The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Digital Science and Knowledge Boundaries in Complex Innovation
Abstract
Drug discovery is a complex innovation process in which scientists need to make sense of ambiguous findings and grapple with numerous unpredictable interdependencies over many years of product development. Digitalization has combined with expanding science to address this complexity, creating new ways to measure, analyze, and model chemical compounds, diseases, and human biology. We interviewed 85 scientists and managers working on drug discovery to understand how they deal with complexity. We find a major knowledge fault line between digital scientists, who use computers as laboratories and manipulate signs, and therapy scientists, who use conventional laboratories and manipulate physical material. We build on research on epistemic cultures and knowing in practice to develop empirically grounded theory for the role of digital science in complex innovation. We propose that digitalization creates a new form of knowledge that provides essential complementary insights for complex innovation that cannot exist otherwise. However, digitalization also creates new knowledge boundaries that concern central activities of innovation. These boundaries highlight challenges of complex innovation that digital sciences can help address, but only if the innovation activities are transformed so that digital and therapy sciences can integrate their complementary knowledge.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“While learning algorithms may improve the coordination of work, they may inadvertently limit the knowledge that employees are exposed to, which holds detrimental effects for knowledge diversity and organizational innovation (Dougherty and Dunne, 2012; Dahlander and Frederiksen, 2012).”
From Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm (2018) · cites this paper as Dougherty and Dunne, 2012
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
Cites
Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 35,324
Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning
March, J. G. (1991) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71 · Cited by 21,942
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277
Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776 · Cited by 3,021
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0322 · Cited by 2,964
Barley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Research works printed but not linked: 41
- 10.1177/0263276405048433 · DOI
- 10.1287/orsc.14.3.312.15162 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.5465/AMR.2010.51142028 · DOI
- 10.1287/orsc.1070.0304 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2307/2393807 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/CBO9780511488672 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511488672
- 10.1287/orsc.1040.0094 · DOI · Paper page
- Cohen J, 2011, Tech. Rev., 114, 40
- Cooper RG, 1998, Product Leadership: Creating and Launching Superior New Products
- 10.1287/orsc.1070.0287 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1287/orsc.3.2.179 · DOI · Paper page
- Dougherty D, 2002, The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, 849
- 10.2307/2666981 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/1043463110383972 · DOI
- Khurana A, 1997, MIT Sloan Management Rev., 38, 103
- 10.4159/9780674039681 · DOI · Paper page
- Leonard-Barton D, 1995, Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation
- 10.2307/25148682 · DOI · Paper page
- Majchrzak A, 2006, MIT Sloan Management Rev., 27, 14
- Ng R, 2004, Drugs: From Discovery to Approval
- 10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00078-X · DOI · Paper page
- Northrup J, 2005, The Business of Healthcare Innovation, 27, 10.1017/CBO9780511488672.003 · DOI
- 10.2174/157340708786847870 · DOI
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226668253.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
- Peirce C, 1935, The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, 5
- Pisano GP, 2006, Science Business: The Promise, the Reality, and the Future of Biotech
- Sammut SM, 2005, The Business of Healthcare Innovation, 190, 10.1017/CBO9780511488672.005 · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511488672.005
- Sennett R, 2008, The Craftsman
- 10.1007/978-94-010-9521-1 · DOI · Paper page
- Simon HA, 1996, The Sciences of the Artificial
- Singer E, 2009, Tech. Rev., 112, 48
- Snowden DJ, 2007, Harvard Bus. Rev., 85, 68
- Southan C, 2009, The Fourth Paradigm: Data-Intensive Scientific Discovery, 117
- Strauss A, 1998, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory
- Suchman L, 1987, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human Machine Communication
- 10.1002/anie.198608821 · doi:10.1002/anie.198608821
- Ulrich KT, 2000, Product Design and Development
- Van de Ven AH, 1999, The Innovation Journey
- 10.2165/00126839-200809050-00002 · DOI
- 10.2174/157340508783502787 · doi:10.2174/157340508783502787
- Yoo Y, Lyytinen KJ, Boland RJ, Berente N. (2010b) The next wave of digital innovation: Opportunities and challenges, A report on the research workshop "Digital challenges in innovation research.". Working paper, Temple University, Philadelphia. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1622170. · DOI
Cited by
Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022 · Cited by 5,720
Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship
Nambisan, S. (2017) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1111/etap.12254 · Cited by 2,771
Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World
Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1120.0771 · Cited by 2,469
Working and organizing in the age of the learning algorithm
Faraj, S., Pachidi, S., & Sayegh, K. (2018) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.005 · Cited by 929
Lebovitz, S., Levina, N., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2021) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2021/16564 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Dougherty, D., & Dunne, D. D.
- Affiliations
- Department of Management and Global Business, Rutgers Business School, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey 07101
- Schools of Business, Fordham University, New York, New York 10019
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2012-10
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1467-1484
- ISSN
- 1047-7039
- 1526-5455
- Cited by
- 215
- References
- 6
- Language
- en
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: Digital Science and Knowledge Boundaries in Complex Innovation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/orsc.1110.0700
- The paper
- Dougherty, D., & Dunne, D. D. (2012). Digital Science and Knowledge Boundaries in Complex Innovation. Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0700
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.