Sociology of Innovation eJournal最新文献

{"title":"Elite Hacking: Public Opinion Formation and Elite Fragmentation","authors":"J. Clark, Zeyu Peng","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3400997","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3400997","url":null,"abstract":"In the 2016 U.S. General Election, agents of the Russian Federation attempted to influence the election through a multi-faceted campaign, which included the spread of of fake news as well as cyber attacks on campaigns, individuals, and even electoral infrastructure. Elite reaction was swift. Unlike on most issues, however, elites in the Republican Party remain divided. Leveraging this rare and enduring intra-party disagreement in today's age of polarized parties, we are able to begin to understand how people react to conflicting elite cues that are free from usual partisan considerations. This enables us to present a theory of elite-led opinion formation that includes intra-party polarization, expanding on the current literature. We theorize that in a scenario where there is a divided party and a unified party, those who identify with the unified party will form crystallized opinions that are reflective of those held by party elites. Members of the divided party will have perceive conflicting elite cues, and form opinions that are more malleable and susceptible to change from future elite cues. We test this theory by examining the impact of salience of Russian hacking as well as different levels in elite cohesion on belief that Russian hacking actually took place heading into the 2018 election. This is carried out through a two-pronged approach, leveraging a nationally-representative online survey (N=1000) and two survey experiments. We find that different levels of elite agreement on Russian hacking, rather than the information about Russian hacking itself, caused respondents to update their perceptions of Russian hacking. This finding is particularly strong for the Republican subsample in our experiment. We also find strong evidence that supporters of Trump are resistant to information, going as far as to demonstrate the opposite effect when presented with information that directly contradicts the President's position. Furthermore, we find similar results regarding elite influence on opinion for trade policy, a much less salient issue in comparison to Russian hacking. In doing so, we not only provide new evidence on the impact of disourse around Russian hacking, but add to a growing literature on elite discourse to include intra-party discourse and attachment to groups of the elites within a single party.","PeriodicalId":301526,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"405 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116204147","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A Network Theory of Patentability","authors":"Laura G. Pedraza-Fariña, Ryan Whalen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3347365","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3347365","url":null,"abstract":"Patent law is built upon a fundamental premise: only significant inventions receive patent protection while minor improvements remain in the public domain. This premise is indispensable for maintaining an optimal balance between incentivizing new innovation and providing public access to existing innovation. Despite its importance, the doctrine that performs this gate keeping role—non-obviousness—has long remained indeterminate and vague. Judicial opinions have struggled to articulate both what makes an invention significant (or non-obvious) and how to measure non-obviousness in specific cases. These difficulties are due in large part to the existence of two clashing theoretical frameworks, cognitive and economic, that have vied for prominence in justifying non-obviousness. Neither framework, however, has generated doctrinal tests that can be easily and consistently applied. \u0000 \u0000This Article draws on a novel approach—network theory—to answer both the conceptual question (what is a non-obvious invention?) and the measurement question (how do we determine non-obviousness in specific cases?). First, it shows that what is missing in current conceptual definitions of non-obviousness is an underlying theory of innovation. It then supplies this missing piece. Building upon insights from network science, we model innovation as a process of search and recombination of existing knowledge. Distant searches that combine disparate or weakly-connected portions of social and information networks tend to produce high-impact new ideas that open novel innovation trajectories. Distant searches also tend to be costly and risky. In contrast, local searches tend to result in incremental innovation that is more routine, less costly and less risky. From a network theory perspective, then, the goal of non-obviousness should be to reward, and therefore to incentivize, those risky distant searches and recombinations that produce the most socially significant innovations. By emphasizing factors specific to the structure of innovation—namely the risks and costs of the search and recombination process—a network approach complements and deepens current economic understandings of non-obviousness. Second, based on our network theory of innovation, we develop an empirical, algorithmic measure of