Positioning Research on Novel Phenomena: The Winding Road From Periphery to Core
2023; Academy of Management; Volume: 66; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.5465/amj.2023.4005
ISSN1948-0989
AutoresJohn C. Dencker, Marc Gruber, Toyah L. Miller, Elizabeth D. Rouse, Georg von Krogh,
Tópico(s)scientometrics and bibliometrics research
ResumoAcademy of Management JournalVol. 66, No. 5 From the EditorsFree AccessPositioning Research on Novel Phenomena: The Winding Road From Periphery to CoreJohn C. Dencker, Marc Gruber, Toyah Miller, Elizabeth D. Rouse and Georg von KroghJohn C. DenckerNortheastern University, Marc GruberEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Toyah MillerGeorge Mason University, Elizabeth D. RouseBoston College and Georg von KroghETH ZurichPublished Online:17 Oct 2023https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2023.4005AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Widespread and extensive changes in societies and economies have substantially altered the way that organizations are structured, managed, and governed, with new technologies, as well as important and dynamic societal and organizational concerns and pursuits, often transforming both the nature and meaning of work and the workplace. A key priority of the 2023–2025 editorial term of the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) is to publish research that increases knowledge of how these transformational times in which we live affect managers and employees, and the organizations for which they work (Gruber, 2023). A critical implication of this overarching goal is that we encourage the scholarly study and explanation of novel phenomena—"regularities that are unexpected, that challenge existing knowledge (including the extant theory) and that are relevant to scientific discourse" (von Krogh, Rossi-Lamastra, & Haefliger, 2012: 278)—that characterize the current dynamic era. For instance, there has been renewed practical and theoretical interest in understanding humanics—the classical Greek notion of balanced individuals—in an environment of increasing automation and use of artificial intelligence; as well as managerial and scholarly interest in exploring how ever-changing diverse groups can manage sustainable organizations in the dynamic contexts in which they exist.Engaging in research on novel phenomena, while potentially quite rewarding, is also quite challenging and risky due to its inherent uncertainty and the potential disorder that it can create. Thus, even though AMJ audiences typically desire to see novelty in research, novel studies may be difficult to understand, and at times audiences may be resistant to such novelty if it challenges the dominant view in a field (Wang, Veugelers, & Stephan, 2017). In fact, we know people are biased against novelty even if they say they want it (Mueller, Melwani, & Goncalo, 2012). In other words, while consumers of research value novelty, they also expect that such novelty is legitimate. In this case, the legitimate distinctiveness aspect of novelty is "paradoxical because it embeds both conformity and deviance, contrasting identity elements that are contradictory or oppositional" (Navis & Glynn, 2011: 480).To increase their chances of success and to overcome the challenges they face while engaging in research on novel phenomena, scholars will need to consider how to best position this research effectively so that their studies make strong, impactful contributions to management knowledge (Wang et al., 2017). For example, authors will need to not only identify and specify what is novel in their research vis-à-vis the extant literature, but also validate the importance of the novel aspects so that the new ideas are liberated and become a part of received wisdom.In this "From the Editors," we seek to help authors position their research on novel phenomena effectively and to legitimize the contributions they seek to make to management knowledge. To do so, it is, of course, important to define novelty. While at some level novelty is distinct and clearly separate from the conventional, at some other level both are inextricably linked since novelty can be defined in relation to the conventional and often builds on, modifies, departs from, or replaces accepted wisdom. As Wagner, Whetsell, and Mukherjee (2019: 1260) noted regarding a study of novelty by Uzzi, Mukherjee, Stringer, and Jones (2013): "novel advances are accompanied by strength of conventional know-how, joined to a novel idea." Based on the notion that knowledge structures of an academic field always have a core and a periphery (Lyles & Schwenk, 2000), and that all novelty starts at the periphery, one can view novel phenomena as peripheral ideas that need to be connected to a core conventional knowledge set and legitimized through interactions between authors and reviewers and editors.To provide guidance for how authors can position their novel ideas effectively and justify the value and