Effect of collaboration network structure on knowledge creation and technological performance: The case of biotechnology in Canada

Scientometrics

Volumn 97, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 99-119

  Eslami, Hamidreza ^a   Ebadi, Ashkan ^a   Schiffauerova, Andrea ^a  

^a Concordia University ^*  (Canada)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Canada; Collaboration; Innovation; Network structure; Small world

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884131127     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-013-1069-6     Document Type: Article

References (77)

1. Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. (1997). Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion: A computer simulation. Organization Science, 8, 289-309.
2. Aharonson, B., Baum, J., & Feldman, M. (2004). Industrial clustering and the returns to inventive activity: Canadian biotechnology firms, 1991-2000.
3. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425-455.
4. Albert, R., & Barabási, A. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(1), 47.
5. Alcácer, J., & Gittelman, M. (2006). Patent citations as a measure of knowledge flows: The influence of examiner citations. Review of Economics and Statistics, 88(4), 774-779.
6. Allen, T. (1983). Collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 4, 1-24.
7. Barabási, A. L., Jeong, H., Néda, Z., Ravasz, E., Schubert, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 311(3-4), 590-614.
8. Baum, J., Shipilov, A., & Rowley, T. (2003). Where do small worlds come from? Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 697.
9. Bavelas, A. (1950). Communication patterns in task oriented groups. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 22, 271-282.
10. Beaudry, C., & Schiffauerova, A. (2011). Impacts of collaboration and network indicators on patent quality: The case of Canadian nanotechnology innovation. European Management Journal, 29(5), 362-376.
11. Bland, C. J., & Ruffin, M. T. (1992). Characteristics of a productive research environment: Literature review. Academic Medicine, 67(6), 385-397.
12. Burt, R. (2001). Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. Social capital: theory and research. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13. Butts, C. T. (2006). Exact bounds for degree centralization. Social Networks, 28(4), 283-296.
14. Centra, J. A. (1983). Research productivity and teaching effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 18(4), 379-389.
15. Choi, H., Kim, S. H., & Lee, J. (2010). Role of network structure and network effects in diffusion of innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 170-177.
16. Chung, K., & Hossain, L. (2009). Measuring performance of knowledge-intensive workgroups through social networks. Project Management Journal, 40(2), 34-58.
17. Clements, M. (2008). Patenting at universities in the United States: A network analysis of the complexities of domestic and international university patenting activities.
18. Coleman, J. (1981). Longitudinal data analysis. New York: Basic Books. 102-081-920.
19. Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2001). Knowledge creation, knowledge diffusion and network structure (pp. 327-343). Berlin: Springer.
20. Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2003). The dynamics of collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(4), 513-532.
21. Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. (2004). Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28(8), 1557-1575.
22. Dahl, M., & Pedersen, C. (2004). Knowledge flows through informal contacts in industrial clusters: myth or reality? Research Policy, 33, 1673-1686.
23. Davis, G., Yoo, M., & Baker, W. (2003). The small world of the American corporate elite, 1982-2001. Strategic Organ, 1(3), 301-326.
24. de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. New York: Cambridge University Press.
25. Feldman, M., & Audretsch, D. (1999). Innovation in cities: Science-based diversity, specialization and localized competition. European Economic Review, 43, 409-429.
26. Fell, D., & Wagner, A. (2000). The small world of metabolism. Nature Biotechnology, 18, 1121-1122.
27. Fleming, L., King, C., & Juda, A. (2007). Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science, 18(6), 938-954.
28. Fontana, R., Nuvolari, A., & Verspagen, B. (2009). Mapping technological trajectories as patent citation networks. An application to data communication standards. Network Strategy, 18(4), 311-336.
29. Freeman, L. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215-239.
30. Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & van den Oord, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37, 1717-1731.
31. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1380.
32. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
33. Hargadon, A. (2003). How breakthroughs happen: the surprising truth about how companies innovate. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
34. Harris, R. J. (1985). A primer of multivariate statistics (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
35. Hausman, J., Hall, B., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52, 909-937.
36. He, J., & Fallah, M. H. (2009). Is inventor network structure a predictor of cluster evolution? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 91-106.
37. Hu, A., Adam, G. Z., & Jaffe, B. (2003). Patent citations and international knowledge flow: The cases of Korea and Taiwan. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(6), 849-880.
38. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Fogarty, M. (2000). Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: Evidence from a survey of inventors. American Economic Review, 90(2), 215-218.
39. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
40. Jang, S. L., Yu, Y. C., & Wang, T. Y. (2011). Emerging firms in an emerging field: an analysis of patent citations in electronic-paper display technology. Scientometrics, 89(1), 259-272.
41. Knofczynski, G. T., & Mundfrom, D. (2008). Sample sizes when using multiple linear regression for prediction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(3), 431-442.
42. Kogut, B., & Walker, G. (2001). The small world of Germany and the durability of national networks. American Sociological Review, 66, 317-335.
43. Kuzhabekova, A. (2011). Impact of co-authorship strategies on research productivity: A social-network analysis of publications in Russian cardiology (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 2011).
44. Lamoreaux, N., & Sokoloff, K. (1997). Location and technological change in the American glass industry during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. 5938.
45. Lanjouw, J., & Schankerman, M. (2004). Patent quality and research productivity: Measuring innovation with multiple indicators. Economic Journal, 114, 441-465.
46. Latora, V., & Marchiori, M. (2001). Efficient behavior of small-world networks. Physical Review Letters, 87(19), 198701.
47. Leavitt, H. (1951). Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(1), 38-50.
48. Liebeskind, J., Oliver, A., Zucker, L., & Brewer, M. (1996). Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new Biotechnology firms. Organization Science, 7(4), 428-443.
49. Lukatch, R., & Plasmans, J. (2002). Measuring knowledge spillovers using patent citations: Evidence from Belgian firms' data.
50. Maxwell, S. E. (2000). Sample size and multiple regression analysis. Psychological Methods, 5(4), 434-458.
51. McFadyen, M. A., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Value of strong ties to disconnected others: Examining knowledge creation in biomedicine. Organization Science, 20(3), 552-564.
52. Milgram, S. (1967). The small world problem. Psychology Today, 2(1), 60-67.
53. Munn-Venn, T., & Mitchell, P. (2005). Biotechnology in Canada: A technology platform for growth. Conference Board of Canada.
54. Montoya, J. M., & Sole, R. V. (2002). Small world patterns in food webs. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 214(3), 405-412.
55. Newman, M. (2001a). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review, 64(1), 016131.
56. Newman, M. (2001b). The structure of scientific collaboration networks: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404.
57. Newman, M. E. (2001c). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64(2), 025102.
58. Newman, M. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(Suppl 1), 5200.
59. Niosi, J. (2005). Canada's regional innovation systems. The science-based industries. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
60. Powell, W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295-336.
61. Rumsey-Wairepo, A. (2006). The association between co-authorship network structures and successful academic publishing among higher education scholars.
62. Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: Culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
63. Schiffauerova, A., & Beaudry, C. (2012). Who owns the intellectual property and where? The case of Canadian biotechnology. International Journal of Biotechnology, 12(3), 147-169.
64. Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7), 1113-1126.
65. Schrader, S. (1991). Informal technology transfer between firms: Cooperation through information trading. Research Policy, 20, 153-170.
66. Taylor, M. S., Locke, E. A., Lee, C., & Gist, M. E. (1984). Type A behavior and faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34(3), 402-418.
67. Tong, X., & Frame, J. (1994). Measuring national technological performance with patent claims data. Research Policy, 23, 133-141.
68. Toutkoushian, R. K., Porter, S. R., Danielson, C., & Hollis, P. R. (2003). Using publications counts to measure an institution's research productivity. Research in Higher Education, 44(2), 121-148.
69. Travers, J., & Milgram, S. (1969). An experimental study of the small world problem. Sociometry, 32, 425-443.
70. Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem! American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447-504.
71. van Zeebroeck, N., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2006). Filing strategies and patent value.
72. von Hippel, E. (1987). Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 16, 291-302.
73. Wampold, B. E., & Freund, R. D. (1987). Use of multiple regression in counseling psychology research: A rexible data-analytic strategy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 372-382.
74. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge, ENG and New York: Cambridge University Press.
75. Watts, D. (1999). Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon 1. The American Journal of Sociology, 105(2), 493-527.
76. Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of "small-world" networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440-442.
77. Yook, S. H., Jeong, H., Barabási, A. L., & Tu, Y. (2001). Weighted evolving networks. Physical Review Letters, 86(25), 5835-5838.