IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v18y2024i4s1751157724000968.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring the potential of disruptive innovation in the social sciences: A quantitative study of its impact on societal visibility

Author

Listed:
  • Li, Yingqun
  • Song, Ningyuan
  • Shen, Yu
  • Pei, Lei

Abstract

Scientific innovation serves as the driving force behind societal progress. In contrast to conservative innovation, disruptive innovation reshapes scientific paradigms and trajectories, significantly influencing both the scientific community and societal development. This study employs an extensive empirical dataset to explore the potential of disruptive innovation to enhance the societal visibility of scientific research. Our research reveals that disruptive innovation significantly enhances societal visibility, increasing it by 11.96% compared to consolidating innovation. Furthermore, disruptive innovation does not directly lead to early-stage "breakthroughs" in scientific endeavors, but it does have a notable "acceleration" effect on societal visibility. Particularly striking is its ability to promote visibility of scientific research on social media platforms such as Twitter and blogs. However, its influence is insignificant in news articles and policy documents. This phenomenon may be attributed to the high-risk nature of disruptive innovation, which conflicts with the high level of trust, professionalism, and certainty sought in news and policy. This study carries essential implications for selecting innovative directions, the channels through which innovation is disseminated, and the formulation of science policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Li, Yingqun & Song, Ningyuan & Shen, Yu & Pei, Lei, 2024. "Exploring the potential of disruptive innovation in the social sciences: A quantitative study of its impact on societal visibility," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:18:y:2024:i:4:s1751157724000968
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2024.101584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751157724000968
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101584?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. González-Betancor, Sara M. & Dorta-González, Pablo, 2023. "Does society show differential attention to researchers based on gender and field?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    2. Yu, Houqiang & Li, Longfei & Cao, Xueting & Chen, Tao, 2022. "Exploring country's preference over news mentions to academic papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(4).
    3. 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.
    4. Anastassios Pouris, 2005. "An assessment of the impact and visibility of South African journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 62(2), pages 213-222, January.
    5. Lin, Yiling & Evans, James A. & Wu, Lingfei, 2022. "New directions in science emerge from disconnection and discord," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    6. 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.
    7. Kong, Ling & Wang, Dongbo, 2020. "Comparison of citations and attention of cover and non-cover papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    8. Russell J. Funk & Jason Owen-Smith, 2017. "A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(3), pages 791-817, March.
    9. Sandra Miguel & Zaida Chinchilla-Rodriguez & Félix de Moya-Anegón, 2011. "Open access and Scopus: A new approach to scientific visibility from the standpoint of access," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(6), pages 1130-1145, June.
    10. Christian Gumpenberger & Wolfgang Glänzel & Juan Gorraiz, 2016. "The ecstasy and the agony of the altmetric score," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(2), pages 977-982, August.
    11. repec:plo:pone00:0064841 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Yu, Houqiang & Xu, Shenmeng & Xiao, Tingting & Hemminger, Brad M. & Yang, Siluo, 2017. "Global science discussed in local altmetrics: Weibo and its comparison with Twitter," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 466-482.
    13. Arthur, W. Brian, 2007. "The structure of invention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 274-287, March.
    14. Ortega, José Luis, 2015. "Relationship between altmetric and bibliometric indicators across academic social sites: The case of CSIC's members," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 39-49.
    15. Salter, Ammon & Salandra, Rossella & Walker, James, 2017. "Exploring preferences for impact versus publications among UK business and management academics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1769-1782.
    16. repec:plo:pone00:0035869 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Werner Marx, 2016. "Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1477-1495, December.
    18. Fusillo, Fabrizio, 2023. "Green Technologies and diversity in the knowledge search and output phases: Evidence from European Patents," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(4).
    19. Arun Kumaraswamy & Raghu Garud & Shahzad (Shaz) Ansari, 2018. "Perspectives on Disruptive Innovations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1025-1042, November.
    20. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Adams, Jonathan, 2019. "Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 325-340.
    21. 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.
    22. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin, 2018. "Normalization of zero-inflated data: An empirical analysis of a new indicator family and its use with altmetrics data," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 998-1011.
    23. Sandra Miguel & Zaida Chinchilla‐Rodriguez & Félix de Moya‐Anegón, 2011. "Open access and Scopus: A new approach to scientific visibility from the standpoint of access," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 62(6), pages 1130-1145, June.
    24. repec:plo:pone00:0197326 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. Lutz Bornmann, 2015. "Alternative metrics in scientometrics: a meta-analysis of research into three altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 1123-1144, June.
    26. Joseph Staudt & Huifeng Yu & Robert P Light & Gerald Marschke & Katy Börner & Bruce A Weinberg, 2018. "High-impact and transformative science (HITS) metrics: Definition, exemplification, and comparison," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-23, July.
    27. Clayton M. Christensen & Rory McDonald & Elizabeth J. Altman & Jonathan E. Palmer, 2018. "Disruptive Innovation: An Intellectual History and Directions for Future Research," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1043-1078, November.
    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. D’Este, Pablo & Robinson-García, Nicolás, 2023. "Interdisciplinary research and the societal visibility of science: The advantages of spanning multiple and distant scientific fields," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(2).
    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. 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.
    4. Ying Guo & Xiantao Xiao, 2022. "Author-level altmetrics for the evaluation of Chinese scholars," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 973-990, February.
    5. 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).
    6. 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).
    7. Jiang, Huihuang & Zhou, Jianlin & Ding, Yiming & Zeng, An, 2024. "Overcoming recognition delays in disruptive research: The impact of team size, familiarity, and reputation," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Sergio Copiello, 2020. "Other than detecting impact in advance, alternative metrics could act as early warning signs of retractions: tentative findings of a study into the papers retracted by PLoS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(3), pages 2449-2469, December.
    11. 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).
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Dongqing Lyu & Kaile Gong & Xuanmin Ruan & Ying Cheng & Jiang Li, 2021. "Does research collaboration influence the “disruption” of articles? Evidence from neurosciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 287-303, January.
    15. Bornmann, Lutz & Haunschild, Robin & Adams, Jonathan, 2019. "Do altmetrics assess societal impact in a comparable way to case studies? An empirical test of the convergent validity of altmetrics based on data from the UK research excellence framework (REF)," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 325-340.
    16. 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.
    17. Ziyan Zhang & Junyan Zhang & Pushi Wang, 2024. "Measurement of disruptive innovation and its validity based on improved disruption index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 6477-6531, November.
    18. 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.
    19. 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).
    20. Yang, Alex J., 2024. "On the temporal diversity of knowledge in science," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4).

    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:18:y:2024:i:4:s1751157724000968. 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.