r Academy of Management Perspectives

2018, Vol. 32, No. 1, 125–140.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2016.0138

S Y M P O S I U M
SERENDIPITY ARRANGEMENTS FOR EXAPTING
SCIENCE-BASED INNOVATIONS
RAGHU GARUD
Pennsylvania State University

JOEL GEHMAN
University of Alberta

ANTONIO PACO GIULIANI

IÉSEG School of Management

Extant literature draws attention to the importance of science-push, demand-pull, and

institutional-steering as mechanisms driving science-based innovations. We contribute
to this literature by highlighting exaptation, which refers to the cooptation of existing
traits for new functions. When applied to science-based innovations, exaptation refers to
the emergence of functionalities for scientific discoveries that were unanticipated ex
ante. We explore how exaptation can be induced through narrative properties (rela-
tionality, temporality, and performativity), and how serendipity arrangements such as
exaptive pools, exaptive events, and exaptive forums can be structured to maintain,
activate and contextualize scientific discoveries. We close the paper by discussing the
implications of exaptation for academia, industry, and policy.

Beyond their scientific value, many fundamental
discoveries have the potential to generate innova-
tions that can improve the lives of many. Accord-
ingly, one approach to science-based innovations
is to “push” discoveries from the laboratory into
the marketplace. However, this is not a straightfor-
ward task, as it requires bridging boundaries be-
tween scientists and non-scientists (Gieryn, 1983,
1999). Even when this challenge is met, given the
openness and unpredictability of science and the
need for co-specialized assets, sponsors of science-
based innovations are not assured of generating
returns on their investments (Sauermann & Stephan,
2012; Teece, 1987).
Several institutional arrangements have emerged to
address these challenges. For instance, intellectual
property protection offers organizations an incentive
We thank Mike Wright and anonymous reviewers for
their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
We thank Nandita Garud and researchers in the Creative
Networks Group, chaired by Jörg Sydow at the Free Uni-
versity Berlin, for their comments.
125
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express
written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
to commercialize scientific ideas (Levin, Klevorick,
Nelson, & Winter, 1987). In the United States, the
Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 offers an incentive for univer-
sities to commercialize their scientific discoveries,
even when publicly funded. A measure of the po-
tency of the Bayh-Dole Act can be found in the pro-
liferation of technology transfer offices (TTOs) at
U.S. universities (O’Kane, Mangematin, Geoghegan,
& Fitzgerald, 2015; Siegel, Waldman, & Link, 2003).
Going beyond such institutional-steering and science-
push mechanisms is demand-pull (see Figure 1). For
instance, venture capitalists are interested in commer-
cializing underutilized scientific discoveries (Markman,
Siegel, & Wright, 2008; Samila & Sorenson, 2010). To
link the ecologies of scientific discovery and use (see
Abbott, 2005, for the notion of linked ecologies), uni-
versities have opened science parks and incubators to
facilitate the transfer of scientific discoveries from the lab
to the marketplace (Löfsten & Lindelöf, 2002; Phan,
Siegel, & Wright, 2005).
Beyond their independent effects, science-push,
institutional-steering, and demand-pull constitute
dynamic innovation systems (Lundvall, 2007;
126 Academy of Management Perspectives
FIGURE 1
Adaptive and Exaptive Pathways to Science-Based Innovations
Adaptive Pathway to Science-Based Innovations
Institutional
Steering
Science
Based
Innovation
Demand Science
Pull Push
These traditional mechanisms, predominantly based on attempts
to realize functionalities conceptualized ex ante, provide an
adaptive pathway to science-based innovations.
Nelson, 1993). For instance, interactions among
these three mechanisms were readily evident in the
development and deployment of wind turbines in
Denmark (Garud & Karnøe, 2003). Danish wind
turbine entrepreneurs received subsidies to the ex-
tent that their designs received approvals from the
Danish Test and Research Center (TRC), and TRC
accumulated wind-turbine performance data from
different real-world installations, which proved to
be very useful in generating collective learning
(Karnøe & Garud, 2012). In the United States, si-
multaneous efforts at developing and deploying
wind turbines were less successful, partly because
the degree of coupling among the three science-
based innovation mechanisms was not as strong as
in Denmark.
In addition to demonstrating the importance of
interactions among the three mechanisms, the
wind turbine case also highlights the importance of
redeploying technologies for purposes not origi-
nally envisioned. For instance, Danish manufac-
turers redeployed their expertise in fiberglass boat
hulls to make turbine blades. Similarly, gears used
in heavy trucks were redeployed for use as wind
February
Exaptive Pathway to Science-Based Innovations
Emerging
Institutional
Affordances
Science
Based
Innovation
Validating
Emerging
Scientific
User
Discoveries
Preferences
for New Users
Exaptation, based on the emergence of functionalities
unanticipated ex ante, often require new institutional affordances
and user preferences besides the validation of the scientific
discovery for new uses.
turbine gears. All of this involved “translation”
(Callon, 1986) to reconfigure institutional, market,
and scientific activities.
To explain such processes, we examine the con-
cept of exaptation. Originating from evolutionary
biology, exaptation denotes the “cooptation” of fea-
tures previously evolved for some other reason, or for
no reason at all (Gould, 2002; Gould & Vrba, 1982).
Building on this insight, management scholars have
documented the importance of exaptation in foster-
ing technological innovations (for reviews, see
Andriani & Cattani, 2016; Bonifati & Villani, 2013;
Garud, Gehman, & Giuliani, 2016).
Exaptation is a promising but underexplored
mechanism for those interested in science-based
innovations. It offers an alternative pathway for
science-based innovations based on the emergence
of functionalities unanticipated ex ante. By contrast,
science-push, demand-pull, and institutional-steering
offer adaptive pathways to science-based innovations
often driven by a desire to realize functionalities
identified ex ante.
Although exaptation may occur as a matter of
course, foresight about the serendipitous emergence
2018 Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani
of unanticipated functionalities for scientific dis-
coveries can be exploited to induce exaptation. This
can be accomplished by facilitating the emergence
of new institutional affordances and new user
preferences around scientific discoveries, which
may need to be validated for new uses (see Figure 1).
This is the core thesis we develop in the remainder
of the article.
We proceed as follows. After briefly discussing
the concept of exaptation, we introduce a distinc-
tive capacity that humans possess: foresight. Rele-
vant to exaptation, humans can have the foresight
that unanticipated functionality for existing dis-
coveries could be found serendipitously. We argue
that foresight is generated in and through narra-
tives, and that meaning making is facilitated
through three narrative properties: relationality,
temporality, and performativity. Having identified
these narrative properties, we then explore three
different kinds of serendipity arrangements (exap-
tive pools, exaptive events, and exaptive forums) to
facilitate the maintenance, activation, and con-
textualization of science-based discoveries for
unanticipated uses. We conclude the paper by dis-
cussing implications of exaptation for academia, in-
dustry, and policy.
BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO EXAPTATION
When they first appeared, feathers offered thermal
insulation to a genus of bird-like dinosaurs called
Archaeopteryx. Subsequently, feathers were used for
catching insects, a process known as mantling; only
later did feathers enable flight (Ostrom, 1974). In
other words, feathers became valuable for flying in
environments different from those for which feathers