importance of the contribution they seek to make with their studies, we begin by situating research on novel phenomena in a core–periphery structure, highlighting critical issues that authors will need to consider in this regard. Based on this core–periphery structure, we highlight four common scenarios that authors typically encounter when studying novel phenomena. These scenarios are based on whether the peripheral phenomenon is the only novel aspect of the study, or instead whether peripheral elements also arise in a study's theory or methods. In doing so, we discuss general challenges and strategies for positioning research on novel phenomena, as well as challenges and strategies specific to each scenario. We then propose a call to action, wherein we discuss several critical decisions and trade-offs that authors need to make while seeking to publish their research on novel phenomena, as well as actions that audience members can take to help authors achieve their goals.CORE–PERIPHERY STRUCTURES IN MANAGEMENT RESEARCHCore–periphery knowledge structures have long been a part of research in management and other disciplines (e.g., Ahuja & Novelli, 2011; Lyles & Schwenk, 2000; Werr & Stjernberg, 2003; Zobel, Falcke, & Comello, 2023). In many of these studies, the core can be viewed as representing the conventional and legitimate knowledge in a field, whereas the periphery is seen as unconventional and illegitimate to varying degrees. In such knowledge structures, novelty starts at the periphery—that is, all novel phenomena are peripheral, yet not all peripheral phenomena are novel. By contrast, the core knowledge can be seen as the architecture to which novelty on the periphery is connected or which it transforms. Core elements are therefore deeply embedded in a field, whereas peripheral ones are loosely connected to the core (see Borgatti & Everett, 2000). As such, core conventional aspects provide a foundation for the novel aspects of a study to be connected. By establishing those connections, a transition from the periphery to the core will be created, which in turn allows research to become part of scientific knowledge.An important feature of core–periphery structures is that, although peripheral elements may lack novelty—for instance, because they are passé—all novel aspects originate from the periphery, and tend to also come from individuals who are not at the core of a discipline. For example, a recent language analytic study across different domains (law, politics, and business) showed that prescient ideas typically originate from individuals who are on the periphery of those domains (Vicinanza, Goldberg, & Srivastava, 2022). This finding is consistent with Schilling's (2005) notion that individuals at the periphery have a higher likelihood of creating breakthrough ideas compared to individuals who are established experts in an area. It also echoes Andy Grove's (as cited by McGrath, 2019: 9) observation that "snow melts first at the periphery," and thus transformations will be noticed initially by those who are on the periphery.Publishing research on novel peripheral phenomena requires authors to position the novel element vis-à-vis core conventional knowledge. At some base level, this positioning is defined by the core, in that the core defines what is feasible. That is, improvements stemming from the periphery often follow a linear progression because they tend to build on or depart from the core, and thus the core supplies selection criteria for novel elements. Such a linear view is somewhat restrictive, in that truly novel aspects may not be easily linked to the core. Nevertheless, this type of linear progress is more common than what scholars have sometimes assumed, and is quite powerful (Balconi, Brusoni, & Orsenigo, 2010).Publishing research on novel peripheral phenomena also requires authors to legitimize their studies to the broader management audience. An important factor to recognize in this regard is that whereas "the individual generates new ideas and variation by interacting with the field, the field, in turn, conveys legitimacy back to the individual and thus determines which ideas are retained and supported" (Cattani & Ferriani, 2008: 121). These interactions can occur at various stages of a research study, with a critical one being the review process, where authors seek to convince the field (in this case, reviewers and editors) that their novel ideas are important and can make significant contributions to the field of management. The core can serve as a legitimacy anchor, as it represents a touchstone that is easily comprehensible, familiar, and acceptable by the field (Navis & Glynn, 2011).POSITIONING RESEARCH ON NOVEL PHENOMENAPositioning research on novel phenomena is, in theory, relatively straightforward, particularly if the novel phenomena are interesting and make an important contribution to management knowledge (Tihanyi, 2020). Yet, in practice, this process is often difficult because authors, in their efforts to manage risk and increase comprehension and familiarity among audience members, need to strike an appropriate balance between the novel and the conventional in all aspects of their research. For instance, it is often the case that the phenomenon is not the only novel element in a study, as explaining these new regularities often requires novel theory or methods. Specifically, even though peripheral phenomena can at times be explained with core theory or methods, in many other instances these core theories and methods are not sufficient, and novel peripheral ones must be employed.Despite the high potential value of research on novelty (Wang et al., 2017), and the fact that some novel peripheral elements eventually become legitimate and seen as part of the core over time (Vicinanza et al., 2022), it is important to recognize that many other novel ideas whither on the vine, while other impactful work on novelty is not published in top-tier journals (Uzzi et al., 2013). These issues may be reflective of several factors, such as the research at hand being simply wrong, or being strongly resisted by institutional gatekeepers. However, the issues may also reflect the fact that novelty is not effectively positioned and legitimized, and thus, by paying attention to these issues, authors can increase the chances of a happy ending from their efforts at attempting to publish research on novel phenomena.Given the difficulty in positioning novelty within their research, authors will need to stimulate readers' sense of familiarity about the unconventional and unfamiliar ideas they put forth while at the same time demonstrating competence, rigor, and usefulness. In doing so, they will also need to manage the complexity inherent in the positioning and legitimizing processes. Authors need to provide a parsimonious account containing a clear and compelling logic for how their novel research can be seen as legitimate, interesting, and important because audience members will grapple with the considerable uncertainty regarding the complex relations between core and peripheral elements of a study, especially when multiple elements are novel.To position research on novel phenomena effectively, it is important to understand the challenges that novelty creates for authors, both generally as well as with respect to the relation among core and peripheral elements of a study. In terms of general challenges, although reviewers welcome new ideas in management research, introducing novelty leads to some level of uncertainty, with the nature and degree of uncertainty conditional on who perceives it and how. That is, novelty and its importance to scholarship is often in the eye of the beholder, and thus is specific to that audience and communicated at that level. For example, because research on novel phenomena involves a combination of core and peripheral elements, there will be audience members who are familiar with the underlying novelty, and those who are not. Moreover, these members will have certain views regarding novelty, often expecting to see it. In this regard, the audience is akin to crowdfunders, wherein ventures need to convey novelty to gain legitimacy because this novelty is normatively expected (Taeuescher, Bouncken, & Pesch, 2021). By the same token, reviewers and editors have some expectation of novelty, particularly for research aimed at studying emergent and dynamic phenomena during transformational times. As a result, it is incumbent upon authors to understand their intended audience and know how to best communicate with them about the nature and value of their novel research.As Figure 1 indicates, the challenges facing scholars seeking to position their research on novel phenomena fluctuate based on whether the peripheral aspect of a study rests solely in the phenomenon, or instead also exists in a study's theory or methods. In particular, the challenges in and strategies for positioning research on novel phenomena vary according to whether the phenomena, theory, and methods are core or peripheral.FIGURE 1 A Core–Periphery Structure for Positioning Research on Novel PhenomenaNote: X = Peripheral (rather than core).Incremental NoveltyIn the simplest scenario, "incremental novelty," the phenomenon being studied is on the periphery, but the theory and methods reside at the core. The biggest challenge authors likely face in this case lies in justifying the importance of the novel aspect. Given the AMJ editorial team's strategic focus on transformational times, many audience members will be primed to be receptive to studies of interesting contemporary phenomena. Nevertheless, the importance of the phenomena will vary both generally and in the eyes of reviewers and editors, and this will have ramifications for the chances of publishing one's work in AMJ. For instance, if the novel phenomenon simply represents a boundary condition wherein the knowledge generated from the research is incremental, justifying the