patentability—what we term a patent’s “network non-obviousness score (NNOS).” We harness data from U.S. patent records to calculate the distance between the technical knowledge areas recombined in any given invention (or patent), allowing us to assign each patent a specific NNOS. We propose a doctrinal framework that incorporates an invention’s NNOS to non-obviousness determinations both at the examination phase and during patent litigation. \u0000 \u0000Our use of network science to develop a legal algorithm is a methodological innovation in law, with implications for broader debates about computational law. We illustrate how differences in algorithm design can lead to different non-obviousness out","PeriodicalId":301526,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"198 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116867643","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cashless Transaction – Mobile Transaction","authors":"J. Pande","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3309289","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3309289","url":null,"abstract":"Cashless economy in India about the cashless India initiative. It was launched on 1st July 2015 by hon. prime minister Narendra Modi with a vision to transform India in to digitally empowered society and knowledge economy faceless, paperless, cashless is one at the professed roles of digital India.<br> <br>Major progress towards this goal was mode in late 2016 when the govt. took steps to demonetize the counting now even small retailers and shop owners are using cashless models like PayTm for transaction.<br><br>A cashless economy is one in which all transactions are mode using credit, debit cards or digital devices (e. g. point-of sales (POS) machines, digital wallet) and the circulation of liquid money or paper currency is minimal.<br><br>In this economy a third-party such as the govt. or public/private sector banks process an individual’s money and can circulate that money whenever. It is not needed by the individual.<br>","PeriodicalId":301526,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129808768","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Subsidizing Innovation and Production","authors":"Gamal Atallah","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3437025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3437025","url":null,"abstract":"This paper studies the interaction between production subsidies and innovation subsidies. We develop a model which allows us to calculate the socially optimal subsidies (and how they vary with changes in the economic environment), and to understand how firms react to each type of subsidy. In a three-stage game, the government chooses production and innovation subsidies in the first stage to maximize welfare in the presence of a shadow cost of public funds; two firms invest in cost-reducing RD and the two firms compete in quantities in the last stage. We find that production subsidies crowd out innovation, since they reduce the gain for firms from investing in R&D. On the other hand, providing a production subsidy reduces the cost of the innovation subsidy, and vice versa. The optimal production subsidy is U-shaped with respect to spillovers, while the innovation subsidy is increasing in spillovers. The production subsidy is higher for very low spillovers, while the innovation subsidy is higher for moderate/high spillovers. In equilibrium, because of the innovation subsidy, R&D increases with spillovers, and so does welfare. Optimal subsidies increase with research costs and with the slope of inverse demand, and have an inverted-U shape with respect to initial costs and demand height. We also consider the case of a financially constrained government, as well as the case of a uniform subsidy to production and innovation costs.","PeriodicalId":301526,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128063004","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Bilik iqtisadiyyatının inkişaf mərlələrində innovasiya texnologiyalarının nəzəri-metodoloji aspektləri (Theoretical and Methodological Aspects of Innovative Technologies in the Development of the Knowledge Economy)","authors":"A. Huseynova, Ofelya Mazanova","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3273399","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3273399","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Azerbaijani Abstract:</b> Məqalədə informasiya və biliklər iqtisadiyyatı və onun infrastrukturu, inkişaf mərhələləri və texnoloji innovasiyalar haqqında məlumat verilir. İnformasiya və biliklər cəmiyyətinin əsas infrastukturuna daxil olan texnoloji innovasiyanın inkişafı və düzgün tətbiqinin vacibliyi vurğulanır. Texnoloji innovasiyanın 25 növü sadalanır. Cəmiyyətin innovasiyalı inkişafı çərçivəsində istehsalat və təhsil innovasiyalarının texnologiyalar vasitəsilə həyata keçirmək yolları və bu istiqamətdə qarşıya çıxan bəzi problemlərdən bəhs olunur. Bundan başqa bilik iqtisadiyyatının indeksləri əsasında MDB ölkələri üzrə tərtib olunmuş cədvəldə 2000-ci ildən 2012-ci ilədək müqayisələr göstərilir. Ölkəmizin qabaqcıl ölkələrin inkişaf tendensiyalarına uyğunlaşdırılması bir neçə MDB ölkələri üzrə nümunələrlə göstərilir. Həmçinin bu ölkələrdə bilik iqtisadiyyatının inkişafı üzrə qəbul olunan konsepsiyalardan bəhs olunur. <br><br><b>English Abstract:</b> Article covers topics such as information and economy of knowledge, its infrastructure, stages of development and technological innovations. The importance of development of technological innovations which is the one of the main part of the society of information and economy of knowledge was also pointed out. Article lists 25 types of technological innovation. It has been spoken about ways of implementating production and educational innovations with the help of technology within the frame of innovational development of society and the problems that can be faced during the process was also touched. Besides this, comparisons were made from year 2000 to 2012 in the the table which was created according to the index of economy of knowledge on the basis of CIS countries. The adaptation of our country to the growth tendency of advanced countries were shown in examples with CIS countries being basis. Also accepted conceptions for development of economy of knowledge of these countries are explained.","PeriodicalId":301526,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128840709","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Croatian Export Companies","authors":"Andrija Barić, M. Omazić","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3283698","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3283698","url":null,"abstract":"Continuous globalization, rapid development of information-communication technologies, and the presence of new burning challenges for the global community have contributed to the perception of corporate social responsibility as a strategic tool that allows for successful differentiation and sustainable competitive advantage. The goal of this paper is to offer a short overview of the role of a strategic approach to corporate social responsibility, as well as emphasize the importance of such an approach in creating competitive advantage for a company, but also of sustainability of society as a whole. The paper is based on a primary research questionnaire conducted on middle-sized and large Croatian export companies, as well as a systematic analysis of previously published relevant international scientific papers in the area of corporate social responsibility.","PeriodicalId":301526,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131503646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Recruiting Hay to Find Needles: Recursive Incentives and Innovation in Social Networks","authors":"Erik P. Duhaime, Brittany M. Bond, Qi Yang, P. D. Boer, T. Malone","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3545311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3545311","url":null,"abstract":"Finding innovative solutions to complex problems is often about finding people who have access to novel information and alternative viewpoints. Research has found that most people are connected to each other through just a few degrees of separation, but successful social search is often difficult because it depends on people using their weak ties to make connections to distant social networks. Recursive incentive schemes have shown promise for social search by motivating people to use their weak ties to find distant targets, such as specific people or even weather balloons placed at undisclosed locations. Here, we report on a case study of a similar recursive incentive scheme for finding innovative ideas. Specifically, we implemented a competition to reward individuals(s) who helped refer Grand Prize winner(s) in MIT's Climate CoLab, an open innovation platform for addressing global climate change. Using data on over 78,000 CoLab members and over 36,000 people from over 100 countries who engaged with the referral contest, we find that people who are referred using this method are more likely than others to submit proposals and to submit high quality proposals. Furthermore, we find suggestive evidence that among the contributors referred via the contest, those who had more than one degree of separation from a pre-existing CoLab member were more likely to submit high quality proposals. Thus, the results from this case study are consistent the theory that people from distant networks are more likely to provide innovative solutions to complex problems. More broadly, the results suggest that rewarding indirect intermediaries in addition to final finders may promote effective social network recruitment.","PeriodicalId":301526,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"231 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131747389","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Institutional Discovery and Competition in the Evolution of Blockchain Technology","authors":"C. Berg, S. Davidson, J. Potts","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3220072","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3220072","url":null,"abstract":"Blockchains are an institutional technology for facilitating decentralised exchange. As open-source software, anybody can develop their own blockchain, ‘fork’ an existing blockchain, or stack a new blockchain on top of an existing one - creating a new environment for exchange with its own rules (institutions) and (crypto)currency. Since the creation of Bitcoin in 2008, blockchains have proliferated, each offering iterative institutional variation. Blockchains present a discrete space in which we can observe the process of institutional discovery through competition. This paper looks at the evolution of blockchains as a Hayekian discovery process. The public nature of blockchains – most blockchains offer public transaction – allows us to observe experimentation and competition at an institutional level with a precision previously unavailable compared to other instances of institutional competition.","PeriodicalId":301526,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115466031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Societal Complexity versus Learn to Live Together: Contemporaneous ‘Science/Culture/Religion Dialogue.’ Compram Methodology and ‘Decisional Nomology’ Contributions (Presentation Slides)","authors":"N. Bulz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3209138","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3209138","url":null,"abstract":"There is the OR community’s related heritage, challenge, tensions/perspectives within the possible ‘Science/Culture/Religion Dialogue.’ In order to acknowledge the tragedy of war (mostly within the actual 100 years from the end of the WW1) at least the scientific community would advance any alternative solution comparing to the war oriented track of the 20 century – and no significant ideas/acts within the started 21 century. There is the projects oriented (re)search from the still open International Consortium Generosity/Creativity/Solidarity: LEARN TO LIVE TOGETHER (hypothetical) reality, modeling/simulation/emulation and ideals generations – as a subtle turning point into the possible Network of Networks on. The co-organizers of the current OR and Ethics stream into Euro Conference 2018 Valencia have synergic and original contributions within – i.e. Prof. dr. Dorien DeTombe’s COMPRAM Methodology, and Prof. dr. Cathal Brugha’s Decisional Nomology. So, the study proceeds on the open Ethics and OR new realm onto the contemporary global (post-)crisis reverse as Inter/Trans/Co-disciplinary, Intercultural and Ecumenical approaches oriented within the thesis: Knowledge Society toward Consciousness Society. A related (f)act to tacit and explicit knowledge/innovation, and follow up consequences would draw up and extend an implementation of a ‘Local’ Nucleus of an IN OVO inquiring “Science-NATURE-Culture-SPIRITUALITY-Religion Meta-Dialogue�?.","PeriodicalId":301526,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129270127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is Silicon Valley Tech Diversity Possible Now?","authors":"Center for Employment Equity UMass-Amherst","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3407983","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3407983","url":null,"abstract":"Information technology firms have been growing rapidly and are generating high paid jobs, impressive returns on investment, and incredible stock returns. The Silicon Valley region in particular has been singled out as the global hub for innovation and income growth. Simultaneously, Silicon Valley Tech firms have generated sustained criticism for a lack of demographic diversity and repeated accusations of hostile work climates toward women and minority employees. For large Silicon Valley Tech public recognition of continued employment diversity challenges as well as claims of hostile workplaces are widespread. We examine diversity in the Tech industry by calculating executive, managerial and professional employment shares by race and gender for 177 leading Silicon Valley Tech firms, comparing them to 1,277 smaller Tech firms. These shares come from data reported to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2016, which every large workplace is required to submit under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Overall, we document for the first time considerable variability among firms in their employment diversity. Diversity in Tech is clearly possible now and our results suggest that some firms have already figured out how to do it. We also show that it is possible to develop metrics for evaluating firm’s success or failure relative to their peers. Benchmarking firm success or failure at achieving more diverse workforces is a prerequisite for holding both firms and their management teams accountable as well as increasing transparency to both internal and external stakeholders. The causes of Tech’s diversity problems are no doubt complex. This does not mean, however, that the solutions need be. Employment diversity is a mathematical result of who gets hired, promoted and retained. To change diversity these three simple factors need to be measured, monitored and managed. Since the internal climates of firms are central to both recruitment and retention, in the end this is what needs to be managed. These firms already know how to develop innovative products, compete in dynamic global markets, hire in competitive labor markets, and are rapidly transforming our world. It’s difficult to come up with a plausible reason why many cannot manage diversity. In this report we show that some firms are diverse, so then the question becomes why some are not.","PeriodicalId":301526,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Innovation eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134280281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}