A Socio-Cognitive Model of Technology Evolution: The Case of Cochlear Implants

By R. Garud, M. Rappa. 2015

344 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This paper examines the social and cognitive processes that unfold over time as a technology develops. Our model focuses on the relationship between the beliefs researchers hold about what is and is not technically feasible, the technological artifacts they create, and the routines they use for evaluating how well their artifacts meet with their prior expectations.The historical development of cochlear implants serves as an illustration of the model. The evidence suggests that there is a reciprocal interaction between beliefs, artifacts, and routines that gives rise to two cyclical processes. One is a process of inversion at the micro level of individual cognition wherein evaluation routines designed to judge specific artifacts begin reinforcing researchers' beliefs. Once evaluation routines become the basis for constructing individual reality, technological claims are perceived as relevant only to those who employ the same routines while appearing as noise to those who employ different routines.The other is a process of institutionalization at the macro level of shared cognition. By institutionalization we mean the development of a common set of evaluation routines that can be applied to all technological paths. Commonly accepted evaluation routines represent a shared reality that strongly shapes the direction of future technological change.The micro- and macro-level processes that shape individual and shared realities place paradoxical demands on researchers in their efforts to develop a new technology. On the one hand, researchers must create and believe in their own realities in order to make progress in their chosen paths and convince others. On the other hand, researchers must also be ready to disbelieve their realities and be willing to embrace the emerging shared reality even if it does not match theirs. How well this paradox is managed can profoundly influence who emerges as the victor or the vanquished during the genesis of a technology.

Subfields: Cultural Studies, Sociology and Political Science, Strategy and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/73ea8a73a6745ac62906e3b0687569e96a46f866

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cultural Studies

In Sociology and Political Science

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Cui Bono? The Selective Revealing of Knowledge and Its Implications for Innovative Activity (2013, positive): “Conversely, once a technological path is established, relative certainty exists over technology and markets (Abernathy & Utterback, 1978; Dosi, 1982; Garud & Rappa, 1994).”
Motivation and Ability? A Behavioral Perspective on the Pursuit of Radical Invention in Multi-Technology Incumbents (2017, positive): “Such firms are likely to satisfice (Winter, 2000), believing that their existing routines and knowledge are sufficient, and seeing little incentive to explore more distant solutions (Denrell & March, 2001; Garud & Rappa, 1996; Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000).”
What Happens When Evaluation Goes Online? Exploring Apparatuses of Valuation in the Travel Sector (2014, background): “, Huber, 1990; Tushman and Anderson, 1986) or on cultural aspects, as in studies of the social shaping of technology or the affordances of use (e.g., Barley, 1986; Garud and Rappa, 1994; Leonardi 2011; Zammuto et al., 2007).”
Cognition and Capabilities: A Multi-Level Perspective (2013, background): “Relatedly, other scholars have shown that the direction of managerial attention (Ocasio, 1997), either toward new opportunities or instead toward existing markets or technologies, affects what capabilities are seen to be salient (Barr, 1998; Garud & Rappa, 1994; Kaplan, 2008a).”
Opportunities and institutions: A co-creation story of the king crab industry (2015, background): “…(Abernathy and Utterback, 1978) uninformed, unarticulated, and little or no experience with products (Brenner and Tripsas, 2012) little or no agreement about the product's uses or value (Clark, 1985; Garud and Rappa, 1994) and a struggle for legitimacy (Aldrich and Fiol, 1994; Roa, 1994).”