contribution of the study for the journal's purposes could be challenging. Yet, even incremental contributions can have a strong impact on knowledge in the field of management, in that core theories can be extended or modified in minor—albeit important—ways to explain a key phenomenon.In other instances, research on a novel phenomenon may lead to findings that change how scholars view a field of study or the core, thereby likely increasing publication chances. For instance, inductive research may reveal important aspects of a novel phenomenon that highlight the need for new theory, and deductive research may reveal unexpected findings that question core theoretical approaches and assumptions. Nevertheless, authors will still need to show how knowledge changes because of research on the novel phenomenon, and clearly link the peripheral elements to the core ones, either by anchoring the change in the core knowledge or showing how the periphery shifts toward the core (or vice versa).In other scenarios where the phenomenon is novel (on the periphery), either the methods ("methods alignment") or the theory ("theory elaboration") are also novel (on the periphery). Such scenarios can lead to a stronger contribution to knowledge relative to the baseline scenario ("incremental novelty"), yet they are also more likely to be difficult to sell to an audience and justify as legitimate, as the balance between core and peripheral elements shifts to the novel aspects, thereby increasing uncertainty and risk for authors.Method AlignmentWhen the phenomenon and methods are on the periphery, but the theory is at the core ("method alignment"), authors will still need to clearly demonstrate the importance of the novel phenomenon. They will also need to answer key questions that are unique to this scenario, such as what is gained by introducing peripheral methods to analyze core concepts in the field, and how these new methods align with and support the research being conducted, and ultimately the theory that is selected to explain the phenomenon. For example, vast new data sets or new methods to detect novel aspects of a phenomenon, such as machine learning tools, may shed important new light onto the phenomenon (von Krogh, Roberson, & Gruber, 2023). In other instances, peripheral methods may be required to help resolve empirical constraints inherent in a core theory. For instance, in strategy, developments in econometric methods helped us better understand diversification strategies and firm performance; and in organization theory, advances in network analysis helped us move from purely descriptive studies to network dynamics.To position novel methods in the most impactful way, authors will need to clearly explain the nature of those methods, demonstrate their legitimacy, and show how they connect to the core theory and peripheral phenomenon. Presumably, if the peripheral methods are seen as legitimate in another field, an author's task in this regard is easier than if the methods are novel across fields. Nevertheless, even if authors can position their peripheral methods effectively, and thereby answer the pressing questions they face, they will also need to show how the novel methods advance knowledge in a way that is not merely incremental. An acid test for authors is whether specific features of a phenomenon can be understood equally well by applying methods at the core. For example, the use of machine learning on small samples that can be understood equally well by employing "bread-and-butter" linear regressions may not represent a contribution to management knowledge that warrants publication in AMJ. Nevertheless, machine learning may reveal new patterns for small samples, as one of its advantages is that it does not a priori assume a functional form.Theory ElaborationThe third scenario ("theory elaboration"), where the phenomenon and theory are on the periphery and methods are at the core, arises because novel phenomena often require scholars to generate new theory to explain them. Beyond the challenges specified in the baseline scenario, there are additional requirements in this case, in that the peripheral theory needs to relate to and fit with the management field, as well as provide a strong contribution to management knowledge that helps to move the theoretical base of the status quo to a new state of theoretical knowledge. In short, authors will need to make connections between existing theory and the peripheral theory being developed, highlighting how the novel theory extends, modifies, or replaces core concepts in the management field. In other words, authors should engage in theory elaboration (connecting new elements to less new ones) to mitigate the risk of using novel theory to explain a novel phenomenon. In qualitative research, theory elaboration often occurs "when preexisting conceptual ideas or a preliminary model drives the study's design" (Lee, Mitchell, & Sablynski, 1999: 164). Similarly, for quantitative research, this process can be driven by ideas or, in our case, novel phenomena.By making the connections between the old and the new clear and compelling, authors can help reduce some of the uncertainty inherent in introducing novel features of their study. That is, our previous discussion of how the conventional can serve as an anchor for the novel applies strongly to the case of peripheral theory. For example, when novel theory seeks to extend, modify, or replace conventional theory, the connection between the periphery and the core is usually straightforward, as it is directed at demonstrating why conventional concepts are (not fully) adequate, and how the novel theory can rectify this problem. As noted, authors should expect to encounter resistance in this situation, as reviewers may have a vested interest in preserving the core.At other times, theory elaboration is more complex, such as when developing new ideas and concepts that involve a recombination of ideas from different streams of research, or, in other words, a combinatorial view of novelty that involves unique pairings or combinations of prior knowledge (Nelson & Winter, 1982; Schumpeter, 1939). In this case, greater attention will need to be given to making the connections to the core, as doing so entails linking the new theory to multiple core theories in a way that carefully maps out the complex connections between the novel research and the conventional knowledge—which, in turn, can tighten the link between innovativeness and impact (Uzzi et al., 2013). In effect, authors need to specify the way different disconnected conceptual elements fit together, and hence discuss the nature of the new knowledge that emerges when connecting disconnected but preexisting concepts, in a way akin to systems integrators in many industries who assemble ideas and components generated within ecosystems, rather than invent new technologies (Brusoni, Prencipe, & Pavitt, 2001).When the novel theory is complex, as is the case when combining elements from different fields of study, much of the risk authors face is in addressing uncertainty among audience members, in that audiences may not fully understand the assumptions and principles of the new theory. Yet, as is the case when only one core theory is challenged, authors should be aware that recombination is risky due to pushback from experts in the field (Ferguson & Carnabuci, 2017). Such institutional gatekeeping is, of course, difficult for authors to avoid, and thus it is incumbent upon editors and reviewers to be cognizant of the possibility of such resistance. Nevertheless, it is also incumbent upon authors to make the connections between the periphery and the core effectively. In our experience, authors often fail to make these multiple connections successfully, as they instead tend to focus on subsets of connections that raise issues for reviewers who know the conventional models well. For example, generalists can draw on knowledge across domains, yet they do not have the deep knowledge that specialists (who are often reviewers) do, which can result in the misapplication or misunderstanding of important nuances that may limit the ability to make connections across the domains.Radical NoveltyFinally, in the most complex case, the phenomenon, theory, and methods all lie on the periphery ("radical novelty"). In this scenario, perhaps the biggest challenge that authors face is that complexity is so high that a parsimonious account that communicates all novel elements of the study to the audience is not possible in a single article. In other words, it might be too difficult to strike a balance between the novel and the conventional, as much of the study is on the periphery rather than the core. Nonetheless, although this scenario is likely the riskiest, it may also be the most rewarding (Uzzi et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2017). As such, we do not want to discourage authors from submitting such work—but we do encourage them to consider how to best connect the novel aspects with ones that are familiar to the audience. In other words, authors should think carefully and deliberately about how they can anchor their novel study in the scholarly community—such as incorporating ideas and notions that, while novel in the field of management, are conventional in other fields—as doing so will provide them with more and stronger anchoring points for their novel ideas. At the same time, authors should reflect on whether novelty in all three dimensions is indeed needed, or, instead, whether some peripheral elements can be replaced with core ones. For instance, as Uzzi and colleagues (2013) noted, when Newton introduced his novel theory of gravity, he made the strategic decision to explain it in terms of geometry, rather than the better suited, yet novel at the time, calculus.A Call to ActionGiven the AMJ's mission of publishing research that advances management theory while also contributing to management