Social network theory suggests that one way to create change in an organization is to increase the amount of new information made available to the organization by increasing external input (Dewar & Dutton, 1986).
The logic behind this is based on research from social psychology that
suggests that individuals interact, in large part, to construct a shared reality that consists not only of shared information, but also of agreed-upon opinions. In this process, they don’t simply transmit information. More importantly, they influence one another to arrive at a common interpretation of information. (Nowak & Vallacher, 2005, p. 90)
Following this logic, one way of potentially increasing the innovativeness of an organization is by increasing the amount of external input brought into an organization. This can be done by expanding the scope and diversity of the professional advice networks of individuals in the organization.
This study focused on determining what influence the professional advice network of an individual may have on their receptivity to innovation. This focus on individual behavior as a means for analyzing the organization is based on Watts’ (2003) observation that the networks of personal relationships affect both the behavior of individuals as well as the behavior of the system as a whole.
Based on four hypotheses related to how receptivity to innovation may be related to professional advice networks, two of these hypotheses (H1Aand H4A were found to be true:
H1A. People with large professional advice networks are more receptive to innovation than those with smaller networks, and
H4A. People with the lowest receptivity to innovation have professional advice networks that are highly homogenous both demographically and professionally.
The other two hypotheses were also found to be valid, but with qualifications. While it is not true that all people with the highest receptivity to innovation have large professional advice networks that are hetero- geneous, it is true the majority (78% of the cases) of the time. There are cases where people who have high receptivity to innovation also have homogenous professional advice networks.
Additionally, a significant relationship between level of innovation and network focus was found as people with externally focused professional
advice networks are more likely to be receptive to innovation than those with internally focused professional advice networks. Of those respondents with externally focused networks, 50.4% of the respondents were in the high innovation category, whereas only 10.5% of those with an internally focused network were high innovators.
Conclusions
The overarching focus of this study, that people with large professional advice networks are more receptive to innovation than those with smaller networks has been shown to be true. Given that people with larger networks tend to have higher levels of support from those network members (Wellman & Gulia, 1993), this seems reasonable.
Even so, it is a rare occurrence when a behavioral characteristic can be completely explained by a single factor. In this study, two additional variables were found to have a positive correlation on receptivity to innovation: the number of professional associations a person belongs to and their length of career.
That there are additional influencing factors is not surprising as the relationship between network size and receptivity to innovation is not perfectly linear. While there is a clear positive linkage between the two factors, there is also a clear correlation between external contact and innovation. Analysis demonstrated that people with externally focused professional advice networks are more likely to be receptive to innovation than those with internally focused professional advice networks. Of those respondents with externally focused networks, 50.4% of the respondents are in the high innovation category, whereas only 10.5% of those with an internally focused network are high innovators.
Therefore, it is in the best interest of library managers to provide opportunities and environments where librarians can develop relationships with other professionals outside of the local work environment. When people belong to one or more professional associations, they inherently have access to a larger pool of potential network members. These network members will be in different contextual settings, thereby creating the possibility to discover new information. In addition, the people that meet in a professional organization provide a mechanism for creating informal contacts, which are known to have a more substantial effect on performance than formal contacts (Weick, 1979). Furthermore, as people progress in their careers the likelihood of engaging with new people through
professional affiliations increases which further argues for active encourage- ment of continued membership in professional organizations throughout one’s career.
Finally, the fourth hypothesis of the study was found to be true. All respondents in the lowest category of innovation (the lowest receptivity to innovation) had professional advice networks that were highly homogenous both demographically and professionally.
As existing social networks influence subsequent relations (Mizruchi &
Galaskiewicz, 1994), it should be no surprise that highly homogenous networks tend to have low innovation potential because the links in these networks tend to be transitive and create a closed off system (Degenne &
Forse´, 2004). This is in opposition to the value of heterogeneous networks, which are by definition more open and have much greater possibility of connections to other social systems (Baraba´si, 2003; Ibarra, 1993). This openness and potential for connectivity to a larger world is vital to bring in new ideas, as critical linkages for communicating new ideas into a network can hinge on just a single person acting as an intermediary from one social network to another (Friedkin, 1983).
Recommendations
H2Aof this study could not be completely demonstrated because while 78%
of the respondents with the highest receptivity to innovation had large professional advice networks, a significant minority (22%) did not. Further research should investigate the factors that contribute to a high receptivity to innovation when professional advice networks are small. Small professional advice networks can be the result of any number of factors, some of which are directly modifiable by a person, such as a personal preference for a smaller set of interaction partners, and some that are not, such as geographic circumstance. A question worth investigating is what circumstances create a context where a person with a small professional advice network is able to maintain a high receptivity to innovation.
As a result of this research, a number of other questions started to emerge related to the structure and composition of the professional advice networks and how these factors may influence innovation. While outside the scope of this study, all of these questions are worth further investigation.
For example, in an average advice network, only 10–25% of network relations are local (Walker et al., 1994). However, in this study, the overall proximity of members in the professional advice networks was highly local.
In the majority of cases, 50% of the members of an individual’s professional advice network were local. As local proximity is a well-documented indicator of influence opportunities (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950), it is worth investigating if this unusual distribution is peculiar to this sample. If it is not and is indicative of a different type of pattern unique to librarianship, it is worth investigating how this pattern of relationships affects the profession itself.
Another area of inquiry outside the scope of the present study is how the specific composition of individual networks varies. For example, are there more links to people in other professions or specializations within librarianship in the networks of people with high receptivity to innovation than there are in the networks of less innovative people?
Answering the previous question could provide a solid foundation for exploring questions related to larger organizational issues. Given that the majority of members in the professional advice networks of the respondents were fellow librarians, the tendency to reinforce commonalities across organizations should be demonstrable as structural isomorphism or structural equivalence (Scott, 1995). If this is the case, it would be worth discovering if organizations where the majority of professional advice networks are heterogeneous are less structurally isomorphic when compared to their peer institutions. This question could be approached from the opposite direction; that is, looking at organizations that are already less structurally isomorphic than their peers and exploring the characteristics of the professional advice networks of the staff at those institutions.
Finally, an omnipresent question to be explored is whether the staff in larger libraries tends to be more innovative because they have larger professional advice networks than staff in smaller libraries. Ettlie, Bridges, and O’Keffe (1984) have shown that commercial organizations which are more complex, more decentralized and larger tend to be more innovative in producing products. When combined with Damanpour (1992) findings that larger organizations tend to adopt more innovations than their smaller counterparts and that a high degree of specialization of individuals within an organization facilitates innovation (Subramanian & Nilakanta, 1996), it would seem that this is a possibility, yet it remains to be conclusively demonstrated.
The issue of receptivity to innovation in librarianship has not been a topic of systematic inquiry and there has been little written on the aspects of social networks in librarianship. By exploring the question of whether resistance to innovation is associated with the composition of individual professional advice networks and if the networks of resistant individuals are
substantively different from those of individuals who embrace innovation, this study makes a unique contribution to the literature. It does this by both addressing these issues as well as providing a model for investigators who wish to study, and perhaps address, the unique organizational issues faced in other academic disciplines and non-profit organizations. Finally, the author hopes that this study facilitates better understanding of the potential for using social networks to foster innovation within libraries and other information agencies.
REFERENCES
Akeroyd, J. (2001). The future of academic libraries.ASLIB Proceedings,53(3), 79–84.
Alba, R. D. (1982). Taking stock of network analysis: A decade’s results.Research in the Sociology of Organizations,1, 39–74.
Alvesson, M. (1993). Cultural perspectives on organizations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Alvesson, M. (2000).Understanding organizational culture. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000).Doing critical management research. London: Sage.
