It is commonly recognized that different social configurations tend to be associated with different innovation styles. Linear innovations are more likely to be produced by communities of strong and homogeneous ties, whereas radical innovations tend to originate from networks of weak and diverse connections. Yet there is a second and subtler linkage between social patterns and innovation types: a junction that depends on the nature of the media available to different groups. The key role is played by explicitness. Communities, being relatively homogeneous, can rely on implicit forms of communication, whereas networks require explicit channels and languages to relate highly diverse components. This difference in explicitness tends to produce different innovation styles: The more explicit are the media available to a group, the more discontinuous and radical will be the innovation generated. Empirical ground for this hypothesis is provided through analysis of a much-discussed case of biopiracy.
Baldini, M. (2003). La storia della comunicazione [History of communication]. Rome: Newton &Compton.
2.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2000). The social life of information. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
3.
Bowker, G. (1992). What's in a patent? In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology, building society (pp. 53-71). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Cavalli, N. (2007). The symbolic dimension of innovation processes. American Behavioral Scientist,50(7), 958-969.
5.
Dal Fiore, F. (2007). Communities versus networks: The implications on innovation and social change.American Behavioral Scientist, 50(7), 857-866.
6.
Eco, U. (1984). Semiotica e filosofia del linguaggio [Semiotics and the philosophy of language]. Turin,Italy: Einaudi.
7.
Eisenstein, E. (1983). The printing revolution in early modern Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
European Union. (1973, October 5). Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention), 1065 U.N.T.S. 199.
9.
Fonte, M. (2004). Organismi geneticamente modificati, monopolio e diritti [Genetically modified organisms, monopoly and rights]. Milan: Franco Angeli.
10.
Francisco, S. (2007). The way we do things around here: Specification versus craft culture in the history of building. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(7), 970-988.
11.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studying of routine grounds of everyday activities. In Studies in ethnomethodology(pp. 35-57). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12.
Gras, A. (1993). Grandeur et dépendance [Grandeur and dependence]. Paris: Presses Universitaires deFrance.
13.
Goody, J. (1986). The logic of writing and the organization of society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
Goody, J., & Watt, I. (1968). The consequences of literacy. In J. Goody (Ed.), Literacy in traditional societies (pp. 27-68). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Gupta, A. K. (2004). WIPO-UNEP study on the role of intellectual property rights in the sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. Geneva, Switzerland: WIPO Press.
16.
Hughes, T. (1983). Networks of powers: Electrification in Western society. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
17.
Khor, M. (2002). Intellectual property, biodiversity and sustainable development. London: Zed.
18.
Kuhn, T (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
19.
Latouche, S. (1994). La Megamachine. Raison techno-scientifique, raison économique et le mythe du Progrès [The megamachine: Techno-scientific reason, economic reason and the myth of progress]. Paris: La Découverte.
20.
Latour, B. (1979). Laboratory life, the construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
Latour, B. (1991). Nous n'avons jamais été modernes [We have never been modern]. Paris: La Découverte.
23.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's hope. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
Leiner, B. M., Cerf, V. G., Clark, D. D., Kahn, R. E., Kleinrock, L., Lynch, D.C., et al. (2003). A brief history of the Internet. Reston, VA: The Internet Society. Retrieved from http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml
25.
Luhman, N., & De Giorgi, R. (2000). Teoria della società [Theory of society]. Milan: Franco Angeli.
26.
Meldolesi, A. (2001). Organismi geneticamente modificati: storia di un dibattito truccato [Genetically modified organisms: History of a flawed debate]. Turin, Italy: Einaudi.
27.
Misa, T. (1992). Controversy and closure in technological change: Constructing “steel.” In W. E. Bijker& J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology, building society (pp. 109-139). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
Nooteboom, B. (1999). Innovation, learning and industrial organization. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 23, 127-150.
29.
Ong, W. (1982). Orality and literacy, the technologizing of the word. London/New York: Methuen.
30.
Shannon, E. C. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27,379-423, 623-656.
31.
Shiva, V. (1988). Staying alive: Women, ecology and survival in India. London: Zed.
32.
Shiva, V. (1997). Biopiracy, the plunder of nature and knowledge. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
33.
Shiva, V. (2001). Protect or plunder. Florence, Italy: Nabu International Literary Agency.
34.
Shulze, H. (1994). Statt und Nation in der europäischen Geschichte [Nations and nationalism: The making of Europe]. Munich, Germany: Verlag.
35.
World Trade Organization. (1994, April 15). Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, Legal Instruments—Results of the Uruguay Round Vol. 31; 33-33 I.L.M. 1197, 1201.
36.
W.R. Grace & U.S. Department of Agriculture. (1994). European Patent No. 436257. Munich, Germany: European Patent Office.
