Popular in Sociology

Culture and Society

The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place

New York University Harvey Moltoch

Culture and Society

Carceral Entrapments: Views from the Prison/Street Interface in India

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Mahuya Bandyopadhya

Culture and Society

Pre-problem families: predictive analytics and the future as the present

University of Southampton Rosalind Edwards

Ethnicity and Racism

Were Muslim Barbarians Really Knocking On the Gates of Ontario?

University of Ottawa Natasha Bakht

Culture and Society

Poor People’s Survival Strategies

The University of Texas at Austin Javier Auyero

Ethnicity and Racism

Sociology of Whiteness

Arizona State University Monica McDermott

Ethnicity and Racism

Narratives of Harm and the case for detention abolition

Queen's University Sharry Aiken

Generating Workspace

Export as PDF

The presented text discusses research by sociologists of science funded by the NSF, focusing on the concepts of disruption and innovation in scientific work. The researchers, led by Gina Lee and others, aim to clarify the relationship between novelty and disruption, noting that novelty is multidimensional; not all novel works are necessarily disruptive.

They differentiate between various types of novelty in scholarly articles: new results, new theories, and new methods. Surprisingly, they found that new results often did not lead to significant disruption in the field. In contrast, new theories were generally more consolidating, reinforcing existing streams of knowledge, while new methods were found to be more disruptive, suggesting they are more adaptable across disciplines.

The researchers utilized citation classics—essays written by highly cited scientists reflected upon their impactful works—to analyze the influence and disruption associated with their research. Their findings indicate that the type of novelty matters significantly in understanding how scientific knowledge evolves, leading to the conclusion that a nuanced understanding of novelty is crucial in studying scientific influence and impact. The distinction between types of novelty is seen as essential for grasping the dynamics of scientific progress.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.145 --> 00:02.285
We are sociologists of science, right?

00:02.305 --> 00:04.885
We have this funding from NSF and Rest Funk.

00:04.905 --> 00:06.085
And, and Gina Lee

00:06.105 --> 00:10.045
and I, we're really, really curious about,

00:10.455 --> 00:12.405
disruption and some of the correlates

00:12.405 --> 00:13.805
of disruption and innovation.

00:14.345 --> 00:18.125
And, we proposed to look at novelty, right?

00:18.585 --> 00:21.605
Um, I think a lot of people in the literature,

00:22.035 --> 00:25.565
confuse the two and think that a novel work is, for example,

00:25.765 --> 00:27.525
a disruptive work, right?

00:27.865 --> 00:30.805
Um, something new is gonna shake things up, right?

00:31.265 --> 00:32.845
And especially if it's a new discovery.

00:33.505 --> 00:36.205
And so we interrogate that, a little bit.

00:36.785 --> 00:41.325
And, one of the ways we do that is we say, well,

00:41.745 --> 00:45.645
we, novelty is not just unit dimensional.

00:45.645 --> 00:48.365
Some work is more novel, some work is less novel.

00:48.435 --> 00:50.045
Most work is somewhere in the middle

00:50.105 --> 00:51.645
and presenting a new thing, right?

00:51.645 --> 00:55.445
Or a new idea. And we, we start to, in this paper,

00:55.665 --> 00:58.765
really look at the types of novelty,

00:58.795 --> 01:01.525
that a scientific work might present a book,

01:01.925 --> 01:03.245
a published research article.

01:03.705 --> 01:04.885
We don't look at patents,

01:04.885 --> 01:07.965
but Russ has looked at patents in his previous work, right?

01:08.265 --> 01:12.525
Um, in what ways is a scholarly journal article

01:13.145 --> 01:16.005
new, if at all, some paper, some papers, surprisingly

01:16.665 --> 01:18.765
it was about a fifth of them in our dataset, right?

01:19.355 --> 01:23.685
Weren't, new, in, in any way. Um, right?

01:23.945 --> 01:26.685
So, we looked at different types of novelties.

01:26.795 --> 01:29.805
Some papers might dev might share a new

01:29.805 --> 01:30.925
result, a new finding.

01:31.025 --> 01:32.325
Oh, here's something that no one,

01:32.425 --> 01:34.405
no other scientist has found before.

01:34.555 --> 01:35.685
That would be a new result.