were originally selected. Consequently, the evolu-
tion of feathers cannot possibly be explained as
an adaptation to these subsequent environments
(Gould & Vrba, 1982). Instead, speciation can occur
because of exaptation, defined as when “a feature,
now useful to an organism, that did not arise as an
adaptation for its present role . . . was subsequently
coopted for its current function” (Gould, 1991, p. 43;
see also Gould, 2002).1
Etymologically, Gould contrasted adaptations with
exaptations. According to Gould, adaptations are
structures fashioned (ad) for a use (aptus). Exapta-
tions, by contrast, are structures that are “useful (or
1
For readers interested in different pathways to speci-
ation, please see Gould (2002).
127
aptus) as a consequence of (ex) their form” within
some novel context (Gould, 2002, p. 1232). Together
adaptation and exaptation constitute two different
but partially overlapping pathways within the “tax-
onomy of fitness” (Gould, 2002, Table 11-1; Gould
& Vrba, 1982, Table 1).
In this paper, we are interested in exploring
exaptation, for which Gould delineated two sources:
“franklins” and “miltons.” Franklins, inspired by the
bust of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on American
dimes, refer to “inherent potentials” of existing
structures, as is the case with dimes being used in
a supplementary way as screwdrivers. This supple-
mentary use of dimes, which was not intended when
they were designed, represents “a large and impor-
tant category of attributes within the exaptive pool”
(Gould, 2002, p. 1278). Miltons, inspired by a verse
from John Milton, refer to “actual things, presently
without function, but holding within their inherent
‘goodness’ the rich seeds of potential future utility”
(Gould, 2002, p. 1279). Numerous examples have
been offered, from mammalian brain sutures to re-
petitive DNA (Gould, 1991; Gould & Vrba, 1982).
These available but unused things “constitute the
radical counterpart to the conventiality of frank-
lins within the exaptive pool” (Gould, 2002, p.
1279).
Drawing inspiration from Archaeopteryx and
other such biological examples, organization
scholars have documented similar processes within
innovation (Andriani & Cattani, 2016; Bonifati &
Villani, 2013; Dew, Sarasvathy, & Venkataraman,
2004; Garud et al., 2016). According to economic
historian Joel Mokyr, “One might venture that, in the
history of technology, exaptation is probably more
common than in natural history” (Mokyr, 2000, pp.
57–58). For instance, Corning saw the possibility of
translating its existing technologies (franklins, in
Gould’s terms) into the emerging domain of optical
fibers for long-distance telecommunication (Cattani,
2005, 2006). At first, fiber optics was little more than
a theoretical possibility. Nonetheless, Corning’s ef-
forts to translate its extant glass technologies into this
new frontier helped bring the world of fiber optics to
life.
More recently, scientists have attempted to exapt
existing FDA-approved drugs to block the Zika virus
from infecting humans (White, 2016). From the
700 FDA-approved drugs they tested (none of
which was created to treat Zika), scientists found
20 that held some promise. These lab findings
spurred further clinical trials of these drugs.
With such speciation processes (Levinthal, 1998),
128 Academy of Management Perspectives
innovations cannot be predicted “a priori only by
invoking exploration of a prestatable, static, and
unchangeable fitness landscape through drift” (de
Vladar, Santos, & Szathmáry, 2017, p. 7).
While scientific exaptations may be beneficial,
inducing them is not without challenges. For in-
stance, actors may not even realize the existence of
scientific discoveries that could serve as solutions to
problems. Moreover, scientific discoveries that were
tried and abandoned may have a stigma of failure
attached to them. Such discoveries must be not only
rediscovered but recontextualized to remove at-
tached stigma.
As the discovery of new functionality for UK-
92480 (a failed citrate salt) as a cure for erectile
dysfunction disorder suggests, exaptation can be
highly profitable. Although UK-92480 fared poorly
as a treatment for angina, patients refused to return
the tablets because of unexpected side benefits
(Katzenstein, 2001). But this was not the end of the
story. Considerable additional scientific and de-
velopmental work was required to eventually render
the product, renamed Viagra, safe for use to treat
erectile dysfunction disorder. Moreover, success in
repurposing is not always guaranteed. For instance,
efforts to create a “Viagra for women” have not been
successful to date.
NARRATIVE APPROACH TO EXAPTATION OF
SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES
A review of these and other examples highlights
a critical distinction between humans and other
species: foresight. In classical evolutionary biology,
the relationship between foresight and fitness is
clear: Foresight is impossible as evolutionary pro-
cesses are always blind. However, when it comes
to humans, Cattani argued:
Prior research has investigated how firms can de-
liberately organize or prepare for serendipitous dis-
coveries (Garud, Nayyar, & Shapira, 1997). Yet this
does not imply that new technological developments
and/or their applications are clearly foreseen. Rather,
it means that firms’ ability to capitalize on techno-
logical opportunities that arise from their past R&D
can be enhanced significantly via organizational de-
sign and ad hoc routines and practices. Foresight in
this case is embedded in the process by which new
technologies are created, more precisely the way the
process is actually organized and managed, not the
final outcome (i.e., the particular technology being
developed), which very often was not initially antic-
ipated. (Cattani, 2008, p. 590; emphasis added)
February
In other words, humans can anticipate (i.e., foresee)
the possibility of organizing for unexpected inno-
vations based on prior scientific discoveries.2
This is where a second important concept comes
into play: serendipity. Within the context of sci-
entific inquiry, Merton and Barber (2004) ob-
served: “The serendipitous pattern refers to the
fairly common experience of observing an un-
anticipated, anomalous, and strategic datum,
which becomes the occasion for developing a new
theory or for extending an existing theory” (p. 196).
They also noted, “Scientists cultivate serendipity
by being constantly alert for chance occurrences
that may lead to new explanations and discoveries”
(Merton & Barber, 2004, p. 197). Extending these
observations to exaptation, we argue that seren-
dipity covers not just scientific discoveries (Type
I), but also the discovery of new uses for these sci-
entific discoveries (Type II). In other words,
humans can anticipate (with foresight) the possi-
bility of encountering unexpected new function-
alities for existing scientific discoveries (new
contexts for exaptation) for which they can prepare
(sagacity).
To make this argument, we begin with the work
of organizational scholars who have explored ser-
endipity. For instance, in decision making,
Denrell, Fang, and Winter (2003, p. 978) viewed
serendipity as “not just luck, but effort and luck
joined by alertness and flexibility.” In the strate-
gic management field, de Rond and Thietart
(2007, p. 545) noted, “Chance coincidences can
open up new avenues for future choices.” In entre-
preneurship studies, Dew (2009, p. 735) conceptu-
alized serendipity as “search leading to unintended
discovery . . . showing how it is related to the entre-
preneurship literature on prior knowledge and sys-
tematic search.”
In most conceptualizations of serendipity, there
is a presumption of sagacity as typified in Pasteur’s
oft-repeated aphorism: “Fortune favors the pre-
pared mind.” While agreeing with these senti-
ments, we offer an additional facet of serendipity
that is particularly germane to exaptation. Specifi-
cally, we suggest the possibility of scientists pos-
sessing foresight that others could find new uses
for the discoveries they make. That is, rather than
a scientist finding unexpected uses for her or his
2
This is a point that resonates with the notion of “homo
prospectus,” which was coined by Seligman, Railton,
Baumeister, and Sripada (2016) to denote humans’ unique
capacity to look into the future.
2018 Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani 129

scientific discovery (which is valuable in its own FIGURE 2

right), the enlarged notion of distributed serendip- Narrative Properties Facilitating Scientific
ity that we wish to articulate includes the possi- Exaptation
bility of someone else finding new uses for the
Scaling Up
discovery.3
How might this be accomplished? An answer lies
in the very attribute that makes scientific discov-
eries possible: the human brain, specifically the
human brain’s ability to cross the boundary be- Going Back Reaching Out
tween the domain of science and the domain of
use (Gieryn, 1983) through narratives (Garud,
Gehman, & Karunakaran, 2014). In proposing this
possibility, we were inspired by Bruner (1986,
1991), who argued that narratives are the primary
means for generating meaning. Building on Bruner’s
work, we propose that meaning making through
narratives is a way to induce exaptation, as narra-
tives allow for “trafficking in human possibilities
rather than in settled certainties” (Bruner, 1986,
p. 26).
To understand how, we evoke several narrative
properties: relationality, temporality, and per-
formativity. By relationality we mean humans’
capacity to forge connections between and across
Reaching In Going Forth
disparate social and material elements constitut-
ing our worlds. We label this ability as reaching
in and out relationally. By temporality we mean
a capacity for going back and forth in time,
thereby making it possible to remember scientific Scaling Down
discoveries from the past to service possible
imagined futures. By performativity we mean
a capacity for scaling up and down cultural and technical seminars (Nayak & Ketteringham, 1986,
material practices in ways that connect initiatives p. 60).4
with broader discourses and specific practices In other words, Silver started reaching out through
(see Figure 2). narratives. Because of these efforts, some began
An example will help concretize these ideas. reaching in and started experimenting with this
While conducting an experiment at 3M Corporation, strange glue. For instance, the glue was first applied
Spence Silver stumbled upon “glue that did not to boards on which paper was stuck semipermanently.
glue” (a Type I serendipitous event). So what did he Although this product was abandoned as it had lim-
do with this scientific discovery with no immediate ited utility, the idea of “a glue to hold something for
utility (a milton, in Gould’s terms)? Instead of aban- a while and not forever” was kept alive because of
doning it as an outcome of a failed experiment, Silver Silver’s persistence.
went about telling “anyone who would listen. When asked if he considered his experiment
Technical directors, other scientists, the tech group I a failure, Silver replied that his discovery was
was part of” (quoted in Lindahl, 1988, p. 14). Al- a “solution looking for a problem” (quoted in
though he was not sure of its utility, he would tell his Lindahl, 1988, p. 14). This intertemporal capacity
audiences that “it has to be good for something” to look for some future unknown utility for a past
(Nayak & Ketteringham, 1986, p. 50). To overcome discovery is an important facet of narratives, which
challenges in labeling this substance, he even sought we label as going back and forth. This is not
and was given time to show off his strange glue in
4
3M even had difficulties obtaining a patent for this
3
Such a shift from problem solving to solution seeking substance as “there was no commercial product readily
has been documented at NASA (Lifshitz-Assaf, 2017). apparent” (Nayak & Ketteringham, 1986, p. 60).
130 Academy of Management Perspectives
meaning making about what has transpired, but
instead possessing the foresight in collaboration
with others to prospect the future for unanticipated
uses for scientific discoveries recollected from
the past.
In offering these observations, we were informed
by Ricoeur’s (1984, 1986, 1988) work on how
future anticipations are forged in the moment by
memories of the past, and the importance of the
reader/listener to any narrative construal. Indeed,
through ongoing experimentation, Art Fry, another
3M employee, could imagine a new function for
this strange glue (a Type II serendipitous event).5
Fry was tired of losing his place in the choir hymnal
at church. His “mind began to wander during the
sermon.” He recollected, “I thought about Spence’s
adhesive. If I could coat it on paper, that would be
just the ticket for a better bookmark.” Additional
functionality for this innovation emerged later, as
noted by Fry: “When I used these ‘bookmarks’ to
write messages to my boss, I came across the heart
of the idea. It wasn’t a bookmark at all, but a note.”
In other words, a piece of “scientific junk” was
narratively exapted for an unimagined function to
yield Post-it notes.
In his act of insight (Usher, 1954) that led to Post-it
notes, Fry was able to traverse two different do-
mains (bisociation; Koestler, 1964) to link a prob-
lem he encountered (losing his place in the hymnal)
with a solution looking for a problem (the glue that
did not glue). Mechanisms for making such links
include metaphors and creative imagination
(Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010; Cunha, Clegg, &
Mendonça, 2010), as well as other closely associ-
ated approaches such as bricolage and improvisation
(Baker & Nelson, 2005; Garud & Karnøe, 2003; Rao,
Monin, & Durand, 2005). While acknowledging the
importance of these mechanisms, in this article we
want to reflect on a broader issue: Serendipity oc-
curs by considering a discovery in a new context,
thereby triggering the interpretive flexibility of
others who then envision new uses (Pinch & Bijker,
1987). The mechanism here is abduction (Peirce,
1965)—that is, contextualized inferencing, which
can give rise to novel insights when phenomena are
recognized by others in their settings (Bartel &
Garud, 2003).
Returning to Post-it notes, Silver’s and Fry’s ef-
forts also involved performativity, which was evi-
dent in the experiments that were carried out at 3M
5
Unless noted, all quotations in this paragraph are from
3M (2002).
February
to identify practical utility for the scientific dis-
covery (Nayak & Ketteringham, 1986). We label
such efforts as scaling down into local practices.
These efforts were undertaken within a larger
system of meaning constituted in and through
unfolding discourses at 3M. We label this facet of
performativity as scaling up. For instance, to carry
out experiments, Silver and his colleagues “boot-
legged” 3M’s resources. Bootlegging is a cultural
practice that has gained currency at 3M through the
accumulation of innovation narratives extolling the
virtues of undertaking low-cost experimentation
using the firm’s resources.
Importantly, 3M maintained the “glue that did not
glue” over time (along with other scientific discov-
eries), to be activated at an appropriate moment and
then contextualized to yield new functionality over
time (see Garud & Nayyar, 1994, for the notion of
“transformative capacity” that underlies such an
induced process). As Silver recounted, there was no
one moment of serendipity in the Post-it notes case,
but instead a series of moments, “a slow crescendo of
things, which is typical of the discovery process.
Things build up and you begin to see the options that
this discovery creates” (quoted in Lindahl, 1988, p.
14). Echoing similar sentiments, Geoff Nicholson,
yet another senior 3M employee involved with
Post-it notes, described the overall process as “a
series of accidents” (Nayak & Ketteringham,
1986, p. 54).
Seen from this perspective, exaptation possi-
bilities can be enhanced by maintaining, activat-
ing, and contextualizing scientific discoveries.
And narratives serve as a way of doing so, allowing
communities to go back and forth temporally
(thereby maintaining assets), to reach in and out
relationally (thereby activating these assets at ap-
propriate moments), and to scale up and down
performatively (thereby contextualizing these as-
sets to yield new functionalities). It is no wonder
that 3M Corporation is replete with narratives of
innovations, many stressing the serendipity in-
volved in the identification of new functionalities
for existing scientific discoveries that themselves
emerged serendipitously.
Like the air we breathe, narratives are part of the
fabric of organizing. For instance, Boden (1994, p. 8)
noted: “Talk is the lifeblood of an organization. . . .
Through multiple layers of ordinary talk, people
in organizations actually discover, as a deeply col-
laborative and contingent matter, their shared
goals, many agendas, environmental uncertainties,
2018 Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani 131

potential coalitions, and areas of actual conflict.”
Indeed, as reported in 3M’s account:
Innovation has thrived at 3M because people talk.
They strike up lively conversations in hallways, caf-
eterias and labs. They talk across departments and
divisions. They meet to share ideas in brainstorming
sessions and forums. While more traditional organi-
zations have kept researchers and engineers within
their own areas or divisions, where their loyalties
were strongest, 3M has instead fostered a strong sense
of attachment to the company as a whole. (3M, 2002,
p. 33)
So what is new, one might ask? To us, it is in-
teresting that a science-based company such as 3M
uses narratives as a means for constituting its culture
of innovation (Shaw, Brown, & Bromiley, 1998). But
3M goes well beyond facilitating informal narrations
around water coolers to induce science-based in-
novation (which is important enough). Realizing that
there are multiple approaches to structuring narra-
tives, 3M has instituted different kinds of arrange-
ments such as patent pools, technology forums
(where people “share ideas at their earliest stages,
before we have an idea of a product” [3M, 2002,
p. 33]), and technology fairs.
These observations raise the following question:
Is it possible to structure arrangements for the
maintenance, activation, and contextualization of
scientific discoveries based on narrative properties
(i.e., relationality, temporality, and performativity)?
Inspired by the work of several scholars who have
taken a distributed ontology, we explore three dif-
ferent kinds of serendipity arrangements for exap-
tation. For instance, Allen (1970) demonstrated how
spatial arrangements affect narration possibilities,
which he further articulated in his book The Orga-
nization and Architecture of Innovation (Allen &
Henn, 2007). Going beyond this relational facet,
Levine (2008) argued that geographical settings also
implicate temporality. Callon (2008) introduced the
notion of “agencement” to draw attention to the
performativity of agency in arrangements. Synthe-
sizing across these and other such insights, we
explicate how different kinds of serendipity ar-
rangements (implicating relationality, temporality,
and performativity in different ways) can play im-
portant roles in the maintenance, activation, and
contextualization of scientific discoveries to induce
exaptation.
SERENDIPITY ARRANGEMENTS FOR
INDUCING EXAPTATION
In this section, we explore the three arrangements
we introduced above for inducing exaptation (see
Table 1). Scientific discoveries, which remain
decoupled across time and space, must be main-
tained in exaptive pools. These ideas become cou-
pled during staged exaptive events designed to
increase and harness complexity. The possibilities
that emerge from such events can be contextualized
within exaptive forums where actors and discoveries
become entangled.

TABLE 1
Serendipity Arrangements for Inducing Scientific Exaptation
Arrangements

Exaptive pool Exaptive events Exaptive forums

Exaptive function Maintenance of scientific Activation of scientific discoveries Contextualization of emergent

discoveries
Narrative properties
Relationality Inaction
Temporality Decompression
Performativity Generative memory of scientific
discoveries maintained as
options as actors think across
time
Illustrative examples Dynamic categorization and
computation approaches to
exapt scientific discoveries
maintained within technology
platforms and through narratives
Interaction
Compression
Discourses and demonstrations
inducing actors to think along,
thereby activating options value
of scientific discoveries
Technology and science fairs,
consensus development
workshops, demo slams
ideas to explore utility
Intra-action
Entanglement
Prototyping of options to facilitate
thinking through solutions and
problems
Incubators, accelerators, science
parks, multidisciplinary
institutes
132 Academy of Management Perspectives February

Exaptive Pools and communities must engage with these discoveries

to keep them alive until the time is right to activate
Irvine and Martin (1984) illustrated how multiple
and contextualize them.
scientific discoveries, some dormant for decades,
For instance, 3M Corporation has maintained
converged to yield the videocassette recorder (VCR).
discoveries within its many technology platforms.
In other words, scientific discoveries that occur in
Technological platforms at 3M are accumulations of
and through action may remain inactive, or may be
loosely coupled assets around intellectual domains.
used initially for purposes other than their future
Examples include adhesives, abrasives, light man-
exapted purposes. Evident in Irvine and Martin’s
agement, and microreplication. In terms of their po-
description of the emergence of the VCR is the
sitioning within the organization, platforms lie in
presence of asynchrony and diachrony. By asyn-
between top management teams and division busi-
chrony we mean the differential rates at which
ness units. These meso-level arrangements cut
complementary discoveries emerge to generate util-
across business units, ensuring that the assets are
ity for particular discoveries. By diachrony we mean
maintained and available for exaptation across
emergence of functionalities for discoveries over
multiple divisions. To increase the possibility of
time.6
exaptation, actors and assets from one platform in-
Recognition of asynchrony and diachrony raises
teract with assets and actors in others by circulating
questions as to how scientific discoveries might be
innovation narratives. The relational properties of
maintained and then rediscovered. The likelihood of
narratives allow for connections to be forged be-
franklins (those already in use) being maintained is
tween and across ecologies of scientific discovery
high, given their current utility. But what happens
and use. The intertemporal property of narratives
to the miltons (i.e., inactive discoveries)? Are there
makes it possible to visualize and try out new ideas
arrangements that can enhance the possibility of
for their future utility.
maintaining them so that they can be activated at the
Garud, Gehman, and Kumaraswamy (2011) de-
right time? Stated differently, how might organiza-
scribed in greater detail how these arrangements led
tions and institutions maintain these discoveries for
to several exaptations. For instance, the assets of the
their real options value?
microreplication technology platform were used to
Patenting is one such mechanism. Patenting an
come up with a film that could enhance the bright-
idea not only securitizes intellectual property but
ness of any product. At first, the discovery generated
also generates a memory of what was discovered.
a product that was sold to firms in Japan to brighten
This is because patenting requires disclosure of what
the display of products. Upon investigation of a spike
is being protected. In addition, categorization of
in demand, 3M scientists realized that the film could
patented discoveries, combined with bibliometric
also be used to direct light from a source to the retina.
analyses, allows people to search through patents to
In this way emerged one of the 10 most valuable in-
identify those that could be useful. While computa-
novations of laptops: the Brightness Enhancement
tional approaches are being used in bibliometric
Film for laptop screens, which improved not just
analyses to carry out intelligent search, researchers
visibility but also battery life.
are also using computational approaches to match
BEF emerged by carefully tracking usage patterns.
diseases with drugs to find new uses for existing
In a similar vein, other arrangements draw on the
drugs (Dudley, Deshpande, & Butte, 2011). Re-
wisdom of the crowd to induce exaptation. For in-
latedly, Andriani, Ali, and Mastrogiorgio (2017)
stance, Procter & Gamble has adopted a “connect and
found that about 42% of new functions derived
develop” approach wherein discoveries that originate
from existing drugs have an exaptive nature.
within the company are connected with ideas outside
What about discoveries that emerge in action but
the company to yield new functionality (Huston &
remain tacit? And what about discoveries that are
Sakkab, 2006). More generally, organizations are us-
complex or systemic? Maintaining such discoveries
ing open innovation and crowdsourcing models to
as options requires arrangements that go beyond the
connect and develop scientific ideas for exaptation.
articulation and categorization of discoveries (Garud
For instance, Chesbrough and Chen (2013) noted that
& Nayyar, 1994). In addition, individuals, collectives,
open innovation models allow for the identification of
unanticipated uses for drug molecules without im-
6
We borrow from de Saussure’s (1983) notion of di- mediate use, and pointed out that open innovation
achrony in linguistics, where the term was introduced to enlarges the cognitive resources available to the in-
highlight changes in the meaning of words over time. ventors, increasing the likelihood of finding utility.
2018 Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani
Exaptive Events
Actively maintaining a pool of resources is valu-
able given the asynchronies and diachronies asso-
ciated with the emergence of functionality for
scientific discoveries. How might we enhance their
exaptive potential? One approach is to stage events
that bring these different assets together within
confined spaces for limited durations of time. The
compression of time and space increases the com-
plexity of interactions to produce emergent out-
comes. Rather than loose coupling, as in the case of
exaptive pools, induced coupling between the dif-
ferent assets that are brought together at such staged
events enhances complexity to yield new function-
ality for scientific discoveries. Given the limited time
and space involved, people “think along” with one
another as they establish swift and ephemeral ties
(Berends, Garud, Debackere, & Weggeman, 2011).
Thinking along is a process wherein people from
different vantage points interact with one another
without having to co-create or fully understand the
others’ knowledge base.
Examples include technology and science fairs.
For instance, the Advanced Research Projects
Agency-Energy’s (ARPA-E) Energy Innovation
Summit is an annual three-day event that brings
together experts from different technical disci-
plines and professional communities to translate
energy technologies from the lab into the market.
Passive radiative sky cooling (in which a fraction of
the heat from a surface facing the sky is radiated
into the cosmos), based on scientific ideas sitting
on the shelf for over decades, is one of the tech-
nologies that ARPA-E funded (Gintoff, 2016). Ellen
Williams, director of ARPA-E, explained that the
objective behind support of such science-based
energy innovations is to shepherd them through
the first “valley of death,” i.e., between scientific
ideas and prototypes, when the risk is high and
time frames are long (Clemons, 2016). ARPA-E
takes a portfolio approach to such projects, thereby
managing the overall risk it bears. Williams also
explained that ARPA-E counsels the teams that it
funds, not just on technological but also on com-
mercial issues, including insights on how the
teams might find and connect with commercial
partners. Aaswath Raman, CEO of SkyCool Systems
(a company funded by ARPA-E), noted that one
of the key challenges in taking science-based
technologies to market is “figuring out who cares
about the product and why they care” (Clemons,
2016). Williams acknowledged that the numerous
133
applications received by ARPA-E could poten-
tially be used as a “bank” of ideas for future exap-
tations to the extent that applicants would like to
participate.
Exaptive Forums
So far, we have introduced two kinds of ar-
rangements: exaptive pools and exaptive events.
These two differ on several dimensions, as sum-
marized in Table 1 above. For instance, many el-
ements of an exaptive pool emerge in action at any
given point in time but could remain inactive over
time. By contrast, exaptive events bring these el-
ements together by forging interactions to in-
crease complexity. Ideas emerge as people think
along with one another, whereas in the mainte-
nance of elements of a pool, actors think across
time.
Besides maintaining and activating these ele-
ments, yet another kind of arrangement contextual-
izes emergent outcomes. These are hybrid forums
where actors with different perspectives become
entangled with one another (Callon et al., 2009;
Mulder, Ferrer, & van Lente, 2011). Hybridity im-
plies the confluence of experts and laypeople to-
gether with legislators and citizens subscribing to
different dimensions of worth (Boltanski &
Th évenot, 2006). Entanglement implies “associ-
ations that last longer than the interactions that
formed them” (Callon & Latour, 1981, p. 283). Rather
than interactions, entanglements result in intra-
actions (Barad, 2003). Intra-actions facilitate collec-
tive sensemaking, imaginization, and enactment
(Morgan, 1993; Weick, 1995) as participants “think
through” issues aided by the prototypes they gen-
erate, which act as boundary objects (Tuertscher,
Garud, & Kumaraswamy, 2014). Such intra-actions
are essential for translating complex and culturally
embedded practices across contexts and commu-
nities through dialogue (Sawyer, 2003; Tsoukas,
2009). In the process, novel uses for existing dis-
coveries emerge.
Consider 1871, a Chicago-based initiative founded
in 2012. Named after the Great Chicago Fire of
1871, the initiative took root in the Merchandise
Mart, traditionally a venue where interior designers
came to browse hundreds of showrooms at once.
After initially occupying 50,000 square feet of un-
used space in the building, by 2016, 1871 had ex-
panded to 120,000 square feet, housing 225 start-ups,
tech accelerators, angel investors, university groups,
individual entrepreneurs, and small teams. This
134 Academy of Management Perspectives
led to more than 800 jobs, $12.7 million in revenue,
and $27.6 million in venture capital (Baverman,
2013).
Today, while the lower floors of the 25-story
building are still filled with room after room of
design ideas, technology has taken over several of
the building’s upper floors. In other words, 1871
embodies the “architecture of reuse” both literally
and figuratively (Beunza, 2007, p. 157). Not only
has the space itself been exapted, it has been
transformed into a space for exaptation. According
