Serendipity analogues: Approval of modifications of the traditional case study for a psychotherapy research with music

Chumaceiro, Cora L. Díaz de; Yáber, O.Guillermo E.

doi:10.1016/0197-4556(95)00015-w

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…By contrast, in the discoveries of sildenafil citrate and penicillin, scientists discovered something different from what they were looking for. The former can be labeled 'pseudo-serendipity' (Roberts 1989), also known as 'serendipity analogues' (Diaz de Chumaceiro and Yaber 1995). Here, the objective remained unchanged, but the route toward achieving this objective proved unusual and surprising.…”

Section: Serendipity Revisitedmentioning

confidence: 93%

The structure of serendipity

Rond

2014

Culture and Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Serendipity is routinely but mistakenly used as synonymous with chance events, luck or providence. It is thus not surprising that serendipity remains comparatively under-researched. After all, how is one to unlock the 'black box' of chance? Rather than being synonymous with chance, serendipity results from identifying 'matching pairs' of events that are put to practical or strategic use. With this etymologically accurate definition in mind, serendipity thus describes a capability, not an event. It follows that human agency, and not probability, is properly the focus of attention. Drawing on its sixteenth century etymological origins, I 'unpack' four serendipitous innovations in science to illustrate the nature of serendipity. In developing this argument, I propose a novel typology, and conclude by exploring implications of this typology for research and practice.Discovery is seeing what everybody else has seen but thinking what nobody else has thought -Albert Szent-Györgyi Serendipity is often incorrectly, and ultimately ineffectively, used as synonymous with chance coincidence, luck or providence. Yet this popular characterization obscures our appreciation of the structure of innovation. After all, how is one to unlock the 'black box' of chance, except to assign it a probability?Rather than being tantamount to chance events, serendipity results from the ability to identify 'matching pairs' of events, or events that are meaningfully, even if not necessarily causally, related. In contrast with serendipity's popular usage, this characterization is true to its etymological origins and, importantly, renders serendipity a capability and not, as is routinely assumed, a happening. This paper proposes that serendipity, as a capability, affords an opportunity to extend scholarly research into processes of discovery or innovation. To unpack this theme is its first objective. But it also seeks conceptual clarity by proposing a typology of serendipity. This typology is induced from descriptions of four scientific discoveries. To outline the implications of this conceptualization for research and practice is its third objective. Defining serendipitySerendipity is commonly used in reference to 'the happy accident'

show abstract