01:36.235 --> 01:39.645
Some papers maybe develop a new theory, right?

01:39.765 --> 01:42.365
A new explanation for something, right?

01:42.745 --> 01:45.765
Uh, maybe including, you know, pathways or whatnot.

01:45.785 --> 01:47.725
So here's a new explanation or new theory.

01:47.795 --> 01:48.805
Some papers do that

01:49.505 --> 01:53.325
and some papers, develop new techniques

01:53.665 --> 01:56.205
or methods, maybe a new scale

01:56.425 --> 01:59.125
or index, like the CD index that we use in this paper.

01:59.235 --> 02:01.925
That that's an instance of a new method, a new way

02:01.925 --> 02:06.005
to measure something, a new goodness of fit statistic,

02:06.225 --> 02:07.925
et cetera.

02:07.925 --> 02:11.045
So we really look at types of novelty in this paper,

02:11.045 --> 02:14.965
including theories and methods and the prototypical results.

02:15.385 --> 02:18.245
The term that, Russ Funk

02:18.245 --> 02:20.445
and Jason Owen Smith originally used

02:20.445 --> 02:21.565
when they developed the term.

02:22.025 --> 02:25.085
Um, they distinguish between consolidating at one end.

02:25.085 --> 02:26.165
So some, some papers

02:26.305 --> 02:29.725
or patents can have a consolidating influence on a stream

02:29.745 --> 02:32.565
of knowledge on the literature, and other patents

02:32.565 --> 02:36.325
or papers can have a more destabilizing influence.

02:36.465 --> 02:39.125
That's actually what the D stood for,

02:39.265 --> 02:40.365
in the original paper.

02:40.905 --> 02:44.885
And, yeah, I can, I, the,

02:45.325 --> 02:47.245
consolidating work is,

02:48.125 --> 02:49.645
I wouldn't call it more incremental,

02:49.785 --> 02:52.685
but more deeply, engaged with

02:53.185 --> 02:55.725
and, connected to,

02:56.065 --> 02:58.885
and incorporating, past work

02:59.625 --> 03:03.165
and prior work, sorry, past work

03:03.185 --> 03:04.805
and future work, right?

03:05.025 --> 03:06.125
And connecting those.

03:06.225 --> 03:09.165
And really, so a consolidating paper really is making those

03:09.355 --> 03:11.645
connections across generations of scholarship.

03:12.155 --> 03:15.565
Whereas a more destabilizing paper

03:15.945 --> 03:19.605
or disruptive paper is kind of severing those ties

03:19.795 --> 03:23.325
between the past work and the future work, right?

03:23.385 --> 03:25.325
Or serving to kind of disconnect them

03:25.465 --> 03:27.605
and maybe take the literature

03:27.665 --> 03:29.765
or that stream of knowledge in a new direction.

03:30.165 --> 03:33.005
Rerouted a little bit. Yeah, we did a lot of digging in.

03:33.065 --> 03:36.645
We were, I think a, a little bit surprised, and,

03:36.645 --> 03:38.725
and, and happy 'cause that meant that maybe there's room

03:38.725 --> 03:40.165
for a contribution from us.

03:41.105 --> 03:43.445
Um, we were a little surprised about

03:43.625 --> 03:44.805
the state of the literature.

03:44.825 --> 03:48.845
So we, we, we dug back to kind of classic sociology

03:49.145 --> 03:51.565
of science philosophy and history of science.

03:53.145 --> 03:56.525
How did new ideas come about? How do things change?

03:57.285 --> 04:00.885
A lot of that work was, very, theoretical in nature.

04:01.265 --> 04:02.685
Um, a little bit abstract.

04:03.065 --> 04:06.325
Um, the empirical work in there was maybe more,

04:06.415 --> 04:08.965
historical comparative based on,

04:08.965 --> 04:11.085
some particular cases and talk of cases.

04:11.985 --> 04:13.725
And, yeah.

04:13.785 --> 04:17.805
And we thought that a lot of the recent work in,

04:17.805 --> 04:20.805
this kind of new, interdisciplinary,

04:21.135 --> 04:23.765
maybe subfield called the Science of Science

04:23.835 --> 04:26.005
that is using more quantitative approaches

04:26.025 --> 04:27.645
to understand questions like these,

04:27.795 --> 04:29.645
that there was a little bit of a disconnect

04:29.645 --> 04:31.805
between the current empirical work

04:32.305 --> 04:35.885
and this kind of classic, theoretical,

04:36.255 --> 04:38.325
historical comparative work, right?

