Network determinants of knowledge utilization: Preliminary lessons from a boundary organization

Science Communication

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 448-471

  Crona, Beatrice I ^a,b   Parker, John N ^a,c  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c NATIONAL CENTER FOR ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS   (United States)

Author keywords

boundary organization; knowledge transfer; knowledge utilization; science policy; social network analysis; social networks

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855494493     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547011408116     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Adler P.S.,Kwon S.W.Social capital: Prospect for a new concept.Academy of Management Review. 2002;27:17-40.
2. Amara N.,Ouimet M.,Landry R.New evidence on instrumental, conceptual and symbolic utilization of university research in government agencies.Science Communication. 2004;1:75-106.
3. Anand B.N.,Khanna T.Do firms learn to create value? The case of alliances.Strategic Management Journal. 2000;21:295-315.
4. Argote L.,Ingram P.Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2000;82:150-169.
5. Backer T.E.Knowledge utilization: The third wave.Science Communication. 1991;12:225-240.
6. Borgatti S.P.NetDraw: Graph visualization software. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies; 2002:.
7. Borgatti S.P.,Foster P.C.The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology.Journal of Management. 2003;29:991-1013.
8. Burt R.Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2005:.
9. Bush V.Science: The endless frontier.Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science. 1945;48:231-264.
10. Carmeli A.,Cohen A.Organizational reputation as a source of sustainable competitive advantage and above normal performance: An empirical test among local authorities in Israel.Public Administration & Management: An Interactive Journal of Applied Corporate Finance. 2001;6:122-165.
11. Carmeli A.,Tishler A.Perceived organizational reputation and organizational performance: An empirical investigation of industrial enterprises.Corporate Reputation Review. 2005;8 (1): 13-30.
12. Cash D.W.,Clark W.C.,Alcock F.,Dickson N.M.,Eckley N.,Guston D.Mitchell R.B.Knowledge systems for sustainable development.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2003;100:8086-8091.
13. CronaB.ParkerJ. N. (2009). All things to all people: An assessment of DCDC as a boundary organization. Phoenix: Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://www.stockholmresilience.org/download/18.2a759bb41277b00e3c380002365/DCDC+report_final+version_incl+appendix.pdf.
14. Freeman L.Centrality in social networks. Conceptual clarifications.Social Networks. 1979;1:215-239.
15. Gano G.L.,Crowley J.E.,Guston D."Shielding" the knowledge transfer process in human service research.Journal of Public Administration. 2007;17:39-60.
16. Gober P.Metropolitan Phoenix. Place making and community building in the desert. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press; 2006:.
17. Gober P.,Kirkwood C.,Balling R.,Ellis A.,Deitrick S.Water planning under climatic uncertainty in Phoenix: Why we need a new paradigm.Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 2010;100:356-372.
18. Goldenberg J.,Han S.,Lehmann D.R.,Hong J.W.The role of hubs in the adoption process.Journal of Marketing. 2009;73:1-13.
19. Guston D.Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2001;26:299-408.
20. Hackett E.J.,Parker J.N. (in press). Leadership of scientific groups. In W. S. Bainbridge (Ed.), Leadership in science and technology: A reference handbook. London, England: Sage.
21. Holmes J.,Clark R.Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation.Environmental Science & Policy. 2008;11:702-711.
22. Huberman M.,Thurler G.From research to practice. Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang SA; 1991:.
23. Inkpen A.C.,Beamish P.W.Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures.Academy of Management Review. 1997;22:177-202.
24. Inkpen A.C.,Tsang E.K.Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer.Academy of Management Review. 2005;30:146-165.
25. Klerkx L.,Leeuwis C.Matching demand and supply in the agricultural knowledge infrastructure: Experiences with innovation intermediaries.Food Policy. 2008;33:260-276.
26. Knott J.,Wildavsky A.If dissemination is the solution, what is the problem?.Science Communication. 1980;1:537-578.
27. Lahsen M.,Nobre C.The challenge of connecting international science and local level sustainability: The case of the LBA.Environmental Science & Policy. 2007;10:62-74.
28. Landry R.,Amara N.,Lamari M.Utilization of social science research knowledge in Canada.Research Policy. 2001;30:333-349.
29. Landry R.,Amara N.,Ouimet M.Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering.Journal of Technology Transfer. 2007;32:561-592.
30. Landry R.,Lamari M.,Amara N.Extent and determinants of utilization of university research in government agencies.Public Administration Review. 2003;63:191-204.
31. Lin N.Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 2002:.
32. Mandell M.B.,Sauter V.L.Approaches to the study of information utilization in public agencies.Knowledge. 1984;6:145-164.
33. Manley K.The systems approach in innovation studies.Australasian Journal of Information Systems. 2002;9:94-102.
34. Marsden P.V.Network data and measurement.Annual Review of Sociology. 1990;16:435-463.
35. McNie E.Reconciling the supply of scientific information with user demands: An analysis of the problem and review of the literature.Environmental Science & Policy. 2007;10:17-38.
36. Miller C.Hybrid management: Boundary organizations, science policy, and environmental governance in the climate regime.Science, Technology, & Human Values. 2001;26:478-500.
37. Nahapiet J.,Ghoshal S.Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage.Academy of Management Review. 1998;23:242-266.
38. Nowotny H.,Scott P.,Gibbons M.Re-thinking science. KNowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge, England: Polity Press; 2001:.
39. Oh C.H.,Rich R.Explaining the use of information in public policy making.Knowledge, Technology & Policy. 1997;9:3-35.
40. O'Mahoney S.,Bechky B.A.Boundary Organizations: Enabling collaboration among unexpected allies.Administrative Science Quarterly. 2008;53:422-459.
41. Parker J.N.,Vermeulen N.,Penders B.Collaboration in the new life sciences. London, England: Ashgate; 2010:.
42. Perry-Smith J.E.,Shalley C.E.The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective.Academy of Management Review. 2003;28:89-106.
43. Riccucci N.M.,Morse R.S.Bill Gibson and the art of leading across boundaries.Public Administration Review. 2010;70:434-442.
44. Rod M.R. M.,Paliwoda S.J.Multi-sector collaboration: A stakeholder perspective on a government, industry and university collaborative venture.Science and Public Policy. 2003;30:273-284.
45. Sarewitz D.,Pielke R.The neglected heart of science policy: Reconciling supply of and demand for science.Environmental Science & Policy. 2007;10:5-16.
46. Schmoch S.Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull.Research Policy. 2007;36:1000-1015.
47. Schneider A.L.Why do some boundary organizations result in new ideas and practices and others only meet resistance? Examples from juvenile justice.American Review of Public Administration. 2009;39:60-79.
48. Wasserman S.,Faust K.Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1994:.
49. White D.,Corley E.A.,White M.Water managers' perceptions of the science-policy interface in Phoenix, Arizona: Implications for an emerging boundary organization.Society & Natural Resources. 2008;21:230-243.
50. White D.,Wutich A.,Larson K.,Gober P.,Lant T.,Senneville C.Credibility, salience, and legitimacy of boundary objects: water managers' assessment of a simulation model in an immersive decision theater.Science and Public Policy. 2010;37:219-232.