The blog has been quiet for a good long while, but interesting things have been happening elsewhere. I’ll be posting links to some of them as they become public (I am not writing that to make it sound cool and mysterious or stealth mode-y; it’s that most of my writing has been on manuscripts that had to be offline during review processes). The first of these is a paper that went officially online just last month. It’s titled “Hieroglyphs, or Science Fiction Icons and the Rate and Direction of Innovation”. It is exactly what it says on the tin: it’s about the role of science fiction in innovation processes. Here’s the abstract:

It is striking just how large a role science fiction plays in contemporary processes of innovation and technological change and how comparatively little attention this role has received in innovation scholarship. What little research exists on the issue has been based on hypotheses that science fiction envisions technological futures, inspires technological innovation, or shapes the supply of innovators. I explore an alternative hypothesis. Science fictional ideas can also function as hieroglyphs. Following the work of Neal Stephenson, a hieroglyph is an iconic idea, a simple and recognizable symbol with an agreed-upon significance. Hieroglyphs can be drawn from literature (e.g., robots as described by Isaac Asimov or cyberspace as described by William Gibson), film (e.g., rogue AI from 2001: Space Odyssey), series (e.g., intergalactic space travel from Star Trek) or other sources. Such hieroglyphs can influence the rate and direction of innovation through at least four mechanisms. At the individual level, hieroglyphs can serve to frame technology adopters’ understandings and to focus technology developers’ attention, thus shaping the direction of innovation. At the level of organizations and field, hieroglyphs can coordinate technology developers’ activities within and across organizations and corroborate narratives of technological opportunities, thus shaping the rate of innovation. I suggest ways that future empirical scholarship might explore these mechanisms, and I propose how these mechanisms, if borne out empirically, might invite some reconsiderations of especially innovation management pedagogy.

The paper is out now in Innovation: Organization & Management. Here is the journal website and here is the link to the paper. You can also download an open access version of it here: