The Roles of Individual Differences and Innovation Properties in Multiple Forms of Innovation Implementation

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (7) ◽  
pp. 1201-1219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sun Young Sung ◽  
Jin Nam Choi

We departed from research strategies suggested in prior studies in which binary outcomes of implementation, such as use or acceptance and nonuse or resistance, have been used, and we proposed the examination of diverse patterns of implementation behavior, including mechanical implementation, learning, reinvention, and mutual adaptation. These implementation patterns can be explained by innovation-related individual differences, innovation properties, and their interactions. We collected longitudinal data from 141 employees of a large steel company in Korea. Results showed that when employees participated in innovation-related training and when the innovation was compatible with the company's existing values and practices, the employees implemented the innovation as designed. In contrast, when employees had sufficient experience with the innovation and perceived it as flexible and adaptable to the local needs, they reinvented the innovation by customizing it to the local context. Employees' innovation competence was positively related to high-fidelity implementation only when compatibility of the innovation was high and flexibility of the innovation was low.

1999 ◽  
Vol 8 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 273-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Francis-Smythe ◽  
Ivan Robertson

Author(s):  
Nickoal Eichmann-Kalwara ◽  
Frederick Carey ◽  
Melissa Hart Cantrell ◽  
Stacy Gilbert ◽  
Philip B. White ◽  
...  

Increased computational and multimodal approaches to research over the past decades have enabled scholars and learners to forge creative avenues of inquiry, adopt new methodological approaches, and interrogate information in innovative ways. As such, academic libraries have begun to offer a suite of services to support these digitally inflected and data-intense research strategies. These supports, dubbed digital scholarship services in the library profession, break traditional disciplinary boundaries and highlight the methodological significance of research inquiry. Externally, however, these practices appear as domain-specific niches, e.g., digital history or digital humanities in humanities disciplines, e-science and e-research in STEM, and e-social science or computational social science in social science disciplines. The authors conducted a study examining the meaningfulness of the term digital scholarship within the local context at University of Colorado Boulder by investigating how the interpretation of digital scholarship varies according to graduate students, faculty, and other researchers. Nearly half of the definitions (46 percent) mentioned research process or methods as part of digital scholarship. Faculty and staff declined or were unable to define digital scholarship more often than graduate students or post-doctoral researchers. Therefore, digital scholarship as a term is not meaningful to all researchers. We recommend that librarians inflect their practices with the understanding that researchers and library users’ perceptions of digital scholarship vary greatly across contexts.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document