MOST INNOVATIVE COMPANIES: WHAT THEY APPRISE ON TWITTER?

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 15, 90 - 103, 31.12.2021

Esra G. Kaygısız

Abstract

The study aims to analyze how the World's Most Innovative Companies apprise themselves on the Twitter platform. To reach this aim, the data mining method is used. In the study, tweets published by the top 50 companies in the 2021 report of the World's Most Innovative Companies published by Forbes, were discussed as an example. Tweets contain the dates between 03.06.2021 and 10.06.2021. The tweets were evaluated through the Maxqda 20.04 program, sentiment analysis was performed, the frequency frequencies of the words included in the tweets were examined and the word cloud was extracted. According to 1200 tweets analyzed, the most frequently used words were new (12.2%), help (6.9%), learn (6.7%), details (6.4%), and team (6.1%). The most frequently used hashtags other than the companies' own names observed as #pride (10.3), #worldenvironmentday (5.8%), #ai (5.2%), #pmi (4.5%), #primeday (3%). 9) and #covid19 (3.2%). In the sentiment analysis which was performed on tweet contents, it was found that 39.1% of them were partially positive, 31% were positive, 25.1% were neutral, 4.1% were partially negative and 0.7% of them were negative. It is considered that this study, which is carried out on how businesses that want to take their place in the innovation world, share their "what" with the whole world and their stakeholders, whose innovation studies they follow, will be beneficial for the managers of companies trying to be innovative and academicians working in the field on innovation.

Keywords

Innovation, Semantic Analysis, Twitter, Innovative Companies, Forbes.

References

• Ainin, S., Feizollah, A., Anuar, N. B., & Abdullah, N. A. (2020). Sentiment analyses of multilingual tweets on halal tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives, 34(February), 100658. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.tmp.2020.100658
• Ali, H., Moin, S., Karim, A. & Shamshirband. S. (2018). Machine Learning-Based Sentiment Analysis for Twitter Accounts. Mathematical and Computational Applications 23, no. 1: 11, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/mca23010011.
• Almossa, S.Y. (2021). University students’ perspectives toward learning and assessment during COVID-19. Educ Inf Technol (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10554-8
• Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies, and implications for education. JISC Technology and Standards Watch, Feb. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.108.9995&rep=rep1&type=pdf
• Argenti, P.A. & Barnes, C.M. (2009), Digital Strategies for Powerful Communications. New York: McGraw Hill
• Barker, A. (2002). Yenilikçiliğin Simyası (A. Kardam, Çev.) İstanbul. Mess Yayın.
• Belloso, W.H. (2020). On innovation. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 54, 1068–1075. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-020-00125-3
• Cheng, C. F., Chang, M. L., & Li, C. S. (2013). Configural paths to successful product innovation. Journal of Business Research, 66 (12), 2561–2573
• Drucker, P. (1985). Principles of successful innovation. Research Management. Vol. 28, No. 5, September-October, 10-12 Dyer, J. & Gregersen, H. (2018). How we rank the most ınnovative companies 2018. https://www.forbes.com/sites/innovatorsdna/2018/05/29/how-we-rank-the-most-innovative-companies-2018/?sh=2eebe2ac1e3c
• Elçi, Ş. (2006). İnovasyon. Kalkınma ve Rekabetin Anahtarı. 7. Print. Meteksan Bilişim & BTHaber
• Fisk, P. 2011. Yaratıcı Deha (N. Özata, Çev.). İstanbul: Kapital Medya Hizmetleri
• Freeman, C. (1995). The 'National System of Innovation' in historical perspective. Cambridge Journal of Economics 1995, 19, 5-24
• Graf, I., Gerwing, H., Hoefer, K., Ehlebracht, D., Christ, H. & Braumann, B. (2020). Social media and orthodontics: A mixedmethods analysis of orthodontic-related posts on Twitter and Instagram. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. August, Vol 158, Issue 2, 221-228.
• Granstrand, O. & Holgersson, M. (2020). Innovation ecosystems: A conceptual review and a new definition. Technovation, 90-91, 102098., 2-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.technovation.2019.102098
• Godin, B. (2008) Innovation: The History of a Category. Montreal: Project of the Intellectual History of Innovation, Working Paper No. 1.
• Jıanqıang, Z., Xiaolin, G. & Xuejun, Z. (2018). Deep Convolution Neural Networks for Twitter Sentiment Analysis. IEEE, Volume 6, 23253-23260.
• Kal, S. K. (2012). Web 2.0: A New Tool For Teaching and Learning in Electronic Environment. Journal of the Young Librarians Associatıon. Vol. 05, 107-113.
• Kaurav, R. P. S., Narula, S., Baber, R. & Tiwari, P. (2021). Theoretical extension of the new education policy 2020 using twitter mining. Journal of Content, Community & Communication, Vol. 13 Year 7, 16-26.
• Knight, K. E. (1967). A Descriptive Model of the Intra-Firm Innovation Process. The Journal of Business. Vol. 40, No. 4,Oct., 478-496.
• Liu, B. (2012). Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Synthesis Lectures on Human Language, 5(1), 1-167
• Meesapawong, P., Rezgui, Y. & Li, H. (2010). Perceiving societal value as the core of innovation management in public research and development organizations. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology (ICMIT), 2-5 June, 310-317 Singapore.
• Minor, P. L. B. (2011). The Three C’s of Innovation: Combination, Collaboration, and Chance. https://web.jhu.edu/administration/provost/reports_resources/speeches/110707_three_cs (accessed 10.07.2021)
• OECD/Eurostat (2018), Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on Innovation, 4th Edition, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris/Eurostat, Luxembourg. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en
• Rajiv & Lal, M. (2011). Web 3.0 in education & Research. BVICAM’s International Journal of Information Technology, 3, 335-340.
• Ramadani, V. & Gerguri, S. (2011). Theoretical framework of innovation and competitiveness and ınnovation program in Macedonia. European Journal of Social Sciences, 23 (2), 268-276.
• Roberts, E. B. (1988). What we've learned: Managing invention and innovation. Research Technology Management. January-February 1988, Vol. 31, No. 1,11-29.
• Salkovska, J., Batraga, A., Braslina, L., Skiltere, D., Braslins, G., Kalkis, H. & Legzdina, A. (2019). Four conceptual perspectives of ınnovation components. AHFE 2019 International Conference on Human Factors, Business Management and Society, and the AHFE International Conference on Human Factors in Management and Leadership, July 24-28, 2019, Washington D.C., USA) 10.1007/978-3-030-20154-8, 72-82.
• Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5 (June), 1 Tushman, M. & Nadler, D. (1986). Organizing for innovation. California Management Review, 28(3), 74–92. doi:10.2307/41165203
• Varadarajan, R. (2018). Innovation, ınnovation strategy, and strategic ınnovation. Innovation and Strategy Review of Marketing Research, Volume 15, 143-166.
• Verloop, J. (2004). Insight in Innovation, Hollanda: Elsevier, s. 141.
• Wan, D., Ong, H. C. & Lee, F. (2005). Determinants of firm ınnovation in Singapore. Technovation, 25 (3), 261-268.
• Weller, K., Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Mahrt, M., Puschmann, C. (2014). Twitter and society (Digital Formations, 89). New York: P. Lang. https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-47764-2
• Zoroja, J. (2016). Impact of ICTs on ınnovation activities: Indication for selected European countries. Our Economy, 62(3), 39–51. DOI: 10.1515/ngoe-2016-0017