Framing Innovation Opportunities While Staying Committed to an Organizational Epistemic Stance

References

• Abrahamson E (1991) Managerial fads and fashions—The diffusion and rejection of innovations. Acad. Management Rev. 16(3):586–612.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Afuah A, Tucci CL (2012) Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Acad. Management Rev. 37(3):355–375.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Dhar V (2014) Editorial—Big data, data science, and analytics: The opportunity and challenge for IS research. Inform. Systems Res. 25(3):443–448.Link, Google Scholar
• Ansari SM, Fiss PC, Zajac EJ (2010) Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Acad. Management Rev. 35(1):67–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Aral S, Dellarocas C, Godes D (2013) Introduction to the special issue—Social media and business transformation: A framework for research. Inform. Systems Res. 24(1):3–13.Link, Google Scholar
• Barley SR (1986) Technology as an occasion for structuring—Evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social-order of radiology departments. Admin. Sci. Quart. 31(1):78–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barrett M, Heracleous L, Walsham G (2013) A rhetorical approach to IT diffusion: Reconceptualizing the ideology-framing relationship in computerization movements. MIS Quart. 37(1):201–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barry K, Domb E, Slocum M (2015) What is TRIZ? TRIZ J. (2010):603–632.Google Scholar
• Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: The transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ. Sci. 14(3):312–330.Link, Google Scholar
• Beckman CM (2006) The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Acad. Management J. 49(4):741–758.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berente N, Hansen S, Pike JC, Bateman PJ (2011) Arguing the value of virtual worlds: Patterns of discursive sensemaking of an innovative technology. MIS Quart. 35(3):685–710.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boland RJ, Lyytinen K, Yoo Y (2007) Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organ. Sci. 18(4):631–647.Link, Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Lakhani KR (2013) Using the crowd as an innovation partner. Harvard Bus. Rev. 91(4):60–69.Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Lacetera N, Lakhani KR (2011) Incentives and problem uncertainty in innovation contests: An empirical analysis. Management Sci. 57(5):843–863.Link, Google Scholar
• Bueno O (2015) Realism and anti-realism about science. Internat. J. Study Skepticism 5(2):145–167.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organ. Sci. 13(4):442–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Chakravartty A (2011) A puzzle about voluntarism about rational epistemic stances. Synthese 178(1):37–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chakravartty A (2015) Suspension of belief and epistemologies of science. Internat. J. Study Skepticism 5(2):168–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Daft RL, Weick KE (1984) Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Acad. Management Rev. 9(2):284–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davidson E (2002) Technology frames and framing: A socio-cognitive investigation of requirements determination. MIS Quart. 26(4):329–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davidson E, Pai D (2004) Making sense of technological frames: Promise, progress, and potential. Kaplan B, Truex DP III, Wood-Harper AT, DeGross JI, eds. Information Systems Research, IFIP Internat. Federation Inform. Processing, Vol. 143 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg), 473–491.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 48(2):147–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dougherty D, Dunne DD (2012) Digital science and knowledge boundaries in complex innovation. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1467–1484.Link, Google Scholar
• Eggers J, Kaplan S (2013) Cognition and capabilities: A multi-level perspective. Acad. Management Ann. 7(1):295–340.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Schoonhoven CB (1990) Organizational growth: Linking founding team, strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1978–1988. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(3):504–529.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feldman MS, Orlikowski WJ (2011) Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organ. Sci. 22(5):1240–1253.Link, Google Scholar
• Felin T, Zenger TR (2014) Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice. Res. Policy 43(5):914–925.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fichman RG (2004a) Going beyond the dominant paradigm for information technology innovation research: Emerging concepts and methods. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 5(8):314–355.Google Scholar
• Fichman RG (2004b) Real options and IT platform adoption: Implications for theory and practice. Inform. Systems Res. 15(2):132–154.Link, Google Scholar
• Flyvbjerg B (2011) The case study. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, eds. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 301–316.Google Scholar
• Garud R, Gehman J, Kumaraswamy A (2011) Complexity arrangements for sustained innovation: Lessons from 3M Corporation. Organ. Stud. 32(6):737–767.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quart. 30(3):611–642.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregory RW, Keil M, Muntermann J, Mähring M (2015) Paradoxes and the nature of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs. Inform. Systems Res. 26(1):57–80.Link, Google Scholar
• Griffith TL (1999) Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Acad. Management Rev. 24(3):472–488.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargadon A, Sutton RI (1997) Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(4):716–749.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hargadon AB, Bechky BA (2006) When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organ. Sci. 17(4):484–500.Link, Google Scholar
• Hedstrom M, King JL (2006) Epistemic Infrastructure in the Rise of the Knowledge Economy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Howe J (2006) The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine 14(6):1–4.Google Scholar
• Jeppesen LB, Frederiksen L (2006) Why do users contribute to firm-hosted user communities? The case of computer-controlled music instruments. Organ. Sci. 17(1):45–63.Link, Google Scholar