to 1871’s website: “[Y]ou can share ideas, make
mistakes, work hard, build your business and, with
a little luck, change the world.” Through its orga-
nization and architecture of innovation (Allen &
Henn, 2007), 1871 cultivates “positive accidents”
by fostering interactions and connections with
a multiplicity of actors and institutions making
up the entrepreneurial ecosystem of the city of
Chicago.
Summary
We have discussed three serendipity arrange-
ments to enhance exaptation possibilities. These
differ in their purposes and constitutive narrative
structuring properties. Exaptive pools are ar-
rangements for keeping discoveries alive through
representational mechanisms such as cataloging
and constitutive mechanisms such as computa-
tional coupling and narratives, the latter providing
a generative memory of inactive elements to ben-
efit from their options value. These dormant ideas
are activated through interaction during time-
compressed staged exaptive events, in which ac-
tors engage in discourses and demonstrations. The
specific uses of ideas are explored through intra-
action within exaptive forums, where actors be-
come entangled with one another to prototype
solutions.
Recent work distinguishes between a process
and a practice view on creativity (Fortwengel,
Schüßler, & Sydow, 2017). The former embraces
a “becoming” view, wherein creativity crystal-
lizes at moments across a constant flow of activi-
ties. The latter takes a “practice” view, wherein
structures play the important role of both enabling
and constraining individual agents in pursuing
collective creativity. In relation to this distinction,
the serendipity arrangements that we have in-
troduced in this paper are practices that can be put
in place to spawn different kinds of processes to
generate creativity.
February
IMPLICATIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR
FUTURE RESEARCH
All three arrangements we have described (pools,
events, and forums) hold important implications
for academia, policy, and industry. For illustrative
purposes, in this section we focus on a specific set of
issues germane to each of the three domains. Within
academia, for instance, we suggest translation rather
than transfer as a metaphor for exapting from the
pool of intellectual resources that may lie under-
exploited. For policy, we explore the utility of orga-
nizing exaptive events, wherein people from
academia, industry, and regulation can interact and
explore exaptive possibilities. Within industry, we
consider how technology-enabled forums that facil-
itate open and distributed innovation can foster
exaptation.
Academia: From Transfer to Translation
Accomplishing commercial success for the pool
of scientific discoveries that exists within acade-
mia is not a straightforward task. One reason is that
a boundary exists between the logic of science and
other logics (Gieryn, 1983; Jasanoff, 1987).
As others have shown, crossing this epistemic
boundary is not easy (Gieryn, 1983; Knorr-Cetina,
1999). In their efforts to bridge this divide, many
universities have set up technology transfer of-
fices. The aim is to identify scientific discoveries
from one side of the boundary (i.e., academia) that
might have commercial utility to those on the other
side of the boundary (i.e., industry). These efforts
have led to licensing (Fini, Lacetera, & Shane,
2010; Jensen & Thursby, 2001) and spin-offs (Fini,
Grimaldi, Santoni, & Sobrero, 2011; Rasmussen &
Borch, 2010) and more broadly academic engage-
ment (Perkmann et al., 2013). However, because
universities and their contexts vary, supporting
spin-off creation and growth is not a one-size-fits-
all endeavor (e.g., Rasmussen & Wright, 2015).
Although TTOs have aided commercialization,
the metaphor of transfer is limiting. Science and
technology studies scholars have argued that lay-
people could possess contextualized knowledge not
available to scientists (Wynne, 1989). Consequently,
scientists and laypeople must develop interactional
expertise (Collins & Evans, 2002) to generate exap-
tation possibilities. Through such interactions, a com-
plex process of translation unfolds (Callon, 1986),
with existing features taking on new meanings as
2018 Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani
scientific (Murray, 2004) and social (Pinch &
Bijker, 1987) networks comingle and change. 7
For instance, Karnøe and Garud (2012) described
the translation work that unfolded in gaining the
support of disinterested and hostile social groups for
wind turbines. Translation work was evident in the
efforts by wind energy advocates to persuade elec-
trical utility companies to connect turbines to the
grid and pay for wind power, and the government to
shift its energy emphasis from coal and nuclear
power to include wind power. More broadly, trans-
lation work involves efforts to contextualize emer-
gent activities such that institutional, market, and
corporate forces interactively generate value for
science-based innovations.
These observations serve as the basis for identify-
ing questions for future research. One important
question has to do with bridging the boundaries that
exist between scientists and laypeople (Gieryn,
1983, 1999; Jasanoff, 1987). We have offered narra-
tives as a means for undertaking such work. But what
genre of narratives will best connect scientists and
those who come from the world of possible uses in
the marketplace? Could science fiction serve as
a genre for translation (Garud et al., 2014; Lefsrud &
Meyer, 2012)? Future research could explore such
questions around the rhetorical processes involved
in translating scientific discoveries (e.g., Cozzens &
Gieryn, 1990).
Policy: From Command and Control to
Possibilistic Thinking
We have already discussed how institutional
arrangements such as patent protection and the
Bayh-Dole Act can generate the incentive to find
commercial uses for scientific ideas. Similarly, fed-
eral funding from sources such as ARPA-E, the Na-
tional Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National
Science Foundation (NSF) can seed science-based
efforts, which can then lead to adaptive and exaptive
science-based innovations. Here we want to reflect
on one policy initiative that goes beyond these
commonly discussed options: Policy makers can
organize and support exaptive events that bring to-
gether different actors to identify new potentialities
for known ideas.
7
Within academia, multidisciplinary institutes have
emerged as one recent approach for addressing such
challenges, though such institutes can be hard to sustain
(Mosey, Wright, & Clarysse, 2012).
135
On April 6, 2016, in Brussels, the Science and
Technology Options Assessment (STOA) of the Eu-
ropean Parliament organized one such event around
quantum computing (Kuljanic & McCormack, 2016).
Quantum Technologies for Europe: Opportunities
for Economy and Society attracted participants from
academia (e.g., Delft University of Technology), in-
dustry (e.g., Airbus), and government (e.g., minister,
EU commissioner).8 EU Commissioner for Digital
Economy and Society Günther Oettinger opened the
event, noting that its purpose was “turning scientific
work to society’s benefit.” Acknowledging that
quantum science was “spooky” (Einstein, Born, &
Born, 1971) and still emerging, participants never-
theless explored future potential applications rang-
ing from cryptography to artificial intelligence. Leo
Kouwenhoven, a leading quantum physicist, noted
that quantum computing would consume less energy
than classic computers. Henk Kamp, the Dutch
minister for economic affairs, acknowledged that
“innovation is a dynamic process, and that it does
not unfold linearly,” and Cora van Nieuwenhuizen,
a Dutch member of the ALDE group, proposed: “We
want to establish a chain of knowledge combining
academy, industry, and policy makers” to make
quantum computing a reality. Participants left the
event with a shared understanding of the challenges
and opportunities associated with commercializing
scientific advances taking place in quantum physics.
Present at this event were actors with different
“matters of concern” (Latour, 2004, p. 22). Future
research could examine the pre- and post-work re-
quired to ensure productive outcomes from such
events. For instance, what can policy makers do to
set the stage in terms of an event’s agenda, and what
can they do to follow up on what transpired? One
important question that was discussed at the STOA
event was how policy makers could orchestrate fu-
ture expectations without generating hype cycles
(see Borup, Brown, Konrad, & Lente, 2006)? This is
a topic worthy of further research.
Industry: From Located to Distributed Innovation
The advent of forums for spawning distributed
innovation represents a fundamental shift in the
locus of innovation (Chesbrough, 2003; Garud &
Karnøe, 2003; Lifshitz-Assaf, 2017; von Hippel,
2005). Distributed innovation broadly suggests that
8
These three forums represent the “triple helix” under-
lying science and technology commercialization (Etzkowitz
& Leydesdorff, 2000).
136 Academy of Management Perspectives
novel ideas can come from anywhere within and
outside the corporation. This movement has impor-
tant implications for how exaptation can be induced
for scientific discoveries made by corporations. For
instance, we have already introduced two exapta-
tions that emerged within 3M Corporation through
distributed processes: Post-it notes and Brightness
Enhancement Film.
These are just some examples of how distributed
innovation can generate science-based innovations.
More generally, organizations are experimenting
with a whole host of initiatives that can generate
such exaptations. Swarovski, the crystal company,
has opened a co-working space next to its
manufacturing facilities in the Austrian Alps to dis-
cover new functionalities for crystals that can be
used in solar panels. This effort is consistent with
research findings that a firm’s capabilities for in-
troducing advanced innovations are enhanced when
the firm is linked to scientific networks (Kaufmann &
Tödtling, 2001). For instance, InnoCentive offers an
innovation platform where companies pose prob-
lems to be solved by anyone around the world.
Companies such as Google are running hackathons
where multiple people from within and outside the
organization are brought together for a short duration
of time to work intensively using design principles
(such as rapid prototyping) as championed by the
design firm IDEO (Kelley, 2007). Another example
comes from Alcatel-Lucent, which runs “entrepre-
