Knowledge specialization, knowledge brokerage, and the uneven growth of technology domains Gianluca Carnabuci Jeroen Bruggeman Forthcoming in Social Forces

Goal: explain knowledge growth Evolutionary (Schumpeterian) outlook: variation of cultural elements through innovation, as recombination of existing cultural elements Focus on network of ideas referring to other ideas (not the institutional or organizational context of innovation)

Literature Specialization (exploitation), requires investment but then becomes efficient Brokerage (exploration), higher chance of novelty but higher risk and lower efficiency Combinations of both strategies, as a balance, sequence, or in parallel

Towards model Knowledge brokerage: recombining heterogeneous ideas from different sources Knowledge specialization: recombining closely related, homogeneous, ideas Both are endpoints of a continuum To avoid contradiction, keep apart specialization as a property, and a process of recombining ideas from a progressively more homogeneous pool

Specialization Model: variation of Burts Main difference: self-specialization (analogous to self-constraint) added

Conjectures Brokerage beneficial if followed by process of specialization Once combinatory potential of latter runs dry, alternate with brokerage Cyclical pattern of innovation?

Innovation strategy of specialization and brokerage Is oscillating, not cyclical Source: P.Turchin (2003)

Data 2 million patents (USPTO),16 million citations during , into 5 year intervals Analysis at level of (418) technology domains corresponding to fields, i.e. epistemic communities of organizations and individuals sharing knowledge, norms, & reputation system Knowledge growth: # patents weighted by # citations

Discussion & Conclusion Conjectures confirmed In later study, Carnabuci found stronger confirmation at organizational level Supposidly also hold for individuals and in different (other than technological) fields