Abstract
There has been much research concerning emergence in technology, ever since knowledge has been accepted as a prime engine of economic growth. However, even though there are a growing number of publications, the concept remains ambiguous. In this study, we aim to trace emergence discussions to find the evolution of related concepts, in order to explore usage in the technological context. To achieve this, the philosophy of science, complexity, and economic literatures are reviewed in accordance with the emergence concept qualitatively. Then, a bibliometrics study is performed to strengthen the qualitative argument and find evidence of emergence in technology studies for comparison. Based on the findings, we can assert that the definition of technology emergence needs to be revised with consideration of its theoretical foundations. Moreover, after discussion, research questions are posed for future research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Vitalism is a thought that living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things (Bechtel and Richardson 1998).
Dualism is the view that mental phenomena are, in some respect, nonphysical (Rosenthal 1998).
‘Reduction’ is a term of natural language, and, building upon its common metaphoric meaning philosophers use it to designate relations of particular philosophical importance in a number of closely related fields, especially in the philosophy of science, the philosophy of mind, and metaphysics (for more please check https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-reduction/Accessed at 15.08.2018).
Generally one speaks of “qualitative novelty” when new kinds of properties arise out of the interactions of pre-existing properties (e.g. the property of water being liquid arising from the synthesis of oxygen and hydrogen being gaseous), while “quantitative novelty” is usually meant to refer to the coming into being of a new numerical value of a pre-existing property (e.g. the property of water of having a mass of (x + y) grams arising from the synthesis of x grams of oxygen with y grams of hydrogen). For detailed discussion on this distinction and its connection to evolution and emergence, see Blitz (1992).
Based on Sawyer (2001), aggregative properties meet four criteria, and most social properties do not satisfy them. These criteria are; (1) the parts of the system is intersubstitutable, (2) an aggregative property should remain qualitatively similar under addition or removal of a part from the system, (3) The composition function for the property remains invariant under operations of decomposition and re-aggregation of parts, (4) there are no cooperative or inhibitory interactions among the parts and relations between whole and parts are linear. Therefore he asserted that most social properties are not aggregative and thus are emergent.
Decomposable systems are modular, with each component acting primarily according to its own intrinsic principles. Sawyer (2001) asserted that systems that are not nearly decomposable are likely to have emergents system properties.
The expert was defined in Munier and Ronde (2001)’s study by citing Paradiso as an individual with his/her qualitative and practical knowledge. They emphasized that it was his recognized knowledge that guided his behavior and his choice between various possible orientations for a given subject.
Yang and Meho (2006) compared Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science based on their citation analysis performance in their study. Based on their findings Web of Science coverage goes back to 1945 for Science Citation Index, 1956 for Social Science Citation Index, and 1975 for Arts & Humanities Citation Index. Therefore, 1923 to 1956 period may not be covered in Web of Science effectively and it may be accepted as a limitation for our study.
We consider that Rotolo et al. (2015)’s study covers the descriptive part. Therefore, future studies might well focus on predictive aspects of TE.
References
Alexander, S. (1920). Space, time, and deity, the gifford lectures at glasgow, 1916–1918. London: Macmillan.
Alexander, J., Chase, J., Newman, N., Porter, A., & Roessner, J. D. (2012). Emergence as a conceptual framework for understanding scientific and technological progress. In Picmet ‘12: Proceedings—Technology Management for Emerging Technologies (pp. 1286–1292).
Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs - a cyclical model of technological-change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604–633.
Anderson, P. W. (1972). More is different. Science, 177(4047), 393.
Avila-Robinson, A., & Miyazaki, K. (2013). Dynamics of scientific knowledge bases as proxies for discerning technological emergence—The case of mems/nems technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(6), 1071–1084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.07.012.
Bechtel, W., & Richardson, R. C. (1998). Vitalism. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415249126-q109-1.
Blitz, D. (1992). Emergent evolution: Qualitative novelty and the levels of reality. Dodrecht: Kluwer.
Broad, C. D., & Tarner lecture 1923. [from old catalog]. (1925). The mind and its place in nature. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Company, Inc.
Carbonell, J., Sanchez-Esguevillas, A., & Carro, B. (2018). Easing the assessment of emerging technologies in technology observatories. Findings about patterns of dissemination of emerging technologies on the internet (vol 30, pg 113, 2017). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(1), Iii. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1344005.
Carley, S. F., Newman, N. C., Porter, A. L., & Garner, J. G. (2017). A measure of staying power: Is the persistence of emergent concepts more significantly influenced by technical domain or scale? Scientometrics, 111(3), 2077–2087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2342-x.
Carley, S. F., Newman, N. C., Porter, A. L., & Garner, J. G. (2018). An indicator of technical emergence. Scientometrics, 115(1), 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2654-5.
Chen, C. M. (2006). Citespace ii: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317.
