Skip to main content

Introduction: Controversies in Healthcare Innovation – Service, Technology and Organization

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Controversies in Healthcare Innovation

Abstract

The chapters of this volume help answer the question: what is the role of controversies in innovation? Being anchored in different theoretical frameworks (organization studies, theories of industrial networks, and infrastructure theory), studies in this volume converge in taking a practice- and process-oriented approach to innovation, and focus on some controversial aspects relating to how innovation (in the forms of a new medical artefact, an IT system, a new organizational solution or a public-driven change/reform) unfolds in practice. While controversies might be perceived as barriers to creative change and a hindrance to innovation, observations reported in this volume produce a somewhat different view – that controversies can also have an energizing role.

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

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Editors would like to thank the Research Council of Norway for funding some of the healthcare projects in which they have been involved. Most notably the REACH project (Responsive Architectures in Collaborative Healthcare Services), and the BEPPLO project (227145/O70 Conditions for Change of Practice when Implementing Electronic Health and Care Messages).

References

  • Aanestad, M., & Jensen, T. B. (2011). Building nation-wide information infrastructures in healthcare through modular implementation strategies. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(2), 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Lev, S., & Harrison, M. I. (2006). Negotiating time scripts during implementation of an electronic medical record. Healthcare Management Review, 31(1), 11–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casebeer, A. L., Harrison, A., & Mark, A. L. (2006). Innovations in healthcare: A reality check. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. M., Grossman, J. H., & Hwang, J. H. (2009). The innovator’s prescription. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciborra, C., et al. (2000). From control to drift: The dynamics of corporate information infastructures. Oxford: Oxfrod University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, P. N., Jackson, S. J., Bowker, G. C., & Knobel, C. P. (2007). Understanding infrastructure: Dynamics, tensions, and design. Ann Arbor: Deep Blue.

    Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson, H., Ford, D., Gadde, L.-E., Snehota, I., & Waluszewski, A. (2009). Business in networks. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2002). Managing technological development—IKEA, the environment and technology. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Håkansson, H., & Waluszewski, A. (2007). Knowledge and innovation in business and industry: The importance of using others. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D., & Waluszewski, A. (2008). The development of a user network as a way to re-launch an unwanted product. Research Policy, 37(1), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernes, T. (2014). A process theory of organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoholm, T. (2011). The contrary forces of innovation: An ethnography of innovation in the food industry. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hoholm, T., & Olsen, P. I. (2012). The contrary forces of innovation: A conceptual model for studying networked innovation processes. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(2), 344–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • La Rocca, A., & Snehota, I. (2014). Relating in business networks: Innovation in practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 43, 441–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1996). Aramis, or, the love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, C., Murray, E., Finch, T., Mair, F., Treweek, S., Ballini, L., et al. (2010). Normalization process theory on-line users’ manual and toolkit. Retrieved 2 June, 2016, from http://www.normalizationprocess.org.

  • Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A. (2008). The logic of care: Health and the problem of patient choice. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreira, T. (2012). The transformation of contemporary Healthcare: The market, the laboratory, and the forum. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mørk, B.-E., Hoholm, T., & Aanestad, M. (2006). Constructing, enacting and packaging innovations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4), 444–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mørk, B. E., Hoholm, T., Aanestad, M., Edwin, B., & Ellingsen, G. (2010). Challenging expertise: On power relations within and across communities of practice in medical innovation. Management Learning, 41, 575–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mørk, B. E., Hoholm, T., Maaninen-Olsson, E., & Aanestad, M. (2012). Changing practice through boundary organizing: A case from medical R&D. Human Relations, 65(2), 263–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T. R., Knorr Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. V. (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (2013/1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7(1), 111–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, J., Newell, S., & Nicolini, D. (Eds.) (2016). Mobilizing knowledge in healthcare: Challenges for management and organization. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van De Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkataraman, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venturini, T. (2010). Diving in magma: How to explore controversies with actor-network theory. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 258–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R. (1996). Strategy as practice. Long Range Planning, 29(5), 731–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas Hoholm .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hoholm, T., La Rocca, A., Aanestad, M. (2018). Introduction: Controversies in Healthcare Innovation – Service, Technology and Organization. In: Hoholm, T., La Rocca, A., Aanestad, M. (eds) Controversies in Healthcare Innovation. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-55780-3_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics