Mitigating the definitional quagmire in innovation research: An inclusive definition of innovation as a template for defining various types of innovations uniformly

IF 10.1 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Rajan Varadarajan
{"title":"Mitigating the definitional quagmire in innovation research: An inclusive definition of innovation as a template for defining various types of innovations uniformly","authors":"Rajan Varadarajan","doi":"10.1111/jpim.12729","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A review of research on innovation and new product development points to certain foundational issues of concern such as the use of (1) different definitions of constructs germane to the field (e.g., definitions of innovation, innovativeness, and specific types of innovations), (2) different construct labels to refer to specific innovation types, and (3) the same construct label to refer to different innovation types. Over the years, scholars have cautioned that a body of research in a field of study that is based on different definitions of constructs germane to the field would slow the advancement of knowledge. Against this backdrop, the purpose of this Catalyst paper is to initiate a conversation on the prospects for mitigating the definitional quagmire in research on innovation and new product development by developing an inclusive definition of innovation that can be used as a template for defining various types of innovations uniformly. Toward this end, the paper proposes an inclusive definition of innovation based on idea, outcome, and value creation as the defining or essential characteristics of all innovations. Definitions of 10 specific types of innovations defined in a consistent manner, employing the proposed inclusive definition of innovation as a template are also presented. All else being equal, consistency across research studies in the definitions of constructs employed can be conducive to the advancement of knowledge in a field of study in several ways such as streamlining the curation of the research-based knowledge, facilitating the grounding of new research in prior research (i.e., curated knowledge), and eliminating differences across studies in the definitions of key constructs employed as a potential confound on the research findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":16900,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":10.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Product Innovation Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jpim.12729","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A review of research on innovation and new product development points to certain foundational issues of concern such as the use of (1) different definitions of constructs germane to the field (e.g., definitions of innovation, innovativeness, and specific types of innovations), (2) different construct labels to refer to specific innovation types, and (3) the same construct label to refer to different innovation types. Over the years, scholars have cautioned that a body of research in a field of study that is based on different definitions of constructs germane to the field would slow the advancement of knowledge. Against this backdrop, the purpose of this Catalyst paper is to initiate a conversation on the prospects for mitigating the definitional quagmire in research on innovation and new product development by developing an inclusive definition of innovation that can be used as a template for defining various types of innovations uniformly. Toward this end, the paper proposes an inclusive definition of innovation based on idea, outcome, and value creation as the defining or essential characteristics of all innovations. Definitions of 10 specific types of innovations defined in a consistent manner, employing the proposed inclusive definition of innovation as a template are also presented. All else being equal, consistency across research studies in the definitions of constructs employed can be conducive to the advancement of knowledge in a field of study in several ways such as streamlining the curation of the research-based knowledge, facilitating the grounding of new research in prior research (i.e., curated knowledge), and eliminating differences across studies in the definitions of key constructs employed as a potential confound on the research findings.

缓解创新研究中的定义困境:创新的包容性定义是统一界定各类创新的模板
对创新和新产品开发研究的回顾指出了某些值得关注的基础问题,例如:(1) 使用与该领域相关的不同构造定义(如创新、创新性和特定类型创新的定义);(2) 使用不同的构造标签来指代特定的创新类型;(3) 使用相同的构造标签来指代不同的创新类型。多年来,学者们一直警告说,在一个研究领域中,如果对与该领域相关的构念采用不同的定义,将会延缓知识的进步。在此背景下,本篇《催化剂》论文旨在发起一场对话,探讨如何通过制定一个包容性的创新定义来缓解创新和新产品开发研究中的定义困境,该定义可用作统一定义各类创新的模板。为此,本文提出了一个包容性的创新定义,将创意、成果和价值创造作为所有创新的决定性或基本特征。本文还介绍了以所提出的包容性创新定义为模板,以一致的方式定义的 10 种具体创新类型。在其他条件相同的情况下,不同研究在所采用的概念定义上保持一致,可以在多个方面促进研究领域的知识进步,例如简化研究知识的整理工作,促进新研究以先前的研究为基础(即整理知识),以及消除不同研究在所采用的关键概念定义上的差异对研究结果的潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Product Innovation Management
Journal of Product Innovation Management 管理科学-工程:工业
CiteScore
17.00
自引率
5.70%
发文量
42
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Product Innovation Management is a leading academic journal focused on research, theory, and practice in innovation and new product development. It covers a broad scope of issues crucial to successful innovation in both external and internal organizational environments. The journal aims to inform, provoke thought, and contribute to the knowledge and practice of new product development and innovation management. It welcomes original articles from organizations of all sizes and domains, including start-ups, small to medium-sized enterprises, and large corporations, as well as from consumer, business-to-business, and policy domains. The journal accepts various quantitative and qualitative methodologies, and authors from diverse disciplines and functional perspectives are encouraged to submit their work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信