A SOCIOCOGNITIVE MODEL OF TECHNOLOGY EVOLUTION - THE CASE OF COCHLEARIMPLANTS

Authors
Citation
R. Garud et Ma. Rappa, A SOCIOCOGNITIVE MODEL OF TECHNOLOGY EVOLUTION - THE CASE OF COCHLEARIMPLANTS, Organization science, 5(3), 1994, pp. 344-362
Citations number
65
Categorie Soggetti
Management
Journal title
ISSN journal
10477039
Volume
5
Issue
3
Year of publication
1994
Pages
344 - 362
Database
ISI
SICI code
1047-7039(1994)5:3<344:ASMOTE>2.0.ZU;2-C
Abstract
This paper examines the social and cognitive processes that unfold ove r time as a technology develops. Our model focuses on the relationship between the beliefs researchers hold about what is and is not technic ally feasible, the technological artifacts they create, and the routin es they use for evaluating how well their artifacts meet with their pr ior expectations. The historical development of cochlear implants serv es as an illustration of the model. The evidence suggests that there i s a reciprocal interaction between beliefs, artifacts, and routines th at gives rise to two cyclical processes. One is a process of inversion at the micro level of individual cognition. wherein evaluation routin es designed to judge specific artifacts begin reinforcing researchers' beliefs. Once evaluation routines become the basis for constructing i ndividual reality, technological claims are perceived as relevant only to those who employ the same routines while appearing as noise to tho se who employ different routines. The other is a process of institutio nalization at the-macro level of shared cognition. By institutionaliza tion we mean the development of a common set of evaluation routines th at can be applied to all technological paths. Commonly accepted evalua tion routines represent a shared reality that strongly shapes the dire ction of future technological change. The micro- and macro-level proce sses that shape individual and shared realities place paradoxical dema nds on researchers in their efforts to develop a new technology. On th e 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 i f it does not match theirs. How well this paradox is managed can profo undly influence who emerges as the victor or the vanquished during the genesis of a technology.