04:38.345 --> 04:40.405
The classic work was really trying to understand

04:40.745 --> 04:43.525
how ideas relate to each other, how,

04:43.545 --> 04:46.885
and one idea, one new idea might supersede an old idea.

04:48.145 --> 04:52.605
Uh, and we weren't really seeing that being captured

04:53.185 --> 04:55.165
in the current empirical work.

04:55.945 --> 04:59.125
We found some really, really cool data

04:59.155 --> 05:03.725
that I had used in a previous, project,

05:04.035 --> 05:06.405
with Cindy Kane, also funded by the NSF.

05:06.865 --> 05:10.885
And the cool data that we identified are called

05:11.685 --> 05:13.965
citation classics, essays.

05:14.695 --> 05:15.785
They're on a website.

05:15.805 --> 05:18.345
Anyone can go and download all of them just like we did.

05:19.085 --> 05:23.625
Um, these are one page essays, written

05:23.765 --> 05:25.305
by highly cited scientists.

05:25.765 --> 05:29.605
So, Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Web of Science,

05:29.675 --> 05:31.685
when a paper, this is back in the day,

05:31.685 --> 05:33.285
the data are, are a little dated.

05:33.435 --> 05:34.845
They're a little old. Uh,

05:34.945 --> 05:38.525
if your paper received some discipline specific threshold,

05:38.525 --> 05:40.085
like, you know, passed some threshold of number

05:40.085 --> 05:41.605
of citations, you know, in a smaller field,

05:41.605 --> 05:42.765
it might only be like math.

05:42.765 --> 05:44.325
It might only be 75 citations.

05:44.905 --> 05:47.165
He would probably couldn't email you back then.

05:47.165 --> 05:49.285
Just write you a letter and say, Hey, your, give you a call

05:49.285 --> 05:51.005
and say, Hey, your paper is a citation classic.

05:51.495 --> 05:54.045
Would you please write a little essay about your work

05:54.225 --> 05:56.085
and, how it originated

05:56.385 --> 05:58.765
and what were some of the challenges you experienced

05:59.065 --> 06:01.405
and, why you think it's been so useful

06:01.405 --> 06:02.565
to the scientific community?

06:02.825 --> 06:04.605
So these one-page essays written

06:04.625 --> 06:06.725
by highly cited scientists about their work

06:07.105 --> 06:08.205
are available online.

06:08.545 --> 06:10.125
Um, there are not too, too many of them.

06:10.125 --> 06:12.085
We pretty much grabbed every single one that we could.

06:12.425 --> 06:14.125
And then we linked them

06:14.385 --> 06:16.565
to the article that they are talking about.

06:16.575 --> 06:18.085
Where is that highly cited article?

06:18.105 --> 06:19.885
We went and grabbed that from the web of science

06:20.265 --> 06:21.845
and all sorts of data about that,

06:21.845 --> 06:23.925
including its citation patterns.

06:24.475 --> 06:27.125
What works are showing up in its bibliography, what kind

06:27.125 --> 06:28.405
of works are citing it.

06:28.465 --> 06:31.485
So we could look at the citation patterns to measure,

06:31.625 --> 06:34.525
the nature of scientific influence specifically,

06:34.535 --> 06:36.285
disruption in the essays.

06:36.345 --> 06:37.725
The, these, these scholars

06:37.725 --> 06:40.325
or scientists are, they're typically writing them about a

06:40.325 --> 06:42.365
decade after their paper was published,

06:42.365 --> 06:44.245
and they're reflecting on this paper that,

06:44.245 --> 06:45.885
that has been so highly cited.

06:46.145 --> 06:49.125
And they sometimes are using words like, well,

06:49.205 --> 06:51.925
I thought my paper, you know, maybe my paper was useful

06:51.925 --> 06:53.005
to the scientific community

06:53.005 --> 06:55.165
because I really, you know, I developed this new technique

06:55.225 --> 06:56.485
and da, da da.

