IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v17y2023i4s1751157723000767.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Unpacking the essential tension of knowledge recombination: Analyzing the impact of knowledge spanning on citation impact and disruptive innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Cheng-Jun
  • Yan, Lihan
  • Cui, Haochuan

Abstract

Drawing on the theories of knowledge recombination, we aim to unpack the essential tension between tradition and innovation in scientific research. Using the American Physical Society data and computational methods, we analyze the relationship between knowledge spanning, citation impact, and disruptive innovation. The findings show that there exists a U-shaped relationship between knowledge spanning and disruptive innovation. In contrast, there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between knowledge spanning and citation impact, and the inverted U-shaped effect is moderated by team size. This study contributes to the theories of knowledge recombination by suggesting that either intellectual conformism or knowledge recombination can lead to disruptive innovation. That is, when evaluating the quality of scientific research with disruptive innovation, the essential tension seems to disappear.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Cheng-Jun & Yan, Lihan & Cui, Haochuan, 2023. "Unpacking the essential tension of knowledge recombination: Analyzing the impact of knowledge spanning on citation impact and disruptive innovation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:17:y:2023:i:4:s1751157723000767
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2023.101451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157723000767
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2023.101451?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guan, Jiancheng & Yan, Yan & Zhang, Jing Jing, 2017. "The impact of collaboration and knowledge networks on citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 407-422.
    2. Lingfei Wu & Dashun Wang & James A. Evans, 2019. "Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7744), pages 378-382, February.
    3. Wang, Jian & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Stephan, Paula, 2017. "Bias against novelty in science: A cautionary tale for users of bibliometric indicators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1416-1436.
    4. Yan Yan & Shanwu Tian & Jingjing Zhang, 2020. "The impact of a paper’s new combinations and new components on its citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 895-913, February.
    5. Michael Park & Erin Leahey & Russell J. Funk, 2023. "Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7942), pages 138-144, January.
    6. Zhu, Nibing & Liu, Chang & Yang, Zhilin, 2021. "Team Size, Research Variety, and Research Performance: Do Coauthors’ Coauthors Matter?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    7. Lin, Yiling & Evans, James A. & Wu, Lingfei, 2022. "New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    8. Zhang, JingJing & Yan, Yan & Guan, JianCheng, 2019. "Recombinant distance, network governance and recombinant innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 260-272.
    9. Jo Thori Lind & Halvor Mehlum, 2010. "With or Without U? The Appropriate Test for a U‐Shaped Relationship," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 72(1), pages 109-118, February.
    10. Russell J. Funk & Jason Owen-Smith, 2017. "A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 791-817, March.
    11. Richard F. J. Haans & Constant Pieters & Zi-Lin He, 2016. "Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U- and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1177-1195, July.
    12. Haochuan Cui & Tiewei Li & Cheng-Jun Wang, 2023. "Climbing up the ladder of abstraction: how to span the boundaries of knowledge space in the online knowledge market?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Na Liu & Jianqi Mao & Jiancheng Guan, 2020. "Knowledge convergence and organization innovation: the moderating role of relational embeddedness," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 1899-1921, December.
    14. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2020. "Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: The role of team size and interdisciplinarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(6).
    15. Johan S. G. Chu & James A. Evans, 2021. "Slowed canonical progress in large fields of science," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 118(41), pages 2021636118-, October.
    16. Wang, Shiyun & Mao, Jin & Lu, Kun & Cao, Yujie & Li, Gang, 2021. "Understanding interdisciplinary knowledge integration through citance analysis: A case study on eHealth," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    17. Yanqing Shi & Si Chen & Lele Kang, 2021. "Which questions are valuable in online Q&A communities? A question’s position in a knowledge network matters," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8239-8258, October.
    18. Michael T. Hannan & László Pólos & Glenn R. Carroll, 2007. "Language Matters, from Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies," Introductory Chapters, in: Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes, and Ecologies, Princeton University Press.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Li, Meiling & Wang, Yang & Du, Haifeng & Bai, Aruhan, 2024. "Motivating innovation: The impact of prestigious talent funding on junior scientists," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(9).
    2. Alex J. Yang & Hongcun Gong & Yuhao Wang & Chao Zhang & Sanhong Deng, 2024. "Rescaling the disruption index reveals the universality of disruption distributions in science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 561-580, January.
    3. Guo, Liying & Wang, Yang & Li, Meiling, 2024. "Exploration, exploitation and funding success: Evidence from junior scientists supported by the Chinese Young Scientists Fund," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    4. Wu, Lingfei & Kittur, Aniket & Youn, Hyejin & Milojević, Staša & Leahey, Erin & Fiore, Stephen M. & Ahn, Yong-Yeol, 2022. "Metrics and mechanisms: Measuring the unmeasurable in the science of science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    5. Hou, Jianhua & Wang, Dongyi & Li, Jing, 2022. "A new method for measuring the originality of academic articles based on knowledge units in semantic networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3).
    6. Keye Wu & Ziyue Xie & Jia Tina Du, 2024. "Does science disrupt technology? Examining science intensity, novelty, and recency through patent-paper citations in the pharmaceutical field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(9), pages 5469-5491, September.
    7. Yi Zhao & Chengzhi Zhang, 2025. "A review on the novelty measurements of academic papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(2), pages 727-753, February.
    8. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "Unveiling the impact and dual innovation of funded research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    9. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2024.
    10. Yue Wang & Ning Li & Bin Zhang & Qian Huang & Jian Wu & Yang Wang, 2023. "The effect of structural holes on producing novel and disruptive research in physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1801-1823, March.
    11. Haochuan Cui & Tiewei Li & Cheng-Jun Wang, 2023. "Climbing up the ladder of abstraction: how to span the boundaries of knowledge space in the online knowledge market?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    12. Yan Yan & Shanwu Tian & Jingjing Zhang, 2020. "The impact of a paper’s new combinations and new components on its citation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 895-913, February.
    13. Yuefen Wang & Lipeng Fan & Lei Wu, 2024. "A validation test of the Uzzi et al. novelty measure of innovation and applications to collaboration patterns between institutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4379-4394, July.
    14. Macher, Jeffrey T. & Rutzer, Christian & Weder, Rolf, 2024. "Is there a secular decline in disruptive patents? Correcting for measurement bias," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(5).
    15. Christian Leibel & Lutz Bornmann, 2024. "What do we know about the disruption index in scientometrics? An overview of the literature," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 601-639, January.
    16. Libo Sheng & Dongqing Lyu & Xuanmin Ruan & Hongquan Shen & Ying Cheng, 2023. "The association between prior knowledge and the disruption of an article," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(8), pages 4731-4751, August.
    17. Luo, Zhuoran & Lu, Wei & He, Jiangen & Wang, Yuqi, 2022. "Combination of research questions and methods: A new measurement of scientific novelty," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    18. Ao, Weiyi & Lyu, Dongqing & Ruan, Xuanmin & Li, Jiang & Cheng, Ying, 2023. "Scientific creativity patterns in scholars’ academic careers: Evidence from PubMed," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    19. Guoqiang Liang & Ying Lou & Haiyan Hou, 2022. "Revisiting the disruptive index: evidence from the Nobel Prize-winning articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(10), pages 5721-5730, October.
    20. Ana María Gómez-Aguayo & Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Carlos Benito-Amat, 2024. "The steady effect of knowledge co-creation with universities on business scientific impact throughout the economic cycle," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(5), pages 2771-2799, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:17:y:2023:i:4:s1751157723000767. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.