Andaleeb, S. S., & Simmonds, P. L. (1998). Explaining user satisfaction with academic libraries:
Strategic implications.College and Research Libraries,59(2), 156–167.
Andrews, D., Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2003). Electronic survey methodology: A case study in reaching hard to involve Internet users.International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction,16(2), 185–210.
Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzalez, M. H. (1990).Methods of research in social psychology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Baker, R. P., Crawford, S., & Swinehart, J. (2004). Development and testing of web questionnaires. In: S. Presser, et al. (Eds),Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
Baker, W. E. (1993). The network organization in theory and practice. In: N. Nohria &
R. G. Eccles (Eds),Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action(pp. 397–429).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Baraba´si, A.-L. (2003).Linked: How everything is connected to everything else and what it means for business, science, and everyday life. New York, NY: Plume.
Barnes, J. (1979). Network analysis: Orienting notion, rigorous technique, or substantive field of study. In: P. Holland & S. Leinhardt (Eds),Perspectives in social research (pp. 403–423). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Barnes, S. L. (2003). Determinants of individual neighborhood ties and social resources in poor urban neighborhoods.Sociological Spectrum,23(4), 463–497.
Baruchson-Arbib, S., & Bronstein, J. (2002). A view to the future of the library and information science profession: A Delphi study.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology,53(5), 397–408.
Bauman, Z., & May, T. (2001).Thinking sociologically(2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966).The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Biemer, P. P., & Lyberg, L. E. (2003).Introduction to survey quality. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley- Interscience.
Blau, P. M. (1964).Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure.
New York, NY: Free Press.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997).Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borgatti, S. P., & Molina, J. L. (2003). Ethical and strategic issues in organizational social network analysis.The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,39(3), 337–349.
Bourque, L. B., & Fielder, E. P. (2003). How to conduct self-administered and mail surveys (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bowerman, B. L., & O’Connell, R. T. (1990).Linear statistical models: An applied approach (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Duxbury.
Breiger, R. L. (1974). The duality of persons and groups.Social Forces,53, 181–190.
Brewerton, P., & Millward, L. (2001).Organizational research methods: A guide for students and researchers. London: Sage.
Brodie, M., & Mclean, N. (1995). Process reengineering in academic libraries: Shifting to client- centered resource provision.Cause/Effect,18, 40–46.
Burkey, J., & Kuechler, W. L. (2003). Web-based surveys for corporate information gathering:
A bias-reducing design framework.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(2), 81–93.
Burt, R. S. (1980). Models of network structure.Annual Review of Sociology,6, 79–141.
Burt, R. S. (1984). Network items and the general social survey.Social Networks,6(4), 293–339.
Campbell, K. E., & Lee, B. A. (1991). Name generators in surveys of personal networks.Social Networks,13(3), 203–221.
Carroll, G. R., & Teo, A. C. (1996). On the social networks of managers. Academy of Management Journal,39(2), 20–23.
Cavalli-Sforza, L., & Feldman, M. (1981).Cultural transmission and evolution. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Cho, H., & Larose, R. (1999). Privacy issues in Internet surveys. Social Science Computer Review,17(4), 421–434.
Cluff, E. D. (1989). Developing the entrepreneurial spirit: The director’s role.Journal of Library Administration,10(2/3), 185–195.
Cohen, J. (1988).Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Consortium of Academic and Research Libraries in Illinois. (2006). Retrieved March 11, 2006, fromhttp://www.carli.illinois.edu/
Conway, S., Jones, O., & Steward, F. (2001). Realising the potential of the network perspective in researching social interaction and innovation. In: O. Jones, S. Conway & F. Steward (Eds), Social interaction and organisational change (pp. 349–366). London: Imperial College Press.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests.Psychological Bulletin,52(4), 281–302.
Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2001). Beyond answers: Dimensions of the advice network.Social Networks,23(3), 215–235.
Cross, R., & Parker, A. (2004).The hidden power of social networks: Understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Cross, R., Rice, R. E., & Parker, A. (2001). Information seeking in social context: Structural influences and receipt of information benefits.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part C: Applications and Reviews,31(4), 438–448.
Damanpour, F. (1992). Organizational size and innovation.Organizational Studies,13, 375–402.
Degenne, A., & Forse´, M. (2004).Introducing social networks(Rev ed.). London: Sage.
Deiss, K. J. (2004). Innovation and strategy: Risk and choice in shaping user-centered libraries.
Library Trends,53(1), 17–32.
Dekker, A. (2005). Conceptual distance in social network analysis [Electronic Version].Journal of Social Structure, 6. Retrieved October 5, 2006, from http://www.cmu.edu/joss/
content/articles/volume6/dekker/index.html
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations:
An empirical analysis.Management Science,32(11), 1422–1433.
Dillman, D. A., & Bowker, D. K. (2001). The web questionnaire challenge to survey methodologists. In: U. D. Reips & M. Bosnjak (Eds),Dimensions of internet science (pp. 159–178). Lengerich, Germany: Pabst.
Downs, J. G. W., & Mohr, L. B. (1976). Conceptual issues in the study of innovation.
Administrative Science Quarterly,21(4), 700–714.
Dysart, J. L., & Abram, S. K. (1997). What is your information outlook?Information Outlook, 1(1), 34–36.
Ekeh, P. (1974). Social exchange theory: The two traditions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology.The American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.
Ettlie, J. E. (2006).Managing innovation: New technology, new products, and new services in a global economy(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Ettlie, J. E., Bridges, W. P., & O’Keffe, R. D. (1984). Organizational strategy and structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science, 30(6), 682–695.
Euster, J. R. (1995). The academic library: Its place and role in the institution. In:
G. B. McCabe & R. J. Person (Eds),Academic Libraries: Their rationale and role in American higher education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Faust, K. (1997). Centrality in affiliation networks.Social Networks,19(2), 157–191.
Faust, K., & Wasserman, S. (1992). Centrality and prestige: A review and synthesis.Journal of Quantitative Anthropology,4, 23–78.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950).Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. New York, NY: Harper.
Field, A. (2005).Discovering statistics using SPSS(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fink, A. (2003).How to ask survey questions(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Flynn, F. J., & Chatman, J. A. (2004). Strong cultures and innovation: Oxymoron or opportunity? In: M. L. Tushman & P. Anderson (Eds),Managing strategic innovation and change(2nd ed., pp. 234–251). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Forsyth, B., Rothgeb, J. M., & Willis, G. B. (2004). Does pretesting make a difference? An experimental test. In: S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin & E. Singer (Eds),Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Interscience.
Fowler, F. J., Jr. (1993).Survey research methods(2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Freeman, L. C. (2000). Visualizing social networks [Electronic Version]. Journal of Social Structure, 1, 1–15. Retrieved April 24, 2007 from http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/
articles/volume1/freeman.pdf
Freeman, L. C. (2004).The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver, BC: Empirical Press.
Friedkin, N. E. (1983). Horizons of observability and limits of informal control in organizations.Social Forces,62, 54–77.
Fulk, J., & Desanctis, G. (1995). Electronic communication and changing organizational forms.
Organization Science,6(4), 337–349.
Garten, E. D., & Williams, D. E. (2000). Clashing cultures: Cohabitation of libraries and computing centers in information abundance. In: L. Hardesty (Ed.), Books, bytes, and bridges: Libraries and computer centers in academic institutions(pp. 61–72). Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Giddens, A. (1979).Central problems in social theory: Action, structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967).The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(1), 148–170.
Grimm, J. W., & Stern, R. N. (1974). Sex roles and internal labor market structures:
The ‘‘female’’ semiprofessions.Social Problems,21(5), 690–705.
Hammer, M. (1979). Predictability of social connections over time.Social Networks, 2(2), 165–180.
