Exploring Innovation Between Scholarly Explanations And Lexical Meaning

867 Words Jan 7th, 2016 4 Pages
Literature on innovation, though shows contextual biases and disparity (Crossan, M. M., and Apaydin, M., 2010), but mostly refers to innovation as a category that bears the meaning of introducing something new for bringing changes (Godin, B., 2012, working paper no. 12). Thesaurus, on the other hand, suggests innovation as a new state or condition, such as newness, displacement, revolution, youth, restoration, renovation, etc. So, there appears a gap in understanding innovation between scholarly explanations and lexical meaning. The former refers to innovation as a cause or a source that brings a change while the latter explains innovation as an effect or an outcome representing a change.

Crossan and Apaydin (2010), nonetheless, attempt to reduce the gap by referring to innovation both as a process and an output. However, a process always follows specific decisions, and an output is an expected result of such decisions that, according to Schumpeter (1932), should be guided by novel ideas. Therefore, any attempt of explaining innovation as a phenomenon without any novel idea appears incomplete. A novel idea, however, cannot be generated in a vacuum, it always represents a cause. In other words, a cause demands novel ideas that initiate a process leading to an output required for creating an effect to offset that cause. Therefore, it remains an issue to decide whether innovation should be referred to as a cause, a process, an effect, or all three.

From terminology point of…

Related Documents