Benjamin M. Cole

Globally Radical Technologies and Locally Radical Technologies: The Role of Audiences in the Construction of Innovative Impact in Biotechnology

We argue that the decision of inventors to build upon a pioneering technology is a function not just of technical merit but also of social forces. The identification of technological predecessors in the patenting process (i.e., prior art) goes beyond merely delineating legal boundaries of a technological claim; the act, we posit, also provides a roadmap for potential inventors to follow. Thus, in technologies where such a roadmap does not exist (i.e., “new to the world” technologies), innovative impact is stifled as compared to technologies where such roadmaps are preserved (i.e., “new to the firm” technologies). To build our story, we distinguish between two types of radical technologies-globally radical technologies (GRTs) and locally radical technologies (LRTs)-and juxtapose them in an exploration of the technologys cumulative impact of entrepreneurial firm invention. Results from a negative binomial regression analysis of inventions in the U.S.-based biotechnology industry show that LRTs are far more likely to be cited in the long run than GRTs, as hypothesized.

Legitimacy Concerns in Animal Advocacy Organizations during the Michael Vick Dogfighting Scandal

AbstractUsing the quasi-experimental setting of the Michael Vick dogfighting case, the researchers employed rich interview content to explore the question, “When a critical event occurs in the animal advocacy field, what motivates advocacy groups to respond?” The investigation reveals that what was thought to be one critical event was in actuality three unique yet interrelated critical events—(1) the revelation of the transgressions; (2) the punishment of the perpetrator; and (3) the decision about whether to ally with the perpetrator in advocacy. The study shows that legitimacy concerns, occasionally paired with reflections on organizational identity, influenced the decision-making of advocacy organizations across all three critical events, as each held the potential either to legitimize or to delegitimize the advocacy organizations and/or the perpetrator (i.e., Vick).