IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v32y2023i2p426-440..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the variety of collaborative practices in translational research: An analysis of scientists’ ego-networks

Author

Listed:
  • Adrián A
  • Oