Research fronts represent the most dynamic areas of science and technology and the areas that attract the most scientific
interest. We construct a methodology to identify these fronts, and we use quantitative and qualitative methodology to analyze
and describe them. Our methodology is able to identify these fronts as they form—with potential use by firms, venture capitalists,
researchers, and governments looking to identify emerging high-impact technologies. We also examine how science and technology
absorbs the knowledge developed in these fronts and find that fronts which maximize impact have very different characteristics
than fronts which maximize growth, with consequences for the way science develops over time.
Cohesive intellectual communities called “schools of thought” can provide powerful benefits to those developing new knowledge,
but can also constrain them. We examine how developers of new knowledge position themselves within and between schools of
thought, and how this affects their impact. Looking at the micro and macro fields of management publications from 1956 to
2002 with an extensive dataset of 113,000+ articles from 41 top journals, we explore the dynamics of knowledge positioning
for management scholars. We find that it is significantly beneficial for new knowledge to be a part of a school of thought,
and that within a school of thought new knowledge has more impact if it is in the intellectual semi-periphery of the school.
A useful level of analysis for the study of innovation may be what we call “knowledge communities”—intellectually cohesive,
organic inter-organizational forms. Formal organizations like firms are excellent at promoting cooperation, but knowledge
communities are superior at fostering collaboration—the most important process in innovation. Rather than focusing on what
encourages performance in formal organizations, we study what characteristics encourage aggregate superior performance in
informal knowledge communities in computer science. Specifically, we explore the way knowledge communities both draw on past
knowledge, as seen in citations, and use rhetoric, as found in writing, to seek a basis for differential success. We find
that when using knowledge successful knowledge communities draw from a broad range of sources and are extremely flexible in
changing and adapting. In marked contrast, when using rhetoric successful knowledge communities tend to use very similar vocabularies
and language that does not move or adapt over time and is not unique or esoteric compared to the vocabulary of other communities.
A better understanding of how inter-organizational collaborative network structures encourage innovation is important to understanding
what drives innovation and how to promote it.