neurial boot camps” that bring together diverse
teams with the express purpose of identifying and
developing business opportunities within a specific
industry sector and utilizing proprietary technolo-
gies (Clarysse, Mosey, & Lambrecht, 2009).
Each of these forums represents a different archi-
tecture of participation (Ferraro, Etzion, & Gehman,
2015). More systematic research would be useful to
understand the dynamics that unfold within each
given the performativity of hybrid forums that dis-
tribute agencies differently (Callon, Lascoumes, &
Barthe, 2009). For instance, what are the turning
points, sequences, and rhythms at these settings?
Are some formats better suited than others to ad-
dress different kinds of exaptive initiatives (such as
“problems looking for solutions” versus “solutions
looking for problems”)? These are questions for fu-
ture research.
CONCLUSION
Scientific research generates many discoveries, some
of which appear to have no immediate commercial
February
utility. Whereas prior research has emphasized
science-push, demand-pull, and institutional-
steering, all of which depend on the realization of
functionalities imagined in advance, we have em-
phasized the possibility that novel functionalities
for these scientific discoveries emerge serendipi-
tously when they are considered in new contexts.
This is the notion of scientific exaptation that we
considered in this paper. To induce exaptation, we
considered how narratives enable humans to reach
in and out relationally, go back and forth tempo-
rally, and scale up and down performatively. As
ways of fostering exaptation leading to science-
based innovations, we proposed three sets of
arrangements with different kinds of narrative
structuring possibilities: exaptive pools, exaptive
events, and exaptive forums. Together, these ar-
rangements cultivate distributed serendipity to
enhance the possibility of maintaining, activating,
and contextualizing scientific discoveries to gen-
erate innovations.
REFERENCES
Abbott, A. (2005). Linked ecologies: States and universi-
ties as environments for professions. Sociological
Theory, 23, 245–274.
Allen, T., & Henn, G. (2007). The organization and archi-
tecture of innovation. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Allen, T. J. (1970). Communication networks in R&D lab-
oratories. R & D Management, 1(1), 14–21.
Andriani, P., Ali, A., & Mastrogiorgio, M. (2017). Measur-
ing exaptation and its impact on innovation, search,
and problem solving. Organization Science. doi:
10.1287/orsc.2017.1116
Andriani, P., & Cattani, G. (2016). Exaptation as source of
creativity, innovation, and diversity: Introduction to
the special section. Industrial and Corporate Change,
25, 115–131.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from
nothing: Resource construction through entrepre-
neurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly,
50, 329–366.
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an
understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs,
28, 801–831.
Bartel, C. A., & Garud, R. (2003). Narrative knowledge in
action: Adaptive abduction as a mechanism for
knowledge creation and exchange in organizations.
In M. Easterby-Smith & M. A. Lyles (Eds.), The
Blackwell handbook of organizational learning and
knowledge management (pp. 324–342). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
2018 Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani
Baverman, L. (2013, May 8). Chicago’s 1871 co-working space
helped 225 startups in year one. Upstart Business Journal.
Berends, H., Garud, R., Debackere, K., & Weggeman, M.
(2011). Thinking along: A process for tapping into
knowledge across boundaries. International Journal
of Technology Management, 53(1), 69–88.
Beunza, D. (2007). In praise of ambiguity: A commentary on
exaptation. European Management Review, 4, 157–159.
Boden, D. (1994). Business of talk: Organizations in action.
Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bonifati, G., & Villani, M. (2013). Exaptation in innovation
processes: Theory and models. In A. Grandori (Ed.),
Handbook of economic organization: Integrating
economic and organization theory (pp. 172–192).
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Borup, M., Brown, N., Konrad, K., & Lente, H. V. (2006).
The sociology of expectations in science and tech-
nology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Manage-
ment, 18(3–4), 285–298.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality.
Critical Inquiry, 18, 1–21.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of trans-
lation: Domestication of the scallops and the fisher-
men of St. Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action
and belief (pp. 196–233). Boston: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Callon, M. (2008). Economic markets and the rise of interactive
agencements: From prosthetic agencies to habilitated
agencies. In T. Pinch & R. Swedberg (Eds.), Living in a
material world: Economic sociology meets science and
technology studies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Callon, M., Lascoumes, P., & Barthe, Y. (2009). Acting in an
uncertain world: An essay on technical democracy.
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Callon, M., & Latour, B. (1981). Unscrewing the big levia-
than: How actors macro-structure reality and how
sociologists help them to do so. In K. Knorr-Cetina &
A. V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and
methodology (pp. 277–303). Boston: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Cattani, G. (2005). Preadaptation, firm heterogeneity, and
technological performance: A study on the evolution
of fiber optics, 1970–1995. Organization Science, 16,
563–580.
Cattani, G. (2006). Technological pre-adaptation, specia-
tion, and emergence of new technologies: How Corn-
ing invented and developed fiber optics. Industrial
and Corporate Change, 15, 285–318.
137
Cattani, G. (2008). Reply to Dew’s (2007) commentary: “Pre-
adaptation, exaptation and technology speciation: A
comment on Cattani (2006). Industrial and Corporate
Change, 17(3), 585–596.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new im-
perative for creating and profiting from technology.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H., & Chen, E. L. (2013). Recovering abandoned
compounds through expanded external IP licensing.
California Management Review, 55(4), 83–101.
Clarysse, B., Mosey, S., & Lambrecht, I. (2009). New trends
in technology management education: A view from
Europe. Academy of Management Learning & Edu-
cation, 8(3), 427–443.
Clemons, S. (2016, October 6). Big bets: Energy. What’s
next? AtlanticLIVE. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/
nf86UVvvYr0.
Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science
studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social
Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Clarke, J. S. (2010). Imagining and ra-
tionalizing opportunities: Inductive reasoning and the
creation and justification of new ventures. Academy
of Management Review, 35, 539–557.
Cozzens, S. E., & Gieryn, T. F. (1990). Theories of science
in society. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Cunha, M. P. E., Clegg, S. R., & Mendonça, S. (2010). On
serendipity and organizing. European Management
Journal, 28(5), 319–330.
Denrell, J., Fang, C., & Winter, S. G. (2003). The economics
of strategic opportunity. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 24(10), 977–990.
de Rond, M., & Thietart, R.-A. (2007). Choice, chance, and
inevitability in strategy. Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 28(5), 535–551.
de Saussure, F. (1983). Course in general linguistics.
LaSalle, IL: Open Court.
de Vladar, H. P., Santos, M., & Szathmáry, E. (2017). Grand
views of evolution. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,
32(5), 324–334.
Dew, N. (2009). Serendipity in entrepreneurship. Organi-
zation Studies, 30, 735–753.
Dew, N., Sarasvathy, S. D., & Venkataraman, S. (2004). The
economic implications of exaptation. Journal of Evo-
lutionary Economics, 14, 69–84.
Dudley, J. T., Deshpande, T., & Butte, A. J. (2011).
Exploiting drug–disease relationships for computa-
tional drug repositioning. Briefings in Bioinformatics,
12(4), 303–311.
Einstein, A., Born, M., & Born, H. (1971). The Born-Einstein
letters: Correspondence between Albert Einstein and
138 Academy of Management Perspectives
Max and Hedwig Born from 1916–1955, with com-
mentaries by Max Born. Born, Irene (trans.). New
York: Walker and Company.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of
innovation: From national systems and “mode 2” to
a triple helix of university–industry–government re-
lations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand
challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited.
Organization Studies, 36, 363–390.
Fini, R., Grimaldi, R., Santoni, S., & Sobrero, M. (2011).
Complements or substitutes? The role of universities
and local context in supporting the creation of aca-
demic spin-offs. Research Policy, 40, 1113–1127.
Fini, R., Lacetera, N., & Shane, S. (2010). Inside or outside
the IP system? Business creation in academia. Re-
search Policy, 39, 1060–1069.
Fortwengel, J., Schüßler, E., & Sydow, J. (2017). Studying
organizational creativity as process: Fluidity or duality?
Creativity and Innovation Management, 26(1), 5–16.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Giuliani, A. P. (2016). Techno-
logical exaptation: A narrative approach. Industrial
and Corporate Change, 25, 149–166.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Karunakaran, A. (2014). Bound-
aries, breaches, and bridges: The case of Climategate.
Research Policy, 43, 60–73.
Garud, R., Gehman, J., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2011).
Complexity arrangements for sustained innovation:
Lessons from 3M Corporation. Organization Studies,
32, 737–767.
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus break-
through: Distributed and embedded agency in tech-
nology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32, 277–300.
Garud, R., & Nayyar, P. R. (1994). Transformative capac-
ity: Continual structuring by intertemporal technol-
ogy transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 15,
365–385.
Garud, R., Nayyar, P. R., & Shapira, Z. B. (1997). Techno-
logical innovation: Oversights and foresights. In
R. Garud, P. R. Nayyar, & Z. B. Shapira (Eds.), Tech-
nological innovation: Oversights and foresights
(pp. 3–10). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation
