Cited by 90Team Dynamics and PerformanceInnovation and Knowledge ManagementInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration

The Effects of Diversity and Network Ties on Innovations: The Emergence of a New Scientific Field

Open access
Lungeanu, Alina, Contractor, Noshir S.·2015·American Behavioral Scientist

Abstract

This study examines the influence of different types of diversity, both observable and unobservable, on the creation of innovative ideas. Our framework draws on theory and research on information processing, social categorization, coordination, and homophily to posit the influence of cognitive, gender, and country diversity on innovation. Our longitudinal model is based on a unique data set of 1,354 researchers who helped create the new scientific field of oncofertility, by collaborating on 469 publications over a 4-year period. We capture the differences among researchers along cognitive, country, and gender dimensions, as well as examine how the resulting diversity or homophily influences the formation of collaborative innovation networks. We find that innovation, operationalized as publishing in a new scientific discipline, benefits from both homophily and diversity. Homophily in country of residence and working with prior collaborators help reduce uncertainty in the interactions associated with innovation, while diversity in knowledge enables the recombinant knowledge required for innovation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0002764214556804

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Ahuja G Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly 2000 425 455
  2. Amabile TM The Social Psychology of Creativity 1983 Springer-Verlag New York
  3. Bettencourt L Kaiser DI Kaur J Scientific discovery and topological transitions in collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics 2009 3 3 210 221
  4. Börner K Contractor N Falk-Krzesinski HJ Fiore SM Hall KL Keyton J Uzzi B A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science. Science Translational Medicine 2010 2 49 49cm24 49cm24 PMC3527819 20844283
  5. Burt RS Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 2004 349 399
  6. Burt RS Neighbor networks: Competitive advantage local and personal 2010 Oxford University Press
  7. Byrne D The Attraction Paradigm 1971 Academic Press New York
  8. Cairncross F The death of distance: How the communications revolution will change our lives 1997 Harvard Business Press
  9. Chen W Rainie L Wellman B Rainie H Wellman B Networked Work. Networked: The new social operating system 2012 The MIT Press Cambrige, MA
  10. Contractor N Some assembly required: leveraging Web science to understand and enable team assembly. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 2013 371 20120385 1987 PMC3575571 23419854
  11. Dimitrova D Gruzd A Hayat Z Mo GY Mok D Robbins T Zhuo X Kranakis E NAVEL Gazing: Studying a Networked Scholarly Organization. Advances in Network Analysis and its Applications 2013 Springer
  12. Gilson LL Mathieu JE Shalley CE Ruddy TM Creativity and Standardization: Complementary or Conflicting Drivers of Team Effectiveness? The Academy of Management Journal 2005 521 531
  13. Gladwell M Cross R Parker A Sasson L Designs for Working. Networks in the knowledge economy 2003 Oxford University Press New York
  14. Guimera R Uzzi B Spiro J Amaral LAN Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 2005 308 5722 697 702 15860629 PMC2128751
  15. Hansen D Shneiderman B Smith MA Analyzing social media networks with NodeXL: Insights from a connected world 2010 Morgan Kaufmann
  16. Heider F The psychology of interpersonal relations 1958 Wiley New York
  17. Ibarra H Homophily and differential returns - Sex-differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 1992 37 3 422 447
  18. Jones BF Wuchty S Uzzi B Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science. Science 2008 322 5905 1259 1262 18845711
  19. Joshi A Roh H The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal 2009 52 3 599 627
  20. Leenders R Evolution of friendship and best friendship choices. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1996 21 1-2 133 148
  21. Leonard JS Levine DI Joshi A Do birds of a feather shop together? The effects on performance of employees' similarity with one another and with customers. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2004 25 6 731 754
  22. Lungeanu A Huang Y Contractor NS Understanding the assembly of interdisciplinary teams and its impact on performance. Journal of Informetrics 2014 8 1 59 70 24470806 PMC3901048
  23. Milliken FJ Bartel CA Kurtzberg TR Paulus PB Nijstad BA Diversity and creativity in work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity and performance. Group creativity: Innovation through collaboration 2003 32 62 Oxford University Press
  24. Monge PR Contractor NS Theories of communication networks 2003 Oxford University Press New York
  25. Reagans R McEvily B Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly 2003 48 2 240 267 doi: 10.2307/3556658 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Saporito B The Conspiracy To End Cancer 2013 30 38 Time http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/01/the-conspiracy-to-end-cancer/ 23593773
  27. Stvilia B Hinnant CC Schindler K Worrall A Burnett G Burnett K Marty PF Composition of Scientific Teams and Publication Productivity at a National Science Lab. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2011 62 2 270 283
  28. Taylor A Greve HR Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal 2006 49 4 723 740
  29. Torvik VI Weeber M Swanson DR Smalheiser NR A probabilistic similarity metric for Medline records: a model for author name disambiguation. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2005 56 2 140 158
  30. Tziner A Eden D Effects of crew composition on crew performance: Does the whole equal the sum of its parts? Journal of Applied Psychology 1985 70 1 85
  31. Van Knippenberg D De Dreu CKW Homan AC Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology 2004 89 6 1008 15584838
  32. Whitener EM Brodt SE Korsgaard MA Werner JM Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Academy of Management Review 1998 513 530
  33. Williams KY O'Reilly CA Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior 1998 20 20 77 140 1998
  34. Wu L Lin C-Y Aral S Brynjolfsson E Value of Social Network. 2009 Paper presented at the Winter Information Systems Conference Salt Lake City, Utah http://smallblue.research.ibm.com/projects/snvalue
  35. Wuchty S Jones BF Uzzi B The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 2007 316 5827 1036 1039 17431139

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lungeanu, A., & Contractor, N. S.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Venue
American Behavioral Scientist
Published
2014-11-14
Volume
59
Issue
5
Pages
548-564
ISSN
  • 0002-7642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-3381
OpenAlex
W2151512924
Cited by
90
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Behavioral Scientist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Northwestern University
  • National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (UL1DE019587)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR025741)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U54HD076188, P50HD076188)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Keywords
diversity, homophily, innovation, cognitive diversity, gender diversity, collaborative innovation networks, oncofertility, knowledge recombination, social categorization, research collaboration, uncertainty reduction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review