The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Reinvention in the Innovation Process
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to discuss the concept of reinvention in the innovation process. We argue for its inclusion in research on the diffusion of innovations, and we suggest some possible typologies and implications of reinvention. There are over 3,000 titles in the literature on the diffusion of innovations (Rogers et al., 1977 and 1978), beginning with Ryan and Gross’s analysis (1943) of farmers who adopted the use of hybrid corn. This tremendous diffusion of diffusion studies has received attention by authors such as Downs and Mohr (1976) who attempt to explain the phenomenon. They suggest that reference to change as a product of diffusion allows generalizability of the discussion from a particular case to a common process. And, they argue, association with the wide body of diffusion studies and theory also adds a touch of class to a study of change. This generality, and status by association, may often be a strength, improving the diffusion of the research results; but it may also be a weakness, increasing the possibility of more contradictions in the diffusion literature. One model of the innovation process has been developed as a tool for the analysis of technology transfer decisions (Eveland et al., 1977). The process of adopting (and, at some stages, rejecting) an innovation is Authors ’ Note I he author5 gratefully acknowledge the support of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration m conduct of the present research. Atiots locl4~o (,eal/Oil f),!!UI/()1 / I iili--iitioii I ul! I B0 4 June· © ICJXIJ B£11{< l’uhhc mrmm 11/<
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm
Szulanski, G. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105 · Cited by 7,839
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600 · Cited by 4,760
Technology Diffusion and Organizational Learning: The Case of Business Computing
Attewell, P. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.1.1 · Cited by 1,401
Social networks and Internet connectivity effects
Haythornthwaite, C. (2005) · Information, Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/13691180500146185 · Cited by 1,315
Crisis Construction and Organizational Learning: Capability Building in Catching-up at Hyundai Motor
Kim, L. (1998) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.9.4.506 · Cited by 1,051
Metadata
- Authors
- Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M.
- Venue
- Knowledge
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1980-06
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 499-514
- ISSN
- 0164-0259 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2566183061
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reinvention in the Innovation Process. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/107554708000100402
- The paper
- Rice, R. E., & Rogers, E. M. (1980). Reinvention in the Innovation Process. Knowledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/107554708000100402
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.