study integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches: on one hand, the corpus analysis software, Sketch Engine, is utilized to deal with the data in three corpora; on the other hand, from a semiotic perspective, this study attempts to investigate the convergence and divergence of cybersecurity laws in the United States, China and European Union respectively and to probe into the potential reasons for this so as to provide enlightening insights into legal interpretation and transplantation concerning cybersecurity and the improvement of the China cybersecurity legal system. Through preliminary data analysis, a semiotic interpretation and empirical research, several conclusions are drawn as follows: First of all, ″information (data)″ is a high-frequency word in three corpora, which indicates that ″information (data)″ is the key regulated object of cybersecurity law in the United States, China and the European Union. Furthermore, the collocations of ″information″ ″data″ “信息” and “数据”,are examined. It is found that the legal hierarchy of Chinese cybersecurity laws and regulations is relatively low with fewer epistatic laws, which is evidenced by the legal constitution of each corpus and laws and regulations concerning ″sensitive information″. Moreover, the types of information regulated by law are distinct from one another in the three corpora, and even for the same information type mentioned by different jurisdictions, its legal meaning may be constructed in various ways, such as ″sensitive information″ and ″copyright management information″, which is mainly attributed to distinct legal systems, ICT levels as well as social development situations in different jurisdictions. Therefore, as legal signs, the cybersecurity law and its legal terms are spatial and their meanings can be interpreted in various ways in different jurisdictions. Only in a particular jurisdiction can the meanings of cybersecurity law and its legal terms exist. In addition, due to its temporality, a cybersecurity law and its legal terms may change with the times and technological innovations, which results in the occurrence of new types of information. It is mainly reflected in three aspects: the lawmaking based on new cybersecurity challenges and crises arising in the society; the lawmaking or revision relevant to new technologies and business; and the formulation of basic cybersecurity law. For instance, due to the technological advances and social development, the content ranges of ″special categories of data″ and of ″personal data″ prescribed in the 1995 European Union Data Protection Directive are expanded in the European Union's 2016 General Data Protection Regulation. Thus, it can be concluded that the meanings of cybersecurity law and its legal terms should be reconstructed to accommodate the creative and dynamic society. Additionally, due to the conflict between the traditional legal system and terms and the rapid development of virtual cyberspace, the system of accusation and the standard of criminal penalty should be contextually reconstructed to adjust to the cyberspace. Thirdly, the imbalance of social development, law development and a country’s Internet technology levels decides the necessity of legal transplantation, during which the spatial feature of cybersecurity law and its terms, national conditions as well as the compatibility between foreign law and domestic law need to be taken fully into account, and foreign law and its terms cannot be deemed as texts in a vacuum. The legal meanings of the traditional cybersecurity legal system and legal terms should be reconstructed to adapt to the development and changes of the virtual cyberspace. Additionally, every construction, deconstruction and reconstruction of cybersecurity law and its legal terms serving as legal signs is the interaction between law and society. The roles of relevant social institutions should be given full play through social surveys in order for specific issues to serve as proof or evidence for defining and revising the law. Last but not the least, the quantitative corpus approach contributes to mining new contents and analytical methods for traditional scientific research, which is conductive to digging out the textual meanings of legal signs and to a better understanding of the divergence and convergence of meanings of legal terms in different jurisdictions.

Ambidexterity has been regarded as an emerging research paradigm in the organizational field. The current literature has reached some consensuses that effectively broaden and deepen our understanding of ambidexterity, but has also brought us some confusion about the construct itself and raised issues about what we know and don't know. Based on a systematic review of 79 papers published in mainstream organization and management journals, this paper summarizes and analyzes the evolution of this research field from five aspects: conceptual connotation, measurement, value effect boundary, implementation mechanisms and impact factors. This systematic review indicates that exploration and exploitation can be conceptualized either as the two poles of the same continuum, conflicting against each other, or as discrete activities, orthogonal and complementary to each other. Corresponding to the conflicting view, ambidexterity can be captured by computing the absolute difference of exploration and exploitation. In line with the orthogonal view, scholars tend to capture a firm's ambidexterity by computing the multiplicative interaction between exploration and exploitation or by adding the two. However, no matter which measurement strategy is employed, scholars failed to obtain adequate and consistent empirical evidence on the positive relationship between organizational ambidexterity and firm performance. Thus, recent researches have emphasized the importance of examining the boundary conditions of organizational ambidexterity. The mixed results of prior researches did not weaken the academic passion to explore the mechanisms that managers adopt to achieve ambidexterity at multiple organizational levels. In the extant literature, three mechanisms are identified, that is, structural ambidexterity, sequential ambidexterity, and contextual ambidexterity. More recently, given the importance of ambidexterity, a number of studies have attempted to understand its antecedents. Previous literature maintained that environmental conditions in terms of dynamism and competitiveness, organizational attributes such as structural differentiation, coordination, and organizational context, as well as attributes of top managers such as transformational leadership enable firms to balance the conflicting demands of explorative and exploitative activities and thus to achieve ambidexterity. Based on the paradigm framework, this paper presents four important avenues for future research, and points out that future work on ambidexterity must: (1) focus on the organizational level of analysis; (2) look at the essence of ambidexterity as an organizational ability; (3) capture the organizational ambidexterity based on the explicit organizational behaviors; and (4) identify the value intervals of ambidexterity and punctuated equilibrium or organizational vacillation. This paper makes three major contributions to the literature. First, it bridges the gap between the ambidexterity literature and the resource-capability view of the firm by emphasizing its ability nature, which will promote the inheritance and development of organization theory. Second, by articulating the differences between organizational ambidexterity and punctuated equilibrium, this paper provides a point of departure for the clarification of the confusions in extant literature about the implementation mechanisms of ambidexterity. Third, this paper serves as a starting point to effectively integrate the research findings obtained from different levels of analysis by clarifying that ambidexterity is an organizational level phenomenon and by emphasizing that future research must focus on the dynamic processes underlying its emergence.