Corning, P. A. (2002). The re-emergence of “emergence”: A venerable concept in search of a theory. Complexity, 7(6), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/cplx.10043.
Cozzens, S., Gatchair, S., Kang, J., Kim, K. S., Lee, H. J., Ordonez, G., et al. (2010). Emerging technologies: Quantitative identification and measurement. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22(3), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537321003647396.
Crutchfield, J. P. (2013). Is anything ever new? Considering emergence. In M. A. Bedau & P. Humphreys (Eds.), Emergence: Contemporary readings in philosophy and science. Cambridge: MIT Press Scholarship Online, The MIT Press.
Foster, J., & Metcalfe, J. S. (2012). Economic emergence: An evolutionary economic perspective. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 82(2–3), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.09.008.
Frederiksen, P., & Jagtfelt, T. (2013). Exponential expansion in evolutionary economics: A model proposition. Journal of Economic Issues, 47(3), 705–718. https://doi.org/10.2753/Jei0021-3624470306.
Gibbons, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Goldspink, C., & Kay, R. (2010). Emergence in organizations: The reflexive turn. Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 12(3), 47–63.
Goldstein, J. (1999). Emergence as a construct: History and issues. Emergence, 1(1), 49–72.
Goldstein, J. (2003). Emergence, creativity, and the following and negating. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 10(3), 1–12.
Goldstein, J. (2004). Emergence, creative process, and self-transcending concstructions. In M. Lissack, & K. Richardson (Eds.), Managing organizational complexity philosophy, theory and application (Vol. Managing the Complex). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub.
Gustafsson, R., Kuusi, O., & Meyer, M. (2015). Examining open-endedness of expectations in emerging technological fields: The case of cellulosic ethanol. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 91, 179–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.008.
Harper, D. A., & Endres, A. M. (2012). The anatomy of emergence, with a focus upon capital formation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 82(2), 352–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.03.013.
Hodgson, G. M. (2002). Darwinism in economics: From analogy to ontology. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(3), 259–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-002-0118-8.
Jaric, I., Knezevic-Jaric, J., & Lenhardt, M. (2014). Relative age of references as a tool to identify emerging research fields with an application to the field of ecology and environmental sciences. Scientometrics, 100(2), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1268-9.
Joung, J., & Kim, K. (2017). Monitoring emerging technologies for technology planning using technical keyword based analysis from patent data. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.020.
Klincewicz, K. (2016). The emergent dynamics of a technological research topic: The case of graphene. Scientometrics, 106(1), 319–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1780-6.
Kreuchauff, F., & Korzinov, V. (2017). A patent search strategy based on machine learning for the emerging field of service robotics. Scientometrics, 111(2), 743–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2268-3.
Kwon, H., Kim, J., & Park, Y. (2017). Applying lsa text mining technique in envisioning social impacts of emerging technologies: The case of drone technology. Technovation, 60–61, 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.01.001.
Lee, C., Kwon, O., Kim, M., & Kwon, D. (2018). Early identification of emerging technologies: A machine learning approach using multiple patent indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 127, 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.002.
Li, M. N., Porter, A. L., & Suominen, A. (2018). Insights into relationships between disruptive technology/innovation and emerging technology: A bibliometric perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 129, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.032.
Low, B., & Johnston, W. (2012). Emergent technologies, network paradoxes, and incrementalism. Journal of Business Research, 65(6), 821–828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.12.022.
Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2012). Forms of emergence and the evolution of economic landscapes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 82(2), 338–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2011.08.005.
Morgan, C. L., & Gifford lectures 1922. [from old catalog]. (1923). Emergent evolution: The Gifford lectures. London: Williams and Norgate.
Munier, F., & Ronde, P. (2001). The role of knowledge codification in the emergence of consensus under uncertainty: Empirical analysis and policy implications. Research Policy, 30(9), 1537–1551. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00166-4.
Olleros, F. J., & Macdonald, R. J. (1988). Strategic alliances—Managing complementarity to capitalize on emerging technologies. Technovation, 7(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-4972(88)90045-4.
Phaal, R., O’Sullivan, E., Routley, M., Ford, S., & Probert, D. (2011). A framework for mapping industrial emergence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(2), 217–230.
Randles, S., Dewick, P., Loveridge, D., & Schmidt, J. C. (2008). Nano-worlds as schumpeterian emergence and polanyian double-movements. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320701726312.
Robinson, D. K. R., & Propp, T. (2008). Multi-path mapping for alignment strategies in emerging science and technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(4), 517–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.techfore.2008.02.002.
Robinson, D. K. R., Ruivenkamp, M., & Rip, A. (2007). Tracking the evolution of new and emerging s&t via statement-linkages: Vision assessment in molecular machines. Scientometrics, 70(3), 831–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-0314-2.
Rosenthal, D. M. (1998). Dualism. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780415249126-v011-1.
