Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prolegomena to social studies of digital innovation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The rise of the digital economy, in terms of digital innovation (DI), requires the reconsideration of the notion of innovation to clarify its conceptualisation in a post–industrial digital economy. The current science, technology, innovation (STI), and social studies of innovation are lacking conceptual, theoretical, and analytical grounds for the exploration of DI, despite their pervasive impact on our lives. The aim of this study is to provide a conceptual framework for the exploration of DI, driven by growing recognition of the fact that the concept of innovation is faced with contemporary crises due to the theoretical and analytical limits of industrial innovation when adapting to socio-economic changes. This article discusses the ways in which intrinsic features of DI differentiate from industrial innovation, constructing the concept of DI around its two distinctive features: raising social inequality through four selected mechanisms and disrupting business models with ambivalent consequences. These characteristics have been identified to be the most intriguing when attempting to understand the nature of DI in today’s digital society. This research applies an intersectional and interdisciplinary approach, allowing for a critical and qualitative analysis of the current concepts of DI in different scientific fields and their convergence into a common theoretical ground for the social science of DI.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A digital artefact is defined as a digital component, application, or media content that is part of a new product (or service) and offers a specific functionality or value to the end-user (Nambisan, 2016).

  2. Marginal cost is the cost of producing an additional unit of a good or service after fixed costs have been absorbed.

References

  • Andrews D, Nicoletti G, Timiliotis C (2018) Digital technology diffusion: a matter of capabilities, incentives or both? OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1476, OECD Publishing, Paris, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/7c542c16-e.

  • Arntz, M., Gregory, T., Zierahn, U. (2016). The risk of automation for jobs in OECD countries: a comparative analysis, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working, Papers, No. 189, OECD Publishing, Paris. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlz9h56dvq7-en.

  • Atkinson AB (2015) Inequality: What Can Be Done?, Harvard University Press: Cambridge. Massachusetts, London, England

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Autio E, Nambisan S, Thomas LD, Wright M (2018) Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Strateg Entrep J 12(1):72–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autor D, Dorn D, Katz LF, Patterson C, Van Reenen J (2020) The fall of the labour share and the rise of superstar Firms. Q J Econ qjaa004, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjaa004

  • Betancourt M (2015) The critique of digital capitalism. Punctum Books, Brooklyn, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brynjolfsson E, McAfee E (2014) The second machine age: work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. WW Norton & Company, New York and London

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, Clayton M. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma. When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

  • Codagnone, C., Abadie, F., Biagi, F. (2016). The future of work in the ‘Sharing Economy’. Market efficiency and equitable opportunities or unfair precarisation?, EUR 27913 EN, JRC-IPCT, Seville, DOI:https://doi.org/10.2791/431485.

  • Cowen T (2011) The great stagnation: how america ate all the low-hanging fruit of modern history, Got Sick, and Will (Eventually) Feel Better. Dutton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowen T (2013) Average is over: powering america beyond the age of the great stagnation. Dutton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels E (2004) Disruptive technology reconsidered: a critique and research agenda. J Product Innovation Manag 21(4):246–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degryse C (2017) Shaping the world of work in the digital economy, The ETUI Foresight Brief, January 2017. ETUI Publications, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Ippolito B (2019) Archetypes of incumbents’ strategic responses to digital innovation. J Intellect Cap 20(5):662–679. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-04-2019-0065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer-Witheford N (2015) Cyber-proletariat. Pluto Press, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eurofound (2018) Employment and working conditions of selected types of platform work. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Fagerberg J, Martin BR, Andersen ES (Eds.) (2013) Innovation studies, Evolution and future challenges, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

  • Fichman RG, Dos Santos BL, Zheng Z (2014) Digital innovation as a fundamental and powerful concept in the information systems curriculum. MIS Q 38(2):329–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford M (2015) Rise of the robots: technology and the threat of a jobless future. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C (1988) Japan: A new national system of innovation? In: Dosi G et al (eds) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter Publisher Limited, London, pp 330–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey CB (2015) The end of economic growth? Sci Am 312(1):12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey CB, Osborn MA (2017) The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technol Forecast Soc Chang 114:254–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon RJ (2012) Is U.S. Economic Growth Over? Faltering Innovation Confronts the Six Headwinds, NBER Working Paper No. 18315, [online] http://www.nber.org/papers/w18315.

  • Gordon RJ (2016) The rise and fall of American growth. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Grace K, Salvatier J, Dafoe A, Zhang B, Evans O (2018) When will ai exceed human performance? Evidence from AI experts. J Artificial Intelligence Res 62:729–754

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Guellec, D., Paunov, C. (2017). Digital innovation and the distribution of income, NBER Working Paper 23987, [online] http://www.nber.org/papers/w23987.

  • Gupta M, George JF (2016) Toward the development of a big data analytics capability. Inform Manag 53(8):1049–1064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haskel J, Westlake S (2018) Capitalism without capital: the rise of the intangible economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Henfridsson O, Mathiassen L, Svahn F (2014) Managing technological change in the digital age: the role of architectural frames. J Inform Technol 29(1):27–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez H, Grassano, N., Tübke, A., Potters, L., Gkotsis, P., and Vezzani, A. (2018). The 2018 EU Industrial R&D Investment Scoreboard; EUR 29450 EN; Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN: 978–92–79–97293–5, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2760/131813, JRC113807.