06:56.985 --> 06:59.325
So we would code those essays, right?

06:59.325 --> 07:02.125
If they say a word, a synonym for novelty,

07:02.125 --> 07:05.525
and if they say a, a synonym for method like technique

07:06.065 --> 07:09.005
in the same sentence, we would kind of code that as,

07:09.945 --> 07:11.565
new method.

07:12.155 --> 07:14.525
They think their work, you know, developed

07:14.525 --> 07:15.685
and shared a, a new method.

07:15.905 --> 07:17.965
Um, and so that's how we, we

07:18.685 --> 07:21.605
captured the key independent variable in our study,

07:21.605 --> 07:22.965
which is types of novelty.

07:23.305 --> 07:26.605
So I think maybe the most surprising finding is that the,

07:26.825 --> 07:30.005
you know, that prototypical type of novelty, new result,

07:30.425 --> 07:34.965
new finding discovery, didn't seem to have a,

07:35.305 --> 07:38.405
kind of consistent effect on disruption.

07:39.145 --> 07:42.325
Um, if anything, it was a little bit negative,

07:42.345 --> 07:45.605
but not regularly, statistically significant in some

07:45.605 --> 07:46.765
of our robustness checks.

07:47.145 --> 07:50.485
So for the most part, that's not the main story, right?

07:50.995 --> 07:54.245
What is the main story is that the two other types

07:54.245 --> 07:58.005
of novelty we study do have really interesting effects.

07:58.505 --> 08:02.885
We find that new theories, are

08:03.395 --> 08:05.485
less likely to be disruptive.

08:05.955 --> 08:09.085
Okay? So more on the consolidating end of that, of

08:09.085 --> 08:12.845
that index, that Russ and Jason developed,

08:13.385 --> 08:17.525
and new methods are more likely to be disruptive.

08:18.265 --> 08:22.765
New theories, tend to consolidate streams of literature.

08:23.265 --> 08:25.805
Why is this the case? Why do we think this is the case?

08:26.545 --> 08:29.765
And here, some of this classic sociology of science work,

08:30.045 --> 08:31.525
I think really, really helps us.

08:32.145 --> 08:37.045
Um, so if you are a theorist, if you want to build theory,

08:37.665 --> 08:40.085
you need to start with theory, right?

08:40.085 --> 08:41.285
What's already out there?

08:41.385 --> 08:43.485
And maybe you, maybe you're refining it

08:43.585 --> 08:44.725
or maybe you're tweaking it,

08:44.725 --> 08:47.245
or maybe you're incorporating it, maybe you're responding

08:47.245 --> 08:49.005
to it and it's not exactly the same thing,

08:49.425 --> 08:52.245
but you, you, you, you can't ignore it.

08:52.825 --> 08:54.725
You can't ignore the past theory if you're trying

08:54.725 --> 08:56.085
to develop a new theory, right?

08:56.225 --> 08:59.885
It, it's maybe inherently kind of an,

09:00.555 --> 09:02.365
integrative, effort.

09:03.785 --> 09:07.155
Whereas new methods,

09:07.655 --> 09:08.835
are much more,

09:09.055 --> 09:12.915
and here kind of some of the mechanisms that we, we

09:12.945 --> 09:17.075
kind of speculated about, they are much more portable.

09:17.425 --> 09:19.795
They're portable, both within a discipline.

09:19.795 --> 09:21.395
You can pick them up, right?

09:21.495 --> 09:23.555
And apply it to a new problem, right?

09:23.555 --> 09:25.235
And say, I think I, not, not every problem,

09:25.295 --> 09:26.715
not every method's suitable for every problem,

09:26.715 --> 09:28.195
but you, they're pretty portable.

09:28.225 --> 09:31.755
They're pretty transplantable, within disciplinary

09:32.315 --> 09:34.275
bounds across disciplinary bounds.

09:34.855 --> 09:39.115
And unlike theories that when you kind of use a theory,

09:39.815 --> 09:43.555
you almost often change the theory or tweak the theory.

09:43.815 --> 09:47.395
So theories evolve an application in contrast methods

09:47.495 --> 09:50.315
and new methods, you really can just kind of pick 'em up

09:50.315 --> 09:52.635
and put 'em somewhere else and use 'em as is, right?

09:52.635 --> 09:55.475
They don't have to evolve, as you use them.

09:56.135 --> 10:00.875
Um, and so we think that this is part of the, kind

10:00.875 --> 10:02.715
of, you know, pathway by which new,

10:02.815 --> 10:05.075
new methods become more disruptive,

10:05.075 --> 10:07.515
being applied in these new and different realms.

10:08.055 --> 10:11.235
Things aren't as, simple

10:11.775 --> 10:13.395
as they seem.

10:13.815 --> 10:18.755
Uh, and, and, things don't seem as, as, as simple as,

10:19.255 --> 10:21.435
maybe scholars have making them, have,

10:21.435 --> 10:24.635
have made them out to be, for example, one of the takeaways,

10:24.635 --> 10:28.685
maybe novelty is not a unit dimensional thing, right?

10:29.065 --> 10:30.125
We can't just say,

10:30.125 --> 10:32.685
some work is more novel than other work,

10:32.685 --> 10:36.445
because then we're disregarding, the type of novelty

10:36.515 --> 10:39.885
that, that a work might, be, you know, presenting

10:39.885 --> 10:41.725
or sharing with the scientific community.

10:42.995 --> 10:46.765
Similarly, there's more to scientific influence

10:46.765 --> 10:48.645
or impact than just citation counts.

10:49.285 --> 10:50.925
People's work gets cited all the time.

10:50.925 --> 10:52.525
There's a large literature on, you know,

10:52.825 --> 10:54.285
why certain work gets cited.

10:54.285 --> 10:56.565
What is, what are kind of motivations for citing.

10:56.565 --> 10:58.965
And, scholars like myself,

10:58.965 --> 11:00.485
including me here in the science

11:00.485 --> 11:01.965
of science community have really been looking

11:01.965 --> 11:03.525
at citation counts number.

11:03.625 --> 11:05.725
How many times has a paper been cited?

11:05.785 --> 11:09.805
How many times has a scholar been cited, as indicative

11:09.865 --> 11:13.325
of something maybe scholarly visibility, is

11:13.325 --> 11:15.045
what I've called it in previous work.

11:15.705 --> 11:17.805
But that only gets us so far, right?

11:17.865 --> 11:20.765
If we don't just wanna study the amount of impact,

11:20.785 --> 11:23.645
and we want to look at the nature of impact

11:23.865 --> 11:26.085
or influence, like how is this work

11:27.785 --> 11:29.665
influencing the scientific community?

11:29.935 --> 11:34.305
Then we really need to look at citation patterns, right?

11:34.635 --> 11:35.945
Who's using the work and how,

11:35.945 --> 11:38.905
and are they using the previous work, the foundational work

11:38.905 --> 11:40.265
that that work drew upon?

11:40.325 --> 11:44.185
How are all these kind of generations of scholarship,

11:44.335 --> 11:45.825
working together or not?

11:46.165 --> 11:48.785
And those citation patterns can allow us

11:48.885 --> 11:52.745
to measure really cool things like what Russ and Jason did

11:52.745 --> 11:54.085
With the CD index.

11:54.105 --> 11:56.965
So it is now, now called actually the disruptive index.

11:57.185 --> 11:58.765
Uh, most people are calling the disruptive

11:58.765 --> 11:59.965
index is the exact same thing.

12:00.345 --> 12:03.925
Um, so I think those are maybe two critical,

12:03.925 --> 12:05.325
implications of the work.

12:05.745 --> 12:07.765
Um, and also maybe, you know, one

12:07.765 --> 12:11.325
of the main findings is that not all types of novelty

12:12.135 --> 12:15.885
alter streams of knowledge in the same way, right?

12:15.945 --> 12:19.125
We found that new theories tend to be more consolidating,

12:19.125 --> 12:22.005
whereas new methods tend to be more, more disruptive.

12:22.305 --> 12:24.325
Um, and so the type of novelty matters.

12:24.505 --> 12:26.965
We can't just me, you know, look at the extent of novelty.

12:26.965 --> 12:28.845
We need to look at the type of novelty.

00:00 - We are sociologists of science, right? We have this funding from NSF and Rest Funk. And, and Gina Lee and I, we're really, really curious about, disruption and some of the correlates of disruption and innovation.