• Jeppesen LB, Lakhani KR (2010) Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organ. Sci. 21(5):1016–1033.Link, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (2008) Cognition, capabilities, and incentives: Assessing firm response to the fiber-optic revolution. Acad. Management J. 51(4):672–695.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Tripsas M (2008) Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change. Res. Policy 37(5):790–805.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kilduff M, Mehra A, Dunn MB (2011) From blue sky research to problem solving: A philosophy of science theory of new knowledge production. Acad. Management Rev. 36(2):297–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knorr Cetina K (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lakhani KR, Lifshitz-Assaf H, Tushman ML (2013) Open innovation and organizational boundaries: Task decomposition, knowledge distribution and the locus of innovation. Grandori A, ed. Handbook of Economic Organization: Integrating Economic and Organizational Theory (Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA),355–382.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levina N, Orlikowski WJ (2009) Understanding shifting power relations within and across organizations: A critical genre analysis. Acad. Management J. 52(4):672–703.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lifshitz-Assaf H (2015) From problem solvers to solution seekers: The permeation of knowledge boundaries at NASA. Working paper, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
• Lyytinen K, Damsgaard J (2001) What’s wrong with the diffusion of innovation theory? Ardis MA, Marcolin BL, eds. Diffusing Software Product and Process Innovations, Internat. Federation Inform. Processing, Vol. 59 (Springer Science+Business Media, New York), 173–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyytinen K, Damsgaard J (2011) Inter-organizational information systems adoption—A configuration analysis approach. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 20(5):496–509.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McAfee A, Brynjolfsson E (2012) Big data: The management revolution. Harvard Bus. Rev. 90(10):60–66.Google Scholar
• Newell S, Swan JA, Galliers RD (2000) A knowledge-focused perspective on the diffusion and adoption of complex information technologies: The BPR example. Inform. Systems J. 10(3):239–259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ (1996) Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Inform. Systems Res. 7(1):63–92.Link, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ (2000) Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organ. Sci. 11(4):404–428.Link, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ, Baroudi JJ (1991) Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Inform. Systems Res. 2(1):1–28.Link, Google Scholar
• Orlikowski WJ, Gash DC (1994) Technological frames: Making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Trans. Inform. Systems 12(2):174–207.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pentland BT (1995) Information systems and organizational learning: The social epistemology of organizational knowledge systems. Accounting, Management Inform. Tech. 5(1):1–21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pettigrew AM (1990) Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organ. Sci. 1(3):267–292.Link, Google Scholar
• Piezunka H, Dahlander L (2015) Distant search, narrow attention: How crowding alters organizations’ filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing. Acad. Management J. 58(3):856–880.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ratcliffe M (2011) Stance, feeling and phenomenology. Synthese 178(1):121–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of Innovations (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Rowbottom D, Bueno O (2011a) How to change it: Modes of engagement, rationality, and stance voluntarism. Synthese 178(1):7–17.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rowbottom D, Bueno O (2011b) Stance and rationality: A perspective. Synthese 178(1):1–5.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rowbottom DP (2005) The empirical stance vs. the critical attitude. South African J. Philos. 24(3):200–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schlagwein D, Bjørn-Andersen N (2014) Organizational learning with crowdsourcing: The revelatory case of LEGO. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 15(11):754–778.Google Scholar
• Schultze U, Boland R Jr (2000) Knowledge management technology and the reproduction of knowledge work practices. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 9(2):193–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swanson EB (2012) The manager’s guide to IT innovation waves. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 53(2):75–83.Google Scholar
• Swanson EB, Ramiller NC (1997) The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organ. Sci. 8(5):458–474.Link, Google Scholar
• Swanson EB, Ramiller NC (2004) Innovating mindfully with information technology. MIS Quart. 28(4):553–583.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teller P (2004) Discussion–what is a stance? Philos. Stud. 121(2):159–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Terwiesch C, Xu Y (2008) Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Sci. 54(9):1529–1543.Link, Google Scholar
• Tripsas M (2009) Technology, identity, and inertia through the lens of “The Digital Photography Company.” Organ. Sci. 20(2):441–460.Link, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA III (1996) The ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Rev. 38(4):8–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Fraassen BC (2002) The Empirical Stance (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• van Fraassen BC (2004) Replies to discussion on “The Empirical Stance.” Philos. Stud.: Internat. J. Philos. Analytic Tradition 121(2):171–192.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Fraassen BC (2011) On stance and rationality. Synthese 178(1):155–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wagner EL, Newell S (2004) “Best” for whom?: The tension between “best practice” ERP packages and diverse epistemic cultures in a university context. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 13(4):305–328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walsham G (1995a) The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Inform. Systems Res. 6(4):376–394.Link, Google Scholar
• Walsham G (1995b) Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature and method. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 4(2):74–81.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang P (2010) Chasing the hottest IT: Effects of information technology fashion on organizations. MIS Quart. 34(1):63–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in Organizations (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D (2005) Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organ. Sci. 16(4):409–421.Link, Google Scholar
• Zbaracki MJ (1998) The rhetoric and reality of total quality management. Admin. Sci. Quart. 43(3):602–636.Crossref, Google Scholar