  • Herterich, M. M., Mikusz, M. (2016). Looking for a few good concepts and theories for digitized artifacts and digital innovation in a material world, In: Conference paper, Thirty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, Dublin 2016.

  • Herterich MM, Eck A, Uebernickel F (2016) Exploring how digitized products enable industrial service innovation—an affordance perspective, Research Papers. 156, [online] http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2016_rp/156.

  • Hinings B, Gegenhuber T, Greenwood R (2018) Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective. Inf Organ 28(1):52–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch-Kreinsen H (2016) Digitization of industrial work: development paths and prospects. Journal of Labour Market Research 49:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12651-016-0200-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang J, Henfridsson O, Liu MJ, Newell S (2017) Growing on steroids: rapidly scaling the user base of digital ventures through digital innovation. MIS Quaterly 41(1):301–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hylving, L., Schultze, U., (2013). Evolving the modular layered architecture in digital Innovation: The case of the car's instrument cluster, Conference paper, Thirty Fourth International Conference on Information Systems, Milan 2013.

  • Lupton D (2014) Digital Sociology. Routledge, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Makridakis S (2017) The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact on society and firms. Futures 90:46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.03.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marres N (2017) Digital Sociology. Policy Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin BR (2016) Twenty challenges for innovation studies. Science and Public Policy 43(3):432–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S. (2016). Digital entrepreneurship: Toward a digital technology perspective of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 414, 1–27.

  • Nambisan S, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A, Song M (2017) Digital innovation management: reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Q 41(1):223–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., Wright, M., Feldman, M. (2019). The digital transformation of innovation and entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes, Research Policy, 48(8), Article 103773.

  • Nylen D, Holmstrom J (2015) Digital innovation strategy: A framework for diagnosing and improving digital product and service innovation. Bus Horiz 58(1):57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1971) Science, growth and society – A new perspective (the Brooks Report). OECD Publishing, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2015) In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2017) OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017: The digital transformation. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268821-en

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2018a) OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2018: Adapting to Technological and Societal Disruption. OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2018-en

  • OECD (2018b) Innovation Policies in the Digital Age. OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/innovation-policies-in-the-digital-age_eadd1094-en

  • Paunov, C., Planes-Satorra, S. (2019). How are digital technologies changing innovation?: Evidence from agriculture, the automotive industry and retail. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 74, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67bbcafe-en

  • Piketty T (2014) Capital in the 21st Century. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass and London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pinney C (2014) Economic Growth and Inequality: Why It Matters and What’s Coming Next. J Appl Corp Financ 26(2):30–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romer, M. P. (1989). Endogenous technical change. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working paper serious, No. 3210.

  • Schot J, Steinmueller WE (2018) Three frames for innovation policy: R&D, systems of innovation and transformative change. Res Policy 47(9):1554–1567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selwyn N (2019) What Is Digital Sociology? Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, A., Hess, T. (2017). How Chief Digital Officers Promote the Digital Transformation of their Companies. MIS Quarterly Executive, 16(1), Article 5, [online] https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol16/iss1/5.

  • Snyder H (2019) Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J Bus Res 104:333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soete L (2019) Science, technology and innovation studies at a crossroad: SPRU as case study. Res Policy 48(4):849–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solow, M. R. (1957). Technical change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39.

  • Song AK (2019) The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem: a critique and reconfiguration. Small Bus Econ 53(3):569–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-019-00232-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srnicek N (2016) Platform Capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge and Malden

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz JE (2013) The price of Inequality. W. W. Norton & Company, New York, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sussan F, Acs ZJ (2017) The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Bus Econ 49(1):55–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9867-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper J, Hearn D (2019) The myth of capitalism: Monopolies and the death of competition. Wiley and Sons Inc, Hoboken Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Trabucchi D, Buganza T (2018) Data-driven innovation: switching the perspective on Big Data. Eur J Innov Manag 2(1):23–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/ejim-01-2018-0017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Dijck, J., Poell, T., de Waal, M. (2018). The Platform Society. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Warner KSR, Wäger M (2019) Building dynamic capabilities for digital transformation: An ongoing process of strategic renewal. Long Range Plan 52(3):326–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, J., Watson, R.T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii.

  • WEF (2016) The Global Information Technology Report 2016: Innovating in the Digital Economy. World Economic Forum, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in everyday life: a call for research on experiential computing. MIS Quaterly, 34(2), 213–231, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/20721425

  • Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research Commentary: The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735, [online] https://www.jstor.org/stable/23015640.

  • Yoo Y, Boland RJ Jr, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A (2012) Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organisational Science 23(5):1398–1408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuboff S (2015) Big other: surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. J Inf Technol 30(1):75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2015.5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences, Zagreb, Croatia

    Jadranka Švarc

Authors
  1. Jadranka Švarc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jadranka Švarc.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Švarc, J. Prolegomena to social studies of digital innovation. AI & Soc 37, 1323–1335 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01220-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01220-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation