This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hage, J. Articles by Hollingsworth, J. R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A Strategy for the Analysis of Idea Innovation Networks and Institutions

Department of Sociology, University of Maryland, College Park, USA

J. Rogers Hollingsworth

Departments of History and Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA

The perspective of this paper is that variation in commercially successful radical product/process innovations among science-based industrial sectors can be explored by focusing on idea innovation networks. Idea innovation networks have six arenas reflecting research basic research, applied research, product development research, production research, quality control research, and commercialization/ marketing research. The paper develops two interrelated hypotheses. The first is that the greater the diversity of competencies or knowledges that are connected with frequent and intense communication within an arena and the greater the size of the arena, and the greater the likelihood that radical innovations will emerge. The second hypothesis involves the same kind of logic: if radical solutions are to occur in more than one arena, there must be intense and frequent communication among the different arenas involving radically new ways of thinking. Radical research solutions in one arena usually involve tacit knowledge and to be effectively communicated to another arena, both tacit knowledge and codified knowledge must be communicated across arenas. However, the communication of tacit knowledge is more likely to occur when there is frequent and intense communication across arenas.

In analyzing connectedness, the authors draw on the literatures about organizational innovation and organizational learning. In addition, they recognize that institutional environments shape the size of research arenas and the connectedness within and among them. The suggestion is that the more similarity there is across sectors, in patterns of research arena size and connectedness, the greater the support for a national system of innovation interpretation. Contrariwise, less similarity of network arena characteristics across sectors may mean more support for the strong role of globalization forces in affecting innovation.

Key Words: business systems • globalization • institutions • national systems of innovation • radical innovation • social system of production

Organization Studies, Vol. 21, No. 5, 971-1004 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/0170840600215006


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Hollingsworth and K. H. Muller Transforming socio-economics with a new epistemology Socioecon. Rev., July 1, 2008; 6(3): 395 - 426. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Crouch and H. Farrell Breaking the Path of Institutional Development? Alternatives to the New Determinism Rationality and Society, February 1, 2004; 16(1): 5 - 43. [Abstract] [PDF]