When does centrality matter? Scientific productivity and the moderating role of research specialization and cross-community ties

Journal of Organizational Behavior

Volumn 34, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 648-670

  Rotolo, Daniele ^a   Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b POLITECNICO DI BARI   (Italy)

Author keywords

Cross community ties; Research specialization; Scientific performance; Social capital; Structural centrality

Indexed keywords

EID: 84879462954     PISSN: 08943796     EISSN: 10991379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/job.1822     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Adams, J. D., & Griliches, Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annales d'Economie et de Statistique, 49/50(1), 127-162.
2. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40. doi: 10.2307/4134367
3. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44-60. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.48.1.44.14279
4. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-455. doi: 10.2307/2667105
5. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6. Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 469-478. doi: 10.2307/2095801
7. Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 596-606. doi: 10.2307/2094424
8. Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational learning: The psychosocial filter. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 797-810. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00204
9. Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63(4), 599-623. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2006.05.015
10. Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: An exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33(1), 127-145. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00108-2
11. Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure's effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 49-68. doi: 10.5465/amj.2006.20785500
12. Barabási, A. (2005). Network theory. The emergence of the creative enterprise. Science, 308, 639-641. doi: 10.1126/science.1112554
13. Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. The American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170-1182. doi: 10.1086/228631
14. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
15. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892-895. doi: 10.1126/science.1165821
16. Brass, D. J. (1992). Power in organizations: A social network perspective. In G. Moore, & J. A. Whitt (Eds.), Research in politics and society (pp. 295-323). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
17. Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441-470. doi: 10.2307/256588
18. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: Social structure of competition. London: Harvard Business Press.
19. Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008). A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 19(6), 824-844. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0350
20. Cicourel, A. V. (1973). Cognitive sociology. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.
21. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22. Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. The American Journal of Sociology, 84(4), 958-977. doi: 10.1086/226868
23. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120. doi: 10.1086/228943
24. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25. Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Shore, L. M. (2007). The employee-organization relationship: Where do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 17(2), 166-179. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.03.008
26. Cross, R., & Cummings, J. N. (2004). Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 928-937. doi: 10.2307/20159632
27. Crow, M., & Bozeman, B. (1987). R&D laboratory classification and public policy: The effects of environmental context on laboratory behavior. Research Policy, 16(5), 229-258. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(87)90009-6
28. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
29. Dahlander, L., & Frederiksen, L. (2011). The core and cosmopolitans: A relational view of innovation in user communities. Organization Science. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0673
30. Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487-521. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1
31. Fabrizio, K. R., & Di Minin, A. (2008). Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy, 37(5), 914-931. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.010
32. Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117-132. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.47.1.117.10671
33. Fleming, L. (2007). Breakthroughs and the "Long Tail" of innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(1), 69-74.
34. Fox, M. F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65(4), 293-305.
35. Fox, M. F. (1999). Gender, hierarchy, and science. In J. S. Chafetz (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of gender (pp. 441-457). New York, NY: Kluwer.
36. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215-239. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
37. Gao, X., & Guan, J. (2011). Network model of knowledge diffusion. Scientometrics, 90(3), 749-762. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0554-z
38. Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49(4), 366-382. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.49.4.366.14420
39. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. doi: 10.1086/225469
40. Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. The American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481. doi: 10.1086/228311
41. Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 619-652. doi: 10.2307/2393756
42. Hadani, M., Coombes, S., Das, D., & Jalajas, D. (2012). Finding a good job: Academic network centrality and early occupational outcomes in management academia. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 723-739. doi: 10.1002/job.788
43. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82-111. doi: 10.2307/2667032
44. Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13(3), 232-248. doi: 10.1287/orsc.13.3.232.2771
45. Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952-965. doi: 10.1002/asi.10291
46. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716-749. doi: 10.2307/2393655
47. Hausman, J. A., Hall, B. H., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52(4), 902-938. doi: 10.2307/1911191
48. Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965-1988. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 119-127. doi: 10.1162/003465398557221
49. Hoetker, G. (2007). The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4), 331-343. doi: 10.1002/smj.582
50. Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471-501. doi: 10.2307/256589
51. Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016-1033. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0491
52. Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective, and social conditions form innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
53. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1
54. Kelchtermans, S., & Veugelers, R. (2010). The great divide in scientific productivity: Why the average scientist does not exist. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(1), 295-336. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtq074
55. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
56. Lechner, C., Frankenberger, K., & Floyd, S. W. (2010). Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 865-889. doi: 10.5465/amj.2010.52814620
57. Lehman, H. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
58. Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review, 81(1), 114.
59. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(52), 95-112. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250141009
60. Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2009). A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 348-362. doi: 10.1002/asi.20967
61. Lissoni, F., Mairesse, J., Montobbio, F., & Pezzoni, M. (2011). Scientific productivity and academic promotion: A study on French and Italian physicists. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(1), 253-294. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtq073
62. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16(1), 317-323.
63. Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55-65.
64. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87. doi: 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
65. Mayhew, B. H., & Levinger, R. L. (1976). Size and the density of interaction in human aggregates. The American Journal of Sociology, 82(1), 86-110. doi: 10.1086/226271
66. McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, A. A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735-746. doi: 10.2307/20159615
67. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363-377. doi: 10.1007/BF02129600
68. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science reconsidered. Science, 159(3810), 56-63. doi: 10.1126/science.159.3810.56
69. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213-238. doi: 10.1177/000312240406900204
70. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. doi: 10.2307/259373
71. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317-330. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00013-9
72. Nerkar, A., & Paruchuri, S. (2005). Evolution of R&D capabilities: The role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science, 51(5), 771-785. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0354
73. Newman, M. E. J. (2001a). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64(1), 016131. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016131
74. Newman, M. E. J. (2001b). Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64(1), 016132. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016132
75. O'Reilly, C. A. (1980). Individuals and information overload in organizations: Is more necessarily better? Academy of Management Journal, 23(4), 684-696. doi: 10.2307/255556
76. Paruchuri, S. (2010). Intraorganizational networks, interorganizational networks, and the impact of central inventors: A longitudinal study of pharmaceutical firms. Organization Science, 21(1), 63-80. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0414
77. Pelz, D. C. (1956). Some social factors related to performance in a research organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(3), 310-325. doi: 10.2307/2390926
78. Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89-106. doi: 10.2307/30040691
79. Pezzoni, M., Sterzi, V., & Lissoni, F. (2012). Career progress in centralized academic systems: Social capital and institutions in France and Italy. Research Policy, 41(4), 704-719. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.009
80. Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. The American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829. doi: 10.1086/230091
81. Porter, A., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719-745. doi: 10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2
82. Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.
83. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240-267. doi: 10.2307/3556658
84. Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25(6), 541-562. doi: 10.1002/smj.398
85. Sandefur, R. L., & Laumann, E. O. (1998). A paradigm for social capital. Rationality and Society, 10(4), 481-501. doi: 10.1177/104346398010004005
86. Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behavior: A study of decision making processes in administrative organization. New York, NY: The Macmillan Co.
87. Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595-623. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199907)20:7<595::AID-SMJ47>3.0.CO;2-5
88. Sorenson, O., & Stuart, T. E. (2001). Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. The American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1546-1588. doi: 10.1086/321301
89. Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316-325. doi: 10.2307/3069458
90. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1991). Inequality in scientific performance: Adjustment for attribution and journal impact. Social Studies of Science, 21(2), 351-368.
91. Stirling, A. (2007). A general framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 4(15), 707-719. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2007.0213
92. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476. doi: 10.2307/257085
93. Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26(11), 1071-1085. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.26.11.1071
94. Williamson, I. O., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Predicting early career research productivity: The case of management faculty. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 25-44. doi: 10.1002/job.178
95. Wong, S. S. (2008). Task knowledge overlap and knowledge variety: The role of advice network structures and impact on group effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), 591-614. doi: 10.1002/job.490