Rotolo, D., Hicks, D., & Martin, B. R. (2015). What is an emerging technology? Research Policy, 44(10), 1827–1843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.006.
Sartenaer, O. (2018). Disentangling the vitalism-emergentism knot. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 49(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-017-9361-4.
Sawyer, R. K. (2001). Emergence in sociology: Contemporary philosophy of mind and some implications for sociological theory. American Journal of Sociology, 107(3), 551–585. https://doi.org/10.1086/338780.
Small, H., Boyack, K. W., & Klavans, R. (2014). Identifying emerging topics in science and technology. Research Policy, 43(8), 1450–1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.02.005.
Stahl, B. C., Timmermans, J., & Flick, C. (2017). Ethics of emerging information and communication technologies on the implementation of responsible research and innovation. Science and Public Policy, 44(3), 369–381. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw069.
Stephan, A. (1992). Emergence—a systematic view on its historical facets. In A. Beckermann, H. Flohr, & J. Kim (Eds.), Emergence or reduction? Essays on the prospects of nonreductive physicalism (pp. 25–48). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Surie, G. (2013). Innovating via emergent technology and distributed organization: A case of biofuel production in india. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(2), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.01.001.
Teran, M. V. (2017). Philosophical explorations for a concept of emerging technologies. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology. https://doi.org/10.5480/techne201792170.
Upham, S. P., & Small, H. (2010). Emerging research fronts in science and technology: Patterns of new knowledge development. Scientometrics, 83(1), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0051-9.
van der Valk, T., Moors, E. H. M., & Meeus, M. T. H. (2009). Conceptualizing patterns in the dynamics of emerging technologies: The case of biotechnology developments in the netherlands. Technovation, 29(4), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.09.005.
van Merkerk, R. O., & Robinson, D. K. R. (2006). Characterizing the emergence of a technological field: Expectations, agendas and networks in lab-on-a-chip technologies. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 18(3–4), 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320600777184.
van Merkerk, R. O., & Smits, R. E. H. M. (2008). Tailoring cta for emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 75(3), 312–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2007.01.003.
van Merkerk, R. O., & van Lente, H. (2005). Tracing emerging irreversibilities in emerging technologies: The case of nanotubes. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 72(9), 1094–1111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2004.10.003.
van Merkerk, R. O., & van Lente, H. (2008). Asymmetric positioning and emerging paths. Futures, 40(7), 643–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.12.007.
van Rijnsoever, F. J., van den Berg, J., Koch, J., & Hekkert, M. P. (2015). Smart innovation policy: How network position and project composition affect the diversity of an emerging technology. Research Policy, 44(5), 1094–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.004.
Whitehad, A. N. (1926). Science and the modern world. New York: Macmillan.
Wierzbicki, A. P. (2015). Systems theory, theory of chaos, emergence. Technen: Elements of recent history of information technologies with epistemological conclusions (pp. 175–188). Cham: Springer.
Woodson, T. S. (2016). Public private partnerships and emerging technologies: A look at nanomedicine for diseases of poverty. Research Policy, 45(7), 1410–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.005.
Yang, K., & Meho, L. I. (2006). Citation analysis: A comparison of google scholar, scopus, and web of science. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 43, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.14504301185.
Acknowledgements
Funding was provided by Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (Grant No. 1759960), TUBITAK (Grant No. 2219/2) and Izmir Katip Celebi Universitesi BAP (Grant No. 2018-ODL-IIBF-0015). Olivier Sartenaer gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Set | Results | Boolean expression |
|---|---|---|
# 3 | 816 | #2 AND #1 |
Indexes = SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI, CCR-EXPANDED, IC Timespan = All years | ||
# 2 | 206,968 | TI = (emerg*) |
Indexes = SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI, CCR-EXPANDED, IC Timespan = All years | ||
# 1 | 55,762 | SO = (TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING “AND” SOCIAL CHANGE OR RESEARCH POLICY OR SCIENTOMETRICS OR TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT OR JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC BEHAVIOR ORGANIZATION OR ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL OR FUTURES OR TECHNOVATION OR STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT JOURNAL OR INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT OR MINERVA OR INDUSTRIAL “AND” CORPORATE CHANGE OR JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH OR SCIENCE “AND” PUBLIC POLICY OR TECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY OR LONG RANGE PLANNING OR POLICY STUDIES JOURNAL OR JOURNAL OF PRODUCT INNOVATION MANAGEMENT OR JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC STUDIES) |
Indexes = SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, BKCI-S, BKCI-SSH, ESCI, CCR-EXPANDED, IC Timespan = All years |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burmaoglu, S., Sartenaer, O., Porter, A. et al. Analysing the theoretical roots of technology emergence: an evolutionary perspective. Scientometrics 119, 97–118 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03033-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03033-y