Radical, Disruptive, Discontinuous and Breakthrough Innovation: More or the same?

Adrián Kovács, Cristina Marullo, Dennis Verhoeven, Alberto Di Minin and Bart Van Looy

No 636820, Working Papers of Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven from KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven

Abstract: The scholarship on innovation has stressed the importance of distinguishing ‘exceptional’ innovation from ‘run-of-the-mill’ innovation in both conceptual and empirical terms. Over recent decades, various labels have been coined to denote the exceptional nature of innovation. At the same time, research on this topic has been critiqued for its ambiguity in accurately defining and delineating the phenomena under study and, consequently, putting in jeopardy the development of a cumulative body of understanding. We revisit this concern by systematically reviewing three decades of research advanced under the labels of radical, disruptive, breakthrough and discontinuous innovation. We combine two bibliometric techniques – bibliographic coupling and co-citation analysis – to (i) explore the theoretical foundations of these labels and (ii) delineate the thematic orientation of the scholarship pursued under these labels. Our results reveal a dense and growing network of publications that build, in large measure, on the same scientific foundations. In terms of thematic orientation, five overlapping clusters are present, with specific labels scattered across the thematic landscape. These findings suggest that the different labels do not denote clearly distinct bodies of academic scholarship. A subsequent content analysis of the definitions advanced in the most cited papers reveals two discrete underlying dimensions: novelty and impact. Yet, none of the labels characterize innovations across these two dimensions with any consistency. Although this ‘lack of rigor’ would seem to yield no detrimental effects in terms of growth (of scholarship), we argue that conflating novelty and impact can result in ambiguous results. We conclude, therefore, that consistency in the use (and operationalization) of both dimensions would benefit our (cumulative) understanding of the (complex) phenomena involved.

Keywords: radical innovation; disruptive innovation; discontinuous innovation; breakthrough innovation; bibliometric analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 38
Date: 2019-04-24
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-ino and nep-sbm
Note: paper number MSI_1904
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Published in FEB Research Report MSI_1904

Downloads: (external link)
https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/537762 Published version (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ete:msiper:636820

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Working Papers of Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven from KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Management, Strategy and Innovation, Leuven
Bibliographic data for series maintained by library EBIB ().