Risky Recombinations: Institutional Gatekeeping in the Innovation Process

References

• Andrews KT, Caren N (2010) Making the news: Movement organizations, media attention, and the public agenda. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 75(6):841–866.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Azoulay P, Stuart T, Wang Y (2013) Matthew: Effect or fable? Management Sci. 60(1):92–109.Link, Google Scholar
• Bessen JE (2003) Patent thickets: Strategic patenting of complex technologies. Working paper, Boston University School of Law, Boston.Google Scholar
• Boudreau KJ, Guinan E, Lakhani KR, Riedl C (2016) Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: Intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Management Sci. 62(10):2765–2783.Link, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2004) Structural holes and good ideas. Amer. J. Sociol. 110(2):349–399.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carley M, Hegde D, Marco A (2015) What is the probability of receiving a U.S. patent? Yale J. Law Tech. 17(1):203–223.Google Scholar
• Carnabuci G (2014) Knowledge brokering. Augier M, Teece DJ, eds. Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management (Palgrave, London), http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137294678.0755.Google Scholar
• Carnabuci G, Bruggeman J (2009) Knowledge specialization, knowledge brokerage and the uneven growth of technology domains. Soc. Forces 88(2):607–641.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carnabuci G, Operti E (2012) Good for one, bad for most? Intrafirm networks and innovation at the inventor and firm level. Acad. Management Annual Meetings Proc., 1.Google Scholar
• Carnabuci G, Operti E (2013) Where do firms’ recombinant capabilities come from? Intraorganizational networks, knowledge, and firms’ ability to innovate through technological recombination. Strategic Management J. 34(13):1591–1613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chaffin DT, Heidl RA, Chari M, Calantone R (2013) The role of examiner workload and applicant reputation in intellectual property protection. Acad. Management Annual Meetings Proc., 1442–1447.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clayman SE, Reisner A (1998) Gatekeeping in action: Editorial conferences and assessments of newsworthiness. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 63(2):178–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coffee JC Jr (2006) Gatekeepers: The Professions and Corporate Governance (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Corredoira RA, Banerjee PM (2014) Measuring patents’ influence on technological evolution: A study of knowledge spanning as driver of inventive activity. Robert H. Smith School Research Paper No. RHS 2428452, University of Maryland, College Park. Google Scholar
• Criscuolo P, Dahlander L, Grohsjean T, Salter A (2016) Evaluating novelty: The role of panels in the selection of R&D projects. Acad. Management J., ePub ahead of print March 8, http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2014.0861.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res. Policy 11(3):147–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dokko G, Wu G (2009) Typecasting entrepreneurs: Boundary-crossing and firm performance in high-tech ventures. Working paper, University of California, Davis, Davis.Google Scholar
• Durand R, McGuire J (2005) Legitimating agencies in the face of selection: The case of AACSB. Organ. Stud. 26(2):165–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• European Patent Office (EPO) (2011) Search procedure. Accessed July 12, 2013, https://www.epo.org/about-us/jobs/examiners/what/search.html.Google Scholar
• Ferguson JP, Hasan S (2013) Specialization and career dynamics: Evidence from the Indian administrative service. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(2):233–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming L (2001) Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Sci. 47(1):117–132.Link, Google Scholar
• Fleming L, Sorenson O (2001) Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Res. Policy 30(7):1019–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming L, Sorenson O (2004) Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management J. 25(8–9):909–928.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fleming L, Mingo S, Chen D (2007) Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(3):443–475.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Foray D (2006) Economics of Knowledge (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Goossen MC (2014) Internal networks, external networks, and firm innovation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, HEC Paris, Paris.Google Scholar
• Greene WH (1994) Accounting for excess zeros and sample selection in Poisson and negative binomial regression models. Working Paper EC-94-10, Department of Economics, Stern School of Business, New York University, New York.Google Scholar
