Abstract
We integrate a rhetorical with an audience-mediated perspective on novelty recognition to advance a conceptual framework where recognition of novel ideas is understood as the result of the interplay between an innovator’s acts of framing and audiences’ structural characteristics. Building on storytelling and narrative research, we argue that innovators can overcome the liability of newness of their ideas by framing them so as to shape the evaluation of relevant audiences (e.g., peers, critics, investors or users). We also suggest that non-agentic mechanisms can render a field more or less permeable to the reception of novel ideas. Specifically, we propose that two audience-level characteristics affect novelty evaluation: audience heterogeneity and whether an audience is internal or external to cultural producers’ (including innovators’) professional community. Studying innovators’ acts of framing and marrying them with audience-level characteristics affords a window into a more nuanced understanding of how novel ideas are recognized and eventually accepted in cultural fields, thus offering several contributions to research on innovation and entrepreneurship and, more generally, social evaluation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Change history
29 February 2020
■■■
References
Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Haslam, S. A. (2007). Creative innovation or crazy irrelevance? The contribution of group norms and social identity to creative behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,43(3), 410–416.
Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools rush in? The institutional context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review,19(4), 645–670.
Aldrich, H. E., & Martinez, M. A. (2015). Why aren’t entrepreneurs more creative? Conditions affecting creativity and innovation in entrepreneurial activity. In The Oxford handbook of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship: Multilevel linkages (pp. 445–456). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,43(5), 997.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Anderson, N., Potočnik, K., & Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management,40(5), 1297–1333.
Becker, H. S. (1982). Art Worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). The production of belief: Contribution to an economy of symbolic goods. Media, Culture and Society,2(3), 261–293.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production. New York: Columbia University Press.
Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology,110(2), 349–399.
Cattani, G., Colucci, M., & Ferriani, S. (2016). Chanel’s creative trajectory in the field of fashion: The optimal network structuration strategy. In Multidisciplinary contributions to the science of creative thinking (pp. 117–132). Singapore: Springer.
Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008). A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science,19(6), 824–844.
Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., & Allison, D. (2014). Insiders, outsiders, and the struggle for consecration in cultural fields: A core-periphery perspective. American Sociological Review,79(2), 258–281.
Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., & Lanza, A. (2017). Deconstructing the outsider puzzle: The legitimation journey of novelty. Organization Science,28(6), 965–992.
Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Negro, G., & Perretti, F. (2008). The structure of consensus: Network ties, legitimation, and exit rates of US feature film producer organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,53(1), 145–182.
Collins, R. (1998). The sociology of philosophies: A global theory of intellectual change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Werner, M. D. (2014). Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature. The Academy of Management Annals,8(1), 181–235.
Crane, D. (1976). Reward systems in art, science, and religion. American Behavioral Scientist,19(6), 719–734.
Csikszentmihályi, M. (1990). Flow the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Csikszentmihályi, M. (1996). Creativity, flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach in organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Debackere, K., Clarysse, B., Wijneberg, N. M., & Rappa, M. A. (1994). Science and industry: A theory of networks and paradigms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,6(1), 21–38.
De Vaan, M., Stark, D., & Vedres, B. (2015). Game changer: The topology of creativity. American Journal of Sociology,120(4), 1144–1194.
Durand, R., Rao, H., & Monin, P. (2007). Code and conduct in French cuisine: Impact of code changes on external evaluations. Strategic Management Journal,28(5), 455–472.
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal,46(3), 283–301.
Furnari, S. (2018). When does an issue trigger change in a field? A comparative approach to issue frames, field structures and types of field change. Human Relations,71(3), 321–348.
Gabriel, Y. (2004). Narratives, stories and texts. In D. Grant, C. Hardy, C. Oswick, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational discourse (pp. 61–77). London: Sage.
Gardner, H. E. (1993). Frames of minds: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A. P. (2014). Contextualizing entrepreneurial innovation: A narrative perspective. Research Policy,43(7), 1177–1188.
Goldberg, A., Hannan, M. T., & Kovács, B. (2016). What does it mean to span cultural boundaries? Variety and atypicality in cultural consumption. American Sociological Review,81(2), 215–241.
Hargadon, A. B., & Douglas, Y. (2001). When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Administrative Science Quarterly,46(3), 476–501.
Harrod, H. (2018, November 16). The rise and rise of the ultra-influencer. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/fad9e714-e8c0-11e8-8a85-04b8afea6ea3.
Janssen, S. (1997). Reviewing as social practice: Institutional constraints on critics’ attention for contemporary fiction. Poetics,24(5), 275–297.
Kahl, S. J., & Grodal, S. (2016). Discursive strategies and radical technological change: Multilevel discourse analysis of the early computer (1947–1958). Strategic Management Journal,37(1), 149–166.
Kasof, J. (1995). Explaining creativity: The attributional perspective. Creativity Research Journal,8(4), 311–366.
