Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 659

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Socio-Cognitive Model of Technology Evolution: The Case of Cochlear Implants

Open access
Garud, Raghu, Rappa, Michael A.·1994·Organization Science

Abstract

This paper examines the social and cognitive processes that unfold over time as a technology develops. Our model focuses on the relationship between the beliefs researchers hold about what is and is not technically feasible, the technological artifacts they create, and the routines they use for evaluating how well their artifacts meet with their prior expectations. The historical development of cochlear implants serves as an illustration of the model. The evidence suggests that there is a reciprocal interaction between beliefs, artifacts, and routines that gives rise to two cyclical processes. One is a process of inversion at the micro level of individual cognition wherein evaluation routines designed to judge specific artifacts begin reinforcing researchers' beliefs. Once evaluation routines become the basis for constructing individual reality, technological claims are perceived as relevant only to those who employ the same routines while appearing as noise to those who employ different routines. The other is a process of institutionalization at the macro level of shared cognition. By institutionalization we mean the development of a common set of evaluation routines that can be applied to all technological paths. Commonly accepted evaluation routines represent a shared reality that strongly shapes the direction of future technological change. The micro- and macro-level processes that shape individual and shared realities place paradoxical demands on researchers in their efforts to develop a new technology. On the one hand, researchers must create and believe in their own realities in order to make progress in their chosen paths and convince others. On the other hand, researchers must also be ready to disbelieve their realities and be willing to embrace the emerging shared reality even if it does not match theirs. How well this paradox is managed can profoundly influence who emerges as the victor or the vanquished during the genesis of a technology.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.5.3.344

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 659

Metadata

Authors
Garud, R., & Rappa, M. A.
Venue
Organization Science
Published
1994-08
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
344-362
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
OpenAlex
W2092322979
Cited by
659
References
2
FWCI
12.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.