• Gruber M, Harhoff D, Hoisl K (2013) Knowledge recombination across technological boundaries: Scientists versus engineers. Management Sci. 59(4):837–851.Link, Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Pólos L, Carroll GR (2007) Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).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 (2002) Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Staw BM, Kramer RM, eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 (Elsevier, Amsterdam), 41–85.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Reitzig M (2004) Determinants of opposition against EPO patent grants—The case of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. 22(4):443–480.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Harhoff D, Wagner S (2009) The duration of patent examination at the European patent office. Management Sci. 55(12):1969–1984.Link, Google Scholar
• Hsu DH, Lim K (2014) Knowledge brokering and organizational innovation: Founder imprinting effects. Organ. Sci. 25(4):1134–1153.Link, Google Scholar
• Hsu G, Elsbach KD (2012) Explaining variation in organizational identity categorization. Organ. Sci. 24(4):996–1013.Link, Google Scholar
• Hsu G, Hannan MT, Koçak Ö (2009) Multiple category memberships in markets: An integrative theory and two empirical tests. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 74(1):150–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang YF, Chen CJ (2010) The impact of technological diversity and organizational slack on innovation. Technovation 30(7):420–428.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaffe AB, de Rassenfosse G (2016) Patent citation data in social science research: Overview and best practices. Working Paper 21868, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S, Vakili K (2015) The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic Management J. 36(10):1435–1457.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kim SK, Arthurs JD, Sahaym A, Cullen JB (2013) Search behavior of the diversified firm: The impact of fit on innovation. Strategic Management J. 34(8):999–1009.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kovacs B, Hannan MT (2011) Category spanning, distance and appeal. Stanford Graduate School of Business Research Paper No. 2081R, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Lazaridis G, van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie B (2007) The rigor of EPO’s patentability criteria: An insight into the “induced withdrawals.” World Patent Inform. 29(4):317–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leahey E (2006) Gender differences in productivity: Research specialization as a missing link. Gender Soc. 20(6):754–780.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leahey E (2007) Not by productivity alone: How visibility and specialization contribute to academic earnings. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 72(4):533–561.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leahey E, Beckman CM, Stanko T (2016) Prominent but less productive: The impact of interdisciplinarity on scientists’ research. Admin. Sci. Quart., ePub ahead of print August 29, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001839216665364.Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Sampat B (2008) Is the patent office a rubber stamp? Emory Law J. 58(1):101–128.Google Scholar
• Lemley MA, Sampat B (2012) Examiner characteristics and patent office outcomes. Rev. Econom. Stud. 94(3):817–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J (1994) The importance of patent scope: An empirical analysis. RAND J. Econom. 25(2):319–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McNeil K, Minihan E (1977) Regulation of medical devices and organizational behavior in hospitals. Admin. Sci. Quart. 22(3):475–490.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merluzzi J, Phillips DJ (2015) The specialist discount: Negative returns for MBAs with focused profiles in investment banking. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(1):87–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer M (2000) What is so special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics 49(1):93–123.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Michel J, Bettels B (2001) Patent citation analysis: A closer look at the basic input data from patent search reports. Scientometrics 51(1):185–201.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Miller DJ, Fern MT, Cardinal LB (2007) The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Acad. Management J. 50(2):308–326.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mokyr J (2002) The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Mukherjee S, Uzzi B, Jones B, Stringer M (2016) A new method for identifying recombinations of existing knowledge associated with high-impact innovation. J. Product Innovation Management 33(2):224–236.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nerkar A (2003) Old is gold? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Management Sci. 49(2):211–229.Link, Google Scholar
• Polidoro F (2013) The competitive implications of certifications: The effects of scientific and regulatory certifications on entries into new technical fields. Acad. Management J. 56(2):597–627.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter AL, Rossini FA (1985) Peer review of interdisciplinary research proposals. Sci., Tech., Human Values 10(3):33–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Quillen CD, Webster OH (2006) Continuing patent applications and performance of the U.S. patent and trademark office–updated. Federal Circuit Bar J. 15(4):635–677.Google Scholar