practice, authors seeking to publish novel research that enhances understanding of our current transformational times are challenged to demonstrate convincingly that the novel phenomenon they study advances the existing knowledge in critical ways—either on its own, or in conjunction with novel theory or methods. AMJ has taken steps to assist authors in this regard, notably by emphasizing the importance of studying transformational times (Gruber, 2023), and in showing how artificial intelligence can aid authors in the recognition and utilization of novel research opportunities (von Krogh et al. 2023). Yet, there are additional deliberations that authors should undertake.One critical decision that authors should consider carefully is whether it makes sense for them to engage in research on novel phenomena, particularly when both theory and methods are novel. We have highlighted that this research can be the most impactful, yet it is also the riskiest. Thus, a key strategy for scholars is to consider a portfolio approach, where some of their research is on the periphery and the rest is at the core. This recommendation is of particular significance for junior scholars who are just embarking on their careers, and whose upcoming promotions depend on their successful publications. Given that they are new to the field and often bring fresh perspectives, their research may only be at the periphery; they will therefore have to be smart in how they position their research studies (see Figure 1) in order to convince audiences of their merits.A second critical decision that authors face revolves around the complexity of their research on novel phenomena. As noted, the more complex this research is, the greater the difficulties in publishing it in top journals. For instance, space constraints may preclude effectively describing and positioning research that contains novel theory, methods, and phenomena. In this situation, authors may need to consider separating the theory from the empirics first and develop a conceptual article for a theory journal such as the Academy of Management Review, which has also recently called for research on important phenomena (Fisher, Mayer, & Morris, 2021). Alternatively, scholars should also consider what journal is the best fit for their research on novel phenomena. For example, the scenario where all elements are peripheral may often be better suited for the Academy of Management Discoveries, rather than AMJ, and thus authors should have a clear understanding of what research is sought and valued by the different journals they might target.Finally, we would be remiss if we did not reiterate and expand on our discussion of the role of the audience in general, and our role as editors in particular. Throughout this article, we have highlighted the important role that consumers of research play, both developmentally and as checks on bad ideas (and, unfortunately, as checks on good ideas). As editors, our team has committed to seeking out and developing research on novel phenomena, and has pledged to be on the lookout for institutional gatekeeping that goes beyond critique of logic and ideas, and for ways that we can minimize the risk inherent in studying novelty.CONCLUSIONIn this "From the Editors" article, we sought to provide support for authors aiming to engage in research on novel phenomena that characterize our current transformational times. Our main idea is that, based on the notion that knowledge structures of an academic field always have a core and a periphery, and that all novelty originates from the periphery, one can view novel phenomena as peripheral ideas that need to be connected to a core conventional knowledge set, and legitimized through interactions between authors and readers. Positioning research on novel phenomena strategically and effectively can help authors in their efforts at publishing their studies, yet doing so can be complex, with high levels of risk and typically a low likelihood of success—which should give authors pause given the low chances of publication in AMJ in general. Nevertheless, we feel that the potential value added from such endeavors is worth the risk, as ultimately this will allow scientific knowledge to advance in important ways, and make valuable contributions to real-world knowledge, where contemporary practitioners often struggle to understand novel phenomena and seek advice and guidance in how to manage employees and govern organizations in our transformational times.AcknowledgmentsAuthors are listed alphabetically. All authors contributed equally. We are very grateful for comments on an earlier version of this editorial from Stefano Brusoni. Any errors are our own.REFERENCESAhuja, G., & Novelli, E. 2011. Useful abstractions and unanswered questions. In M. Easterby-SmithM. Lyles (Eds.), Handbook on organizational learning and knowledge management: 551–580. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Google ScholarBalconi, M., Brusoni, S., & Orsenigo, L. 2010. In defence of the linear model: An essay. Research Policy, 39: 1–13. Google ScholarBorgatti, S., & Everett, M. 2000. Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks, 21: 375–395. Google ScholarBrusoni, S., Prencipe, A., & Pavitt, K. 2001. Knowledge specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm: Why do firms know more than they make? Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 597–621. Google ScholarCattani, G., & Ferriani, S. 2008. A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 18: 824–844. Google ScholarFerguson, J-P., & Carnabuci, G. 2017. Risky recombinations: Institutional gatekeeping in the innovation process. Organization Science, 28: 133–151. Google ScholarFisher, G., Mayer, K., & Morris, S. 2021. From the editors—Phenomenon-based theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46: 631–639.Link , Google ScholarGruber, M. 2023. From the editors—An innovative journal during transformative times: Embarking on the 23rd editorial team. Academy of Management Journal, 66: 1–8.Link , Google ScholarLee, T., Mitchell, T., & Sablynski, C. 1999. Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology, 1979-1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55: 161–187. Google ScholarLyles, M., & Schwenk, C. 2000. Top management, strategy, and organizational knowledge structures. In L. Prusak (Ed.), Knowledge in organizations: 51–73. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google ScholarMcGrath, R. G. 2019. Seeing around corners: How to spot inflection points in business before they happen. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Google ScholarMueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. 2012. The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science, 23: 13–17. Google ScholarNavis, C., & Glynn, M. 2011. Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgements of new venture plausibility. Academy of Management Review, 36: 479–499.Link , Google ScholarNelson, R., & Winter, S. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google ScholarSchilling, M. 2005. A "small-world" network model of cognitive insight. Creativity Research Journal, 17: 131–154. Google ScholarSchumpeter, J. 1939. Business cycles: A theoretical, historical, and statistical analysis of the capitalist process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Google ScholarTaeuescher, K., Bouncken, R., & Pesch, R. 2021. Gaining legitimacy by being different: Optimal distinctiveness in crowdfunding platforms. Academy of Management Journal, 64: 149–179. Google ScholarTihanyi, L. 2020. From the editors—From "that's interesting" to "that's important." Academy of Management Journal, 63: 329–331.Link , Google ScholarUzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M., & Jones, B. 2013. Atypical combinations and scientific. Science: 342: 468–472. Google Scholarvon Krogh, G., Roberson, Q., & Gruber, M. 2023. From the editors: Recognizing and utilizing novel research opportunities with artificial intelligence. Academy of Management Journal, 66: 367–373.Link , Google Scholarvon Krogh, G., Rossi-Lamastra, C., & Haefliger, S. 2012. Phenomenon-based research in management and organisation science: When is it rigorous and does it matter? Long Range Planning, 45: 277–298. Google ScholarVicinanza, P., Goldberg, A., & Srivastava, S. 2022. A deep learning model of prescient ideas demonstrates that they emerge from the periphery. PNAS Nexus, 2: 1–11. Google ScholarWagner, C., Whetsell, T., & Mukherjee, S. 2019. International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination. Research Policy, 48: 1260–1270. Google ScholarWang, J., Veugelers, R., & Stephan, P. 2017. Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators. Research Policy, 46: 1416–1436. Google ScholarWerr, A., & Stjernberg, T. 2003. Exploring management consulting firms as knowledge systems. Organization Studies, 24: 881–908. Google ScholarZobel, A-K., Falcke, L., & Comello, S. D. 2023. A temporal perspective on boundary spanning: Engagement dynamics and implications for knowledge transfer. Organization Science. Forthcoming. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byEmbracing an Exploratory Mindset: How AMD Is Changing the Script of Good ScienceKevin Rockmann18 December 2023 | Academy of Management Discoveries, Vol. 9, No. 4From Scarcity to Abundance: Scholars and Scholarship in an Age of Generative Artificial IntelligenceMatthew Grimes, Georg von Krogh, Stefan Feuerriegel, Floor Rink and Marc Gruber19 December 2023 | Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 66, No. 6 Vol. 66, No. 5 Permissions Metrics in the past 12 months History Published online 17 October 2023 Published in print 1 October 2023 Information© Academy of Management JournalAcknowledgmentsAuthors are listed alphabetically. All authors contributed equally. We are very grateful for comments on an earlier version of this editorial from Stefano Brusoni. Any errors are our own.Download PDF
Referência(s)