of science from non-science: Strains and interests in
professional ideologies of scientists. American So-
ciological Review, 48, 781–795.
Gieryn, T. F. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credi-
bility on the line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gintoff, V. (2016, March 23). SkyCool Systems develops
technique to cool buildings using the coldness of
outer space. ArchDaily. Retrieved from http://www.
archdaily.com/784335/skycool-systems-develops-
February
technique-to-cool-buildings-using-the-coldness-of-
outer-space
Gould, S. J. (1991). Exaptation: A crucial tool for an evolu-
tionary psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 47(3), 43–65.
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation: A missing term
in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8, 4–15.
Huston, L., & Sakkab, N. (2006). Connect and develop.
Harvard Business Review, 84(3), 58–66.
Irvine, J., & Martin, B. R. (1984). Foresight in science:
Picking the winners. Dover, NH: Pinter.
Jasanoff, S. S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-
relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17, 195–230.
Jensen, R., & Thursby, M. (2001). Proofs and prototypes for
sale: The licensing of university inventions. American
Economic Review, 91, 240–259.
Karnøe, P., & Garud, R. (2012). Path creation: Co-creation
of heterogeneous resources in the emergence of the
Danish wind turbine cluster. European Planning
Studies, 20(5), 733–752.
Katzenstein, L. (2001). Viagra (sildenafil citrate): The re-
markable story of the discovery and launch. New
York: Medical Information Press.
Kaufmann, A., & Tödtling, F. (2001). Science–industry
interaction in the process of innovation: The impor-
tance of boundary-crossing between systems. Re-
search Policy, 30, 791–804.
Kelley, T. (2007). The art of innovation: Lessons in crea-
tivity from IDEO, America’s leading design firm. New
York: Doubleday.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sci-
ences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Arkana.
Kuljanic, N., & McCormack, S. (2016, March 18). Quantum
technologies or how microscopic things can change our
lives. European Parliamentary Research Service Blog. Re-
trieved from https://epthinktank.eu/2016/03/18/quantum-
technologies-or-how-microscopic-things-can-change-
our-lives.
Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From
matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry,
30, 225–248.
Lefsrud, L. M., & Meyer, R. E. (2012). Science or science
fiction? Professionals’ discursive construction of cli-
mate change. Organization Studies, 33, 1477–1506.
Levin, R. C., Klevorick, A. K., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G.
(1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial re-
search and development. Brookings Papers on Eco-
nomic Activity, 18(3), 783–831.
2018 Garud, Gehman, and Giuliani
Levine, R. N. (2008). A geography of time: On tempo, cul-
ture, and the pace of life. New York: Basic Books.
Levinthal, D. A. (1998). The slow pace of rapid technological
change: Gradualism and punctuation in technological
change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 7, 217–247.
Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2017). Dismantling knowledge boundaries
at NASA: From problem solvers to solution seekers.
Administrative Science Quarterly. Retrieved from
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id52431717
Lindahl, L. (1988). Spence Silver: A scholar and a gentle-
man. 3M Today, 15(1), 12–17.
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science parks and the
growth of new technology-based firms: Academic-
industry links, innovation and markets. Research
Policy, 31, 859–876.
Lundvall, B.-Å. (2007). National innovation systems—
analytical concept and development tool. Industry
and Innovation, 14(1), 95–119.
Markman, G. D., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2008). Re-
search and technology commercialization. Journal of
Management Studies, 45, 1401–1423.
Merton, R. K., & Barber, E. (2004). The travels and adventures
of serendipity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mokyr, J. (2000). Evolutionary phenomena in technical
change. In J. Ziman (Ed.), Technological innovation
as an evolutionary process (pp. 52–65). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Morgan, G. (1993). Imaginization: New mindsets of seeing,
organizing and managing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mosey, S., Wright, M., & Clarysse, B. (2012). Transforming
traditional university structures for the knowledge
economy through multidisciplinary institutes. Cam-
bridge Journal of Economics, 36, 587–607.
Mulder, K., Ferrer, D., & van Lente, H. (2011). What is
sustainable technology? Perceptions, paradoxes and
possibilities. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
Murray, F. (2004). The role of academic inventors in en-
trepreneurial firms: Sharing the laboratory life. Re-
search Policy, 33, 643–659.
Nayak, P. R., & Ketteringham, J. M. (1986). Breakthroughs!
New York: Rawson Associates.
In Nelson, R. R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems: A
comparative analysis. New York: Oxford University
Press.
O’Kane, C., Mangematin, V., Geoghegan, W., & Fitzgerald,
C. (2015). University technology transfer offices: The
search for identity to build legitimacy. Research Pol-
icy, 44, 421–437.
Ostrom, J. H. (1974). Archaeopteryx and the origin of flight.
Quarterly Review of Biology, 49, 27–47.
139
Peirce, C. S. (1965). Collected papers of Charles Sanders
Peirce (Vol. 1-8). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Perkmann, M., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and
commercialisation: A review of the literature on
university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42,
423–442.
Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks
and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future
Research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 165–182.
Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction
of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science
and the sociology of technology might benefit each
other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes & T. J. Pinch (Eds.),
Social construction of technological systems (pp.
17–50). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2005). Border crossing:
Bricolage and the erosion of categorical boundaries in
French gastronomy. American Sociological Review,
70, 968–991.
Rasmussen, E., & Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabil-
ities in facilitating entrepreneurship: A longitudinal
study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities.
Research Policy, 39, 602–612.
Rasmussen, E., & Wright, M. (2015). How can universities
facilitate academic spin-offs? An entrepreneurial
competency perspective. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 40(5), 782–799.
Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative. Blamey, K., &
Pellauer, D. (trans.). (Vol. 1). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1986). Time and narrative. Blamey, K., &
Pellauer, D. (trans.). (Vol. 2). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1988). Time and narrative. Blamey, K., &
Pellauer, D. (trans.). (Vol. 3). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2010). Venture capital as a catalyst
to commercialization. Research Policy, 39, 1348–1360.
Sauermann, H., & Stephan, P. (2012). Conflicting logics? A
multidimensional view of industrial and academic
science. Organization Science, 24, 889–909.
Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Improvised dialogues. Westport, CT:
Ablex.
Seligman, M. E. P., Railton, P., Baumeister, R. F., & Sripada,
C. (2016). Homo prospectus. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Shaw, G., Brown, R., & Bromiley, P. (1998). Strategic
stories: How 3M is rewriting business planning. Har-
vard Business Review, 76(3), 41–50.
Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D., & Link, A. (2003). Assessing the
impact of organizational practices on the relative
140 Academy of Management Perspectives
productivity of university technology transfer offices:
An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.
Teece, D. J. (1987). The competitive challenge: Strategies
for industrial innovation and renewal. Pensacola, FL:
Ballinger Publishing.
3M. (2002). A century of innovation: The 3M story. St. Paul,
MN: 3M Company.
Tsoukas, H. (2009). A dialogical approach to the creation of
new knowledge in organizations. Organization Sci-
ence, 20, 941–957.
Tuertscher, P., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2014).
Justification and interlaced knowledge at ATLAS,
CERN. Organization Science, 25(6), 1579–1608.
Usher, A. P. (1954). A history of mechanical inventions
(rev.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
White, M. (2016, August 18). Could the answer to Zika
already be sitting behind the counter at your CVS?
Pacific Standard. Retrieved from https://psmag.com/
could-the-answer-to-zika-already-be-sitting-behind-
the-counter-at-your-cvs-b757ee588d7a
Wynne, B. (1989). Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A case
study in communicating scientific information. Envi-
ronment, 31, 10–39.
February
Raghu Garud (rgarud@psu.edu) is the Alvin H. Clemens
Professor of Management and Organization and research
director of the Farrell Center for Corporate Innovation and
Entrepreneurship at Pennsylvania State University. His
research explores the emergence of novelty and its
adoption. Specifically, he is interested in understanding
how new ideas emerge, are valued, and become institution-
alized. He is currently co-editing a Journal of Manage-
ment Studies special issue on Managing in the Age of
Disruptions.
Joel Gehman (jgehman@ualberta.ca) is an assistant pro-
fessor of strategic management and organization and Nova
Faculty Fellow at the Alberta School of Business at the
University of Alberta. His research examines strategic,
technological, and institutional responses to sustainability
and values concerns. Examples include values work, ro-
bust action strategies, social license to operate, and cate-
gory promotion.
Antonio Paco Giuliani (a.giuliani@ieseg.fr) is an associate
professor at the IÉSEG School of Management. His research
investigates how entrepreneurs develop new ideas and
new ventures, and their interplay with institutional
environments.
Copyright of Academy of Management Perspectives is the property of Academy of
Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.