• Reagans RE, Zuckerman EW (2008) Why knowledge does not equal power: The network redundancy trade-off. Indust. Corporate Change 17(5):903–944.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A (2001) Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management J. 22(4):287–306.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ruef M, Patterson K (2009) Credit and classification: The impact of industry boundaries in 19th century America. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(3):486–520.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sampson RC (2007) R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Acad. Management J. 50(2):364–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling MA, Green E (2011) Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences. Res. Policy 40(10):1321–1331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Short JL, Toffel MW, Hugill AR (2013) What shapes the gatekeepers? Evidence from global supply chain auditors. Working Paper 14-032, Technology and Operations Management Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sine WD, David RJ, Mitsuhashi H (2007) From plan to plant: Effects of certification on operational start-up in the emergent independent power sector. Organ. Sci. 18(4):578–594.Link, Google Scholar
• Singh J, Fleming L (2010) Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: Myth or reality? Management Sci. 56(1):41–56.Link, Google Scholar
• Slager R, Gond JP, Moon J (2012) Standardization as institutional work: The regulatory power of a responsible investment standard. Organ. Stud. 33(5-6):763–790.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sorenson O, Fleming L (2004) Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Res. Policy 33(10):1615–1634.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sorenson O, Rivkin JW, Fleming L (2006) Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Res. Policy 35(7):994–1017.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Srivastava MK, Gnyawali DR (2011) When do relational resources matter? Leveraging portfolio technological resources for breakthrough innovation. Acad. Management J. 54(4):797–810.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sterzi V (2013) Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting. Res. Policy 42(2):564–576.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tan D (2015) To fail in (demonstrating) originality: How disconformity obscures distinctiveness. Working paper, Foster School of Business, University of Washington, Seattle.Google Scholar
• Tushman ML (1977) Special boundary roles in the innovation process. Admin. Sci. Quart. 22(4):587–605.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Scanlan TJ (1981) Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Acad. Management J. 24(2):289–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B, Mukherjee S, Stringer M, Jones B (2013) Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342(6157):468–472.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van Zeebroeck N, van Pottelsberge de la Potterie B, Guellec D (2009) Claiming more: The increased voluminosity of patent applications and its determinants. Res. Policy 38(6):1006–1020.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vaupel JW, Manton KG, Stallard E (1979) The impact of heterogeneity in individual frailty on the dynamics of mortality. Demography 16(3):439–454.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Graevenitz G, Wagner S, Harhoff D (2011) How to measure patent thickets—A novel approach. Econom. Lett. 111(1):6–9.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang C, Rodan S, Fruin M, Xu X (2014) Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Acad. Management J. 57(2):484–514.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang DJ, Soule SA (2012) Social movement organizational collaboration: Networks of learning and the diffusion of protest tactics, 1960–1995. Amer. J. Sociol. 117(6):1674–1722.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Webster E, Jensen PH, Palangkaray A (2014) Patent examination outcomes and the national treatment principle. RAND J. Econom. 45(2):449–469.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (1999) Quasi-likelihood methods for count data. Pesaran MH, Schmidt P, eds. Handbook of Applied Econometrics, Vol. II (Blackwell, Oxford, UK), 352–406.Google Scholar
• Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in the production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yayavaram S, Ahuja G (2008) Technological search and decomposability in knowledge structures: Impact on invention utility and knowledge base malleability. Admin. Sci. Quart. 53(2):333–362.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (1999) The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5):1398–1438.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (2003) Bringing (crude) functionalism back in. Accounts (Spring):11–4.Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (2004) Structural incoherence and stock market activity. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 69(3):405–432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW, Kim TY, Ukanwa K, von Rittman J (2003) Robust identities or non-entities? Typecasting in the feature-film labor market. Amer. J. Sociol. 108(5):1018–1074.Crossref, Google Scholar