00:14 - And, we proposed to look at novelty, right? I think a lot of people in the literature, confuse the two and think that a novel work is, for example, a disruptive work, right? something new is gonna shake things up, right? And especially if it's a new discovery. And so we interrogate that, a little bit. And, one of the ways we do that is we say, well, we, novelty is not just unit dimensional. Some work is more novel, some work is less novel.

00:48 - Most work is somewhere in the middle and presenting a new thing, right? Or a new idea. And we, we start to, in this paper, really look at the types of novelty, that a scientific work might present a book, a published research article. We don't look at patents, but Russ has looked at patents in his previous work, right? in what ways is a scholarly journal article new, if at all, some paper, some papers, surprisingly

01:16 - it was about a fifth of them in our dataset, right? Weren't, new, in, in any way. right? So, we looked at different types of novelties. Some papers might dev might share a new result, a new finding. here's something that no one, no other scientist has found before. That would be a new result. Some papers maybe develop a new theory, right? A new explanation for something, right?

01:42 - maybe including, you know, pathways or whatnot. So here's a new explanation or new theory. Some papers do that and some papers, develop new techniques or methods, maybe a new scale or index, like the CD index that we use in this paper. That that's an instance of a new method, a new way to measure something, a new goodness of fit statistic, et cetera. So we really look at types of novelty in this paper,

02:11 - including theories and methods and the prototypical results. The term that, Russ Funk and Jason Owen Smith originally used when they developed the term. they distinguish between consolidating at one end. So some, some papers or patents can have a consolidating influence on a stream of knowledge on the literature, and other patents or papers can have a more destabilizing influence. That's actually what the D stood for,

02:39 - in the original paper. And, yeah, I can, I, the, consolidating work is, I wouldn't call it more incremental, but more deeply, engaged with and, connected to, and incorporating, past work and prior work, sorry, past work and future work, right? And connecting those.

03:06 - And really, so a consolidating paper really is making those connections across generations of scholarship. Whereas a more destabilizing paper or disruptive paper is kind of severing those ties between the past work and the future work, right? Or serving to kind of disconnect them and maybe take the literature or that stream of knowledge in a new direction. Rerouted a little bit. Yeah, we did a lot of digging in. We were, I think a, a little bit surprised, and,

03:36 - and, and happy 'cause that meant that maybe there's room for a contribution from us. we were a little surprised about the state of the literature. So we, we, we dug back to kind of classic sociology of science philosophy and history of science. How did new ideas come about? How do things change? A lot of that work was, very, theoretical in nature. a little bit abstract. the empirical work in there was maybe more,

04:06 - historical comparative based on, some particular cases and talk of cases. And, yeah. And we thought that a lot of the recent work in, this kind of new, interdisciplinary, maybe subfield called the Science of Science that is using more quantitative approaches to understand questions like these, that there was a little bit of a disconnect between the current empirical work

04:32 - and this kind of classic, theoretical, historical comparative work, right? The classic work was really trying to understand how ideas relate to each other, how, and one idea, one new idea might supersede an old idea. and we weren't really seeing that being captured in the current empirical work. We found some really, really cool data that I had used in a previous, project, with Cindy Kane, also funded by the NSF.

05:06 - And the cool data that we identified are called citation classics, essays. They're on a website. Anyone can go and download all of them just like we did. these are one page essays, written by highly cited scientists. So, Eugene Garfield, the founder of the Web of Science, when a paper, this is back in the day, the data are, are a little dated. They're a little old.

05:34 - if your paper received some discipline specific threshold, like, you know, passed some threshold of number of citations, you know, in a smaller field, it might only be like math. It might only be 75 citations. He would probably couldn't email you back then. Just write you a letter and say, Hey, your, give you a call and say, Hey, your paper is a citation classic. Would you please write a little essay about your work and, how it originated

05:56 - and what were some of the challenges you experienced and, why you think it's been so useful to the scientific community? So these one-page essays written by highly cited scientists about their work are available online. there are not too, too many of them. We pretty much grabbed every single one that we could. And then we linked them to the article that they are talking about.

06:16 - Where is that highly cited article? We went and grabbed that from the web of science and all sorts of data about that, including its citation patterns. What works are showing up in its bibliography, what kind of works are citing it. So we could look at the citation patterns to measure, the nature of scientific influence specifically, disruption in the essays. The, these, these scholars

06:37 - or scientists are, they're typically writing them about a decade after their paper was published, and they're reflecting on this paper that, that has been so highly cited. And they sometimes are using words like, well, I thought my paper, you know, maybe my paper was useful to the scientific community because I really, you know, I developed this new technique and da, da da. So we would code those essays, right?

06:59 - If they say a word, a synonym for novelty, and if they say a, a synonym for method like technique in the same sentence, we would kind of code that as, new method. They think their work, you know, developed and shared a, a new method. and so that's how we, we captured the key independent variable in our study, which is types of novelty. So I think maybe the most surprising finding is that the,

07:26 - you know, that prototypical type of novelty, new result, new finding discovery, didn't seem to have a, kind of consistent effect on disruption. if anything, it was a little bit negative, but not regularly, statistically significant in some of our robustness checks. So for the most part, that's not the main story, right? What is the main story is that the two other types of novelty we study do have really interesting effects. We find that new theories, are

08:03 - less likely to be disruptive. Okay? So more on the consolidating end of that, of that index, that Russ and Jason developed, and new methods are more likely to be disruptive. New theories, tend to consolidate streams of literature. Why is this the case? Why do we think this is the case? And here, some of this classic sociology of science work, I think really, really helps us. so if you are a theorist, if you want to build theory, you need to start with theory, right?

08:40 - What's already out there? And maybe you, maybe you're refining it or maybe you're tweaking it, or maybe you're incorporating it, maybe you're responding to it and it's not exactly the same thing, but you, you, you, you can't ignore it. You can't ignore the past theory if you're trying to develop a new theory, right? It, it's maybe inherently kind of an, integrative, effort.

09:03 - Whereas new methods, are much more, and here kind of some of the mechanisms that we, we kind of speculated about, they are much more portable. They're portable, both within a discipline. You can pick them up, right? And apply it to a new problem, right? And say, I think I, not, not every problem, not every method's suitable for every problem, but you, they're pretty portable.

09:28 - They're pretty transplantable, within disciplinary bounds across disciplinary bounds. And unlike theories that when you kind of use a theory, you almost often change the theory or tweak the theory. So theories evolve an application in contrast methods and new methods, you really can just kind of pick 'em up and put 'em somewhere else and use 'em as is, right? They don't have to evolve, as you use them. and so we think that this is part of the, kind of, you know, pathway by which new,

10:02 - new methods become more disruptive, being applied in these new and different realms. Things aren't as, simple as they seem. and, and, things don't seem as, as, as simple as, maybe scholars have making them, have, have made them out to be, for example, one of the takeaways, maybe novelty is not a unit dimensional thing, right? We can't just say, some work is more novel than other work,

10:32 - because then we're disregarding, the type of novelty that, that a work might, be, you know, presenting or sharing with the scientific community. Similarly, there's more to scientific influence or impact than just citation counts. People's work gets cited all the time. There's a large literature on, you know, why certain work gets cited. What is, what are kind of motivations for citing. And, scholars like myself,

10:58 - including me here in the science of science community have really been looking at citation counts number. How many times has a paper been cited? How many times has a scholar been cited, as indicative of something maybe scholarly visibility, is what I've called it in previous work. But that only gets us so far, right? If we don't just wanna study the amount of impact, and we want to look at the nature of impact

11:23 - or influence, like how is this work influencing the scientific community? Then we really need to look at citation patterns, right? Who's using the work and how, and are they using the previous work, the foundational work that that work drew upon? How are all these kind of generations of scholarship, working together or not? And those citation patterns can allow us to measure really cool things like what Russ and Jason did

11:52 - With the CD index. So it is now, now called actually the disruptive index. most people are calling the disruptive index is the exact same thing. so I think those are maybe two critical, implications of the work. and also maybe, you know, one of the main findings is that not all types of novelty alter streams of knowledge in the same way, right? We found that new theories tend to be more consolidating,

12:19 - whereas new methods tend to be more, more disruptive. and so the type of novelty matters. We can't just me, you know, look at the extent of novelty. We need to look at the type of novelty.

Faculti AI can make mistakes