Harley, B., Dreger, M., & Knobloch, P. (2001). The postmodern condition: Students, the web, and academic library services.Reference Services Review,29(1), 23–32.
Harrison, J. R., & Carroll, G. R. (2006).Culture and demography in organizations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hartwig, F., & Dearing, B. E. (1979).Exploratory data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social network analysis: An approach and technique for the study of information exchange.Library and Information Science Review(18), 323–342.
Haythornthwaite, C. (1998). A social network study of the growth of community among distance learners.Information Research,4(1), 49–51.
Hellevik, O. (1984).Introduction to causal analysis: Exploring survey data by crosstabulation.
London: George Allen & Unwin.
Homans, G. C. (1941).English villagers of the thirteenth century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Hutcheson, G., & Sofroniou, N. (1999).The multivariate social scientist. London: Sage.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework.Academy of Management Review,18(1), 56–88.
Ibarra, H. (1997). Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks.
Social Psychology Quarterly,60(1), 91–102.
Joswick, K. E. (1999). Article publication patterns of academic librarians: An Illinois case study.College and Research Libraries,60(4), 340–349.
Kadushin, C. (2005). Who benefits from network analysis: Ethics of social network research.
Social Networks,27, 139–153.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity.Psychometrika,39, 31–36.
Kanter, R. M. (2002). Creating the culture for innovation. In: F. Hesselbein, M. Goldsmith &
I. Somerville (Eds), Leading for innovation and organizing for results (pp. 73–86).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. (1966).The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003).Social networks and organizations. London: Sage.
Klovdahl, A. S. (2005). Social network research and human subjects protection: Toward more effective infectious disease control.Social Networks,27, 119–137.
Knoke, D., & Burt, R. S. (1983). Prominence. In: R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds),Applied network analysis: A methodological introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kroeker, B. (1999). Changing roles in information dissemination and education: Expecta- tions for academic library web-based services.Social Science Computer Review,17(2), 176–188.
Lewis, D. W. (1986). An organizational paradigm for effective academic libraries.College and Research Libraries,47(4), 337–353.
Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1995).Data analysis: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Litwin, M. S. (2003).How to assess and interpret survey psychometrics(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lund, E., & Gram, I. T. (1998). Response rate according to title and length of questionnaire.
Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine,26(2), 154–160.
Luquire, W. (1983). Attitudes toward automation/innovation in academic libraries.The Journal of Academic Librarianship,8(6), 344–351.
Lynch, C. A. (2003). Institutional repositories: Essential infrastructure for scholarship in the digital age.Portal: Libraries and the Academy,3(2), 327–336.
Lynch, M. J. (2002). Reaching 65: Lots of librarians will be there soon.American Libraries, 33(3), 55–56.
Mackenzie, M. L. (2005). Managers look to the social network to seek information.Information Research,10(2), 216–218.
Macrı`, D. M., Tagliaventi, M. R., & Bertolotti, F. (2002). A grounded theory for resistance to change in a small organization. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(3), 292.
Malinconico, S. M. (1997). Librarians and innovation: An American viewpoint. Program:
Electronic Library and Information Systems,31(1), 47–58.
Manfreda, K. L., Batagelj, Z., & Vehovar, V. (2002). Design of web survey questionnaires:
Three basic experiments [Electronic Version]. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 7. Retrieved May 5, 2006 from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol7/issue3/
vehovar.html
Marsden, P. V., & Friedkin, N. E. (1994a). Network studies of social influence. In:
S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds),Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsden, P. V., & Friedkin, N. E. (1994b). Network studies of social influence. In:
S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds),Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences(pp. 3–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayhew, B. H. (1980). Structuralism versus individualism: Part I, shadowboxing in the dark.
Social Forces,59(2), 335–375.
Mcpherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1986). Sex segregation in voluntary associations.
American Sociological Review,51(1), 61–79.
Merton, R. K. (1968).Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.