Keinan, A., Maslauskaite, K., Crener, S., & Dessain, V. (2015). The blonde salad. Harvard Business School Case 515-074. Boston, MA: HBS Press.
Khaire, M., & Wadhwani, D. (2010). Changing landscapes: The construction of meaning and value in a new market category—Modern Indian art. Academy of Management Journal,53(6), 1281–1304.
Kirton, M. J. (1994). Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving. New York, NY: Routledge.
Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lingo, E. L., & O’Mahony, S. (2010). Nexus work: Brokerage on creative projects. Administrative Science Quarterly,55(1), 47–81.
Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2001). Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strategic Management Journal,22(6–7), 545–564.
Madjar, N., Greenberg, E., & Chen, Z. (2011). Factors for radical creativity, incremental creativity, and routine, noncreative performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,96(4), 730.
Manning, S., & Bejarano, T. A. (2016). Convincing the crowd: Entrepreneurial storytelling in crowdfunding campaigns. Strategic Organization,15(2), 194–219.
March, J. G. (2010). The Ambiguities of Experience. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Martens, M. L., Jennings, J. E., & Jennings, D. (2007). Do the stories they tell get them the money they need? The role of entrepreneurial narratives in resource acquisition. Academy of Management Journal,50(5), 1107–1132.
Mueller, J. S., Melwani, S., & Goncalo, J. A. (2012). The bias against creativity: Why people desire but reject creative ideas. Psychological Science,23(1), 13–17.
Mueller, J., Melwani, S., Loewenstein, J., & Deal, J. J. (2018). Reframing the decision-makers’ dilemma: Towards a social context model of creative idea recognition. Academy of Management Journal,61(1), 94–110.
Mumford, M. D., & Gustafson, S. B. (1988). Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. Psychological Bulletin,103(1), 27.
Navis, C., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity: Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility. Academy of Management Review,36(3), 479–499.
Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Parker, J. N., & Corte, U. (2017). Placing collaborative circles in strategic action fields: Explaining differences between highly creative groups. Sociological Theory,35(4), 261–287.
Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal,49(1), 85–101.
Perry-Smith, J. E., & Mannucci, V. (2017). From creativity to innovation: The social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey. Academy of Management Review,42(1), 53–79.
Pollack, J. M., Rutherford, M. W., & Nagy, B. G. (2012). Preparedness and cognitive legitimacy as antecedents of new venture funding in televised business pitches. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,36(5), 915–939.
Pontikes, E. G. (2012). Two sides of the same coin: How ambiguous classification affects multiple audiences’ evaluations. Administrative Science Quarterly,57(1), 81–118.
Rindova, V. P., & Petkova, A. P. (2007). When is a new thing a good thing? Technological change, product form design, and perceptions of value for product innovations. Organization Science,18(2), 217–232.
Seong, S., & Godart, F. (2018). Semantic strategies for influencing the influencers: Trading a stock of names for higher creativity evaluations. Academy of Management Journal,61(3), 966–993.
Sgourev, S. V. (2013). How Paris gave rise to Cubism (and Picasso): Ambiguity and fragmentation in radical innovation. Organization Science,24(6), 1601–1617.
Simmel, G. (1971). On Individuality and Social Forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review,20(3), 571–610.
Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology,111(2), 447–504.
Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S., & Boje, D. (2016). Narratives as sources of stability and change in organizations: Approaches and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals,10(1), 495–560.
van Werven, R., Bouwmeester, O., & Cornelissen, J. P. (2015). The power of arguments: How entrepreneurs convince stakeholders of the legitimate distinctiveness of their ventures. Journal of Business Venturing,30(4), 616–631.
Vergne, J. P., & Wry, T. (2014). Categorizing categorization research: Review, integration, and future directions. Journal of Management Studies,51, 56–94.
White, H. C. (1992). Identity and control: A structural theory of social action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Wijnberg, N. M. (1995). Selection processes and appropriability in art, science and technology. Journal of Cultural Economics,19, 221–235.
Wijnberg, N. M., & Gemser, G. (2000). Adding value to innovation: Impressionism and the transformation of the selection system in visual arts. Organization Science,11(3), 323–329.
Zhou, J., Wang, X. M., Song, L. J., & Wu, J. (2017). Is it new? Personal and contextual influences on perceptions of novelty and creativity. Journal of Applied Psychology,102(2), 180.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge financial assistance from European Research Council (“Blindspot” [Grant: 695256]), the MIUR-PRIN (“Creativity, Audiences and Social Evaluation” [Grant: 2015LJXRXJ] and the University of Bologna (Alma Idea Funding Scheme).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cattani, G., Falchetti, D., Ferriani, S. (2020). Innovators’ Acts of Framing and Audiences’ Structural Characteristics in Novelty Recognition. In: Strandgaard Pedersen, J., Slavich, B., Khaire, M. (eds) Technology and Creativity. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17566-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17566-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-17565-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-17566-5
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)