Knowledge that Transforms

The expansion of advanced technologies is intensifying demand for energy, materials, and efficiency of production systems, with semiconductors exemplifying the tension between rapid technological progress and resource sustainability, and the development of circular innovations. Yet it remains unclear whether circular innovations in this sector tend to be genuinely disruptive. This study examines the disruptiveness of circular (vs. non-circular) innovations and analyses the role of inventor network structures. The empirical analysis relies on the patents of 299 European Semiconductor Equipment Manufacturing (SEM) companies retrieved from the ORBIS IP database for the period 2013-2022. First, we operationalize disruptiveness by adopting a citation-based measure to reveal whether subsequent inventions build upon or bypass a focal patent’s prior art. Then, co-inventor networks are constructed, and inventor centrality and cohesion measures are aggregated to the patent level to link inventor network structure to disruptive outcomes over time. Our findings show that circular patents exhibit, on average, higher disruptiveness than non-circular patents, and that inventor network structures characterized by more peripheral and high local cohesive configurations align with disruptive circular outcomes. The effect of the network antecedents differs systematically between circular and non-circular innovations, indicating distinct pathways to disruption. The study contributes to the innovation literature by integrating a structural disruptiveness measure with inventor network analytics, offering one of the first patent-level comparisons of circular versus non-circular disruptiveness in the semiconductor industry, and by deriving implications for organizing collaboration portfolios and policy instruments that foster circular transitions.

Schumpeterian arguments of ''creative destruction'' predict that innovation is countercyclical. However, empirical findings demonstrate the contrary. We apply corporate finance principles to innovation economics and propose a ''hurdle-rate theory of inventive procyclicality.'' Macroeconomic episodes of high equity risk premia (ERP) stifle innovation in our sample of U.S. firms because many R&D projects do not pass corporate budgeting decisions when the aggregate discount rate is high. Consistent evidence suggests that the discount rate effect is less pronounced in firms with financial slack, weak product market competition, and institutional investor ownership with long-term orientation. In an attempt to reconcile our procyclical empirical evidence with Schumpeter’s countercyclical theory, we show that firms engaging in exploratory research suffer less during high-ERP episodes than those focusing on exploitative research, and patents developed during high-ERP periods have a higher technological impact and receive significantly more forward citations. Finally, we exploit the staggered variation in state-level R&D tax credits in difference-in-differences analyses to establish a causal link between the ERP and patent value.

Radical innovation and strategic leadership research share a foundational challenge of theorizing how firms make choices about an uncertain future that shape their competitiveness, survival, and long-term performance. Yet, each field has developed a distinct explanatory signature. Radical innovation research has followed the technology, tracing how the architecture and trajectories of technological discontinuities determine organizational fates. Strategic leadership research has followed the leader(s), tracing how the cognition, composition, and interactions of those at the organizational apex shape organizational choices. We argue that this productive division of labor is being jointly frustrated by four shifts in contemporary organizing: structurally , innovation is migrating from firms to ecosystems; technologically , AI is transforming both the creative process and the cognitive conditions of leadership; relationally , permeable boundaries are redistributing influence across actors; and culturally , evaluative criteria are expanding from performance to purpose. We identify the foundational assumptions these shifts unsettle and propose four research frontiers organized around where, how, with whom, and why radical innovation happens. We conclude with key reflections from three foundational scholars on the future of the field.

At the heart of scientific discovery are researchers who identify ideas worthy of inquiry. In performing research tasks, researchers increasingly use generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. While this technology offers the promise of increased efficiency across the research process, little is known about how generative AI assists researchers with the generation of initial research ideas—one of the most fundamental tasks in science—and their willingness to adopt it for such purpose. In a pre-registered randomized online experiment with 310 researchers and a follow-up ideation study with 28 researchers, we show how one's research experience plays a role in receiving generative AI suggestions when formulating new research ideas. Experience negatively moderates both the incorporation of generative AI suggestions as well as its effect on perceived novelty and impact of the researcher's idea. We also find that generative AI may be reshaping research ideation by adding a layer of non-human exchange that precedes feedback from human experts. By focusing on the critical moment at which research ideas spark, we provide an initial understanding of how researchers respond to generative AI at a time when the paradigm of human knowledge production may be shifting from a human-only to a joint human-AI model.

We investigate the impact of equity crowdfunding exemptions on new venture creation. We further explore whether the effect varies across industries with different levels of external finance dependence, and whether this heterogeneity is influenced by regional industrial structures. Empirical evidence shows that, while the average effect of crowdfunding exemptions on new venture entry is not statistically significant, the impact is positive and significant in industries with higher external finance dependence. Moreover, this positive effect is further amplified in regions characterized by greater related variety. Complementary analyses show that the increase in new venture creation does not appear to be accompanied by a decline in entry quality. These findings highlight the importance of firm-level financial constraints and regional industrial context in shaping the effectiveness of crowdfunding policies.

This study investigates how technologies emerge to sustain technological sovereignty in response to exogenous shocks. We focus on the efforts of the Finnish state to overcome the shortage of mineral oil-based lubricants during the Second World War and identify tar oil as a central technology in this endeavor. By analyzing the emergence and decline of the Finnish tar oil industry, we elaborate on the life cycle and key mechanisms of temporary technologies as well as their role in maintaining technological sovereignty. These findings lead to a definition of temporary technology as a distinct form of technology evolution. Our findings contribute to the technology evolution literature by theorizing a form of technology that has a limited long-term impact, making it suitable for addressing temporary shocks without altering long-term technology evolution. For the technological sovereignty literature, we extend understanding of how sovereignty can be maintained in the face of unanticipated exogenous shocks and how that involves cooperation between the state and non-state actors.