Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A measure of staying power: Is the persistence of emergent concepts more significantly influenced by technical domain or scale?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study advances a four-part indicator for technical emergence. While doing so it focuses on a particular class of emergent concepts—those which display the ability to repeatedly maintain an emergent status over multiple time periods. The authors refer to this quality as staying power and argue that those concepts which maintain this ability are deserving of greater attention. The case study we consider consists of 15 subdatatsets within the dye-sensitized solar cell framework. In this study the authors consider the impact technical domain and scale have on the behavior of persistently emergent concepts and test which of these has a greater influence.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See https://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/fuse.

  2. See www.theVantagePoint.com.

References

  • Alexander, J., Murdick, D., Babko-Malaya, O., & Boyack, K. (2013). Detecting and evaluating the emergence of science and technology: Activities in foresight and understanding from scientific exposition. In Global Tech mining conference, Atlanta.

  • An, L., Lin, X., Chuanming, Yu., & Zhang, X. (2015). Measuring and visualizing the contributions of Chinese and American LIS research institutions to emerging themes and salient themes. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1605–1634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, S., Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2013). Capturing new developments in an emerging technology: an updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs. Scientometrics, 95(1), 351–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carley, S., Newman, N. C., Porter, A. L., & Garner, J. (2017). A four part indicator for technical emergence. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • de Haan, J. (2006). How emergence arises. Ecological Complexity., 3(4), 293–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foresight and Understanding from Scientific Exposition (FUSE). (2014). http://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/fuse. Accessed 14 Sept 2016.

  • Foresight and Understanding from Scientific Exposition (FUSE). (2014). http://www.iarpa.gov/index.php/research-programs/fuse. Accessed 29 Dec 2016.

  • Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(12), 7821–7826.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, Y., Ma, T., Porter, A. L., & Huang, L. (2012). Text mining of information resources to inform Forecasting Innovation Pathways. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(8), 843–861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R. (1995). Foresight in science and technology. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 7(2), 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, J. J., Carley, S., & Porter, A. L. (2013). ClusterSuite [computer software], Atlanta, GA (available via http://www.VPInstute.org).

  • Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. R. (2015). What is an emerging technology? Research Policy, 44(10), 1827–1843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Small, H., Boyack, K., & Klavans, R. (2014). Identifying emerging topics in science and technology. Research Policy, 43(8), 1450–1467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, B. C. (2011). What does the future hold? A critical view on emerging information and communication technologies and their social consequences. In M. Chiasson, O. Henfridsson, H. Karsten & J. I. DeGross (Eds.), Proceedings Researching the Future in Information Systems: IFIP WG 8.2 Working Conference, Future IS 2011. Turku, Finland, June 6–8, 2011 (pp. 59–76). Heidelberg: Springer.

  • VantagePoint. (2012). Search technology. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from www.thevantagepoint.com.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Enterprise Innovation Institute, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA, 30308, USA

    Stephen F. Carley & Alan L. Porter

  2. Search Technology, Inc, Norcross, GA, 30092, USA

    Stephen F. Carley, Nils C. Newman, Alan L. Porter & Jon G. Garner

  3. Intelligent Information Services Corporation, Atlanta, GA, 30357, USA

    Nils C. Newman

Authors
  1. Stephen F. Carley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nils C. Newman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alan L. Porter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jon G. Garner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen F. Carley.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carley, S.F., Newman, N.C., Porter, A.L. et al. A measure of staying power: Is the persistence of emergent concepts more significantly influenced by technical domain or scale?. Scientometrics 111, 2077–2087 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2342-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2342-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation