IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/3h8xp_v1.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantifying Vision through Language Demonstrates that Visionary Ideas Come from the Periphery

Author

Listed:
  • Vicinanza, Paul
  • Goldberg, Amir

    (Stanford University)

  • Srivastava, Sameer

Abstract

Where do visionary ideas come from? Although the products of vision as manifested in technical innovation are readily observed, the ideas that eventually change the world are often obscured. Here we develop a novel method that uses deep learning to identify visionary ideas from the language used by individuals and groups. Quantifying vision this way unearths prescient ideas, individuals, and documents that prevailing methods would fail to detect. Applying our model to corpora spanning the disparate worlds of politics, law, and business, we demonstrate that it reliably detects vision in each domain. Moreover, counter to many prevailing intuitions, vision emanates from each domain’s periphery rather than its center. These findings suggest that vision may be as much as property of contexts as of individuals.

Suggested Citation

  • Vicinanza, Paul & Goldberg, Amir & Srivastava, Sameer, 2021. "Quantifying Vision through Language Demonstrates that Visionary Ideas Come from the Periphery," OSF Preprints 3h8xp_v1, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:3h8xp_v1
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/3h8xp_v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/618ec3dae14f8a005530b4c3/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/3h8xp_v1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schneider, Anne & Ingram, Helen, 1993. "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 334-347, June.
    2. Richard J. Rosen, 1991. "Research and Development with Asymmetric Firm Sizes," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(3), pages 411-429, Autumn.
    3. Mary Tripsas & Giovanni Gavetti, 2000. "Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1147-1161, October.
    4. Lingfei Wu & Dashun Wang & James A. Evans, 2019. "Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology," Nature, Nature, vol. 566(7744), pages 378-382, February.
    5. Fowler, James H., 2006. "Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(4), pages 456-487, October.
    6. Sanford F. Schram & Joe Soss, 2001. "Success Stories: Welfare Reform, Policy Discourse, and the Politics of Research," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 577(1), pages 49-65, September.
    7. Stephen J. Choi & G. Mitu Gulati, 2008. "Bias in Judicial Citations: A Window into the Behavior of Judges?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 37(1), pages 87-129, January.
    8. Hibbing, John R., 1991. "Contours of the Modern Congressional Career," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(2), pages 405-428, June.
    9. Zoltan Acs & David Audretsch, 1990. "Innovation and Small Firms," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262011131, December.
    10. Carrubba, Clifford J. & Clark, Tom S., 2012. "Rule Creation in a Political Hierarchy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(3), pages 622-643, August.
    11. Douglas Kriner & Francis Shen, 2014. "Responding to War on Capitol Hill: Battlefield Casualties, Congressional Response, and Public Support for the War in Iraq," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(1), pages 157-174, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vicinanza, Paul & Goldberg, Amir & Srivastava, Sameer, 2021. "Quantifying Vision through Language Demonstrates that Visionary Ideas Come from the Periphery," OSF Preprints 3h8xp, Center for Open Science.
    2. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    3. Daron Acemoglu & Ufuk Akcigit & Harun Alp & Nicholas Bloom & William Kerr, 2018. "Innovation, Reallocation, and Growth," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(11), pages 3450-3491, November.
    4. Brian Wu & Zhixi Wan & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2014. "Complementary assets as pipes and prisms: Innovation incentives and trajectory choices," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(9), pages 1257-1278, September.
    5. Eckhardt, Jonathan T. & Shane, Scott A., 2011. "Industry changes in technology and complementary assets and the creation of high-growth firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 412-430, July.
    6. Anne Marie Knott & Carl Vieregger, 2020. "Reconciling the Firm Size and Innovation Puzzle," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 477-488, March.
    7. Rau, Sabine B. & Werner, Arndt & Schell, Sabrina, 2019. "Psychological ownership as a driving factor of innovation in older family firms," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 10(4).
    8. Shubham Sharma & Usha Lenka, 2022. "On the shoulders of giants: uncovering key themes of organizational unlearning research in mainstream management journals," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 1599-1695, August.
    9. Koutroumpis, Pantelis & Leiponen, Aija & Thomas, Llewellyn D W, 2017. "The Young, the Old and the Innovative: The Impact of R&D on Firm Performance in ICT versus Other Sectors," ETLA Working Papers 51, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    10. Maddison, Jonathan & Watts, Richard, 2011. "The technological fix as a frame in media debates about tailpipe emissions," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 294-303.
    11. Fritz Sager & Yvan Rielle, 2013. "Sorting through the garbage can: under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 1-21, March.
    12. Talat Mahmood, 1997. "Survival of Newly Founded Businesses: A Log-Logistic Model Approach," CIG Working Papers FS IV 97-32, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    13. Andrea Vaona & Mario Pianta, 2008. "Firm Size and Innovation in European Manufacturing," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 283-299, March.
    14. Dwibedy, Punyashlok, 2022. "Informal competition and product innovation decisions of new ventures and incumbents across developing and transitioning countries," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    15. Zahra, Shaker A., 1996. "Technology strategy and new venture performance: A study of corporate-sponsored and independent biotechnology ventures," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 289-321, July.
    16. Li, Mingxiang, 2021. "Exploring novel technologies through board interlocks: Spillover vs. broad exploration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(9).
    17. Tether, B. S., 1998. "Small and large firms: sources of unequal innovations?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(7), pages 725-745, November.
    18. David G. Sirmon & Michael A. Hitt, 2003. "Managing Resources: Linking Unique Resources, Management, and Wealth Creation in Family Firms," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 27(4), pages 339-358, October.
    19. Fontana, Roberto & Nuvolari, Alessandro & Shimizu, Hiroshi & Vezzulli, Andrea, 2013. "Reassessing patent propensity: Evidence from a dataset of R&D awards, 1977–2004," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(10), pages 1780-1792.
    20. Barge-Gil, Andrés & López, Alberto, 2014. "R&D determinants: Accounting for the differences between research and development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1634-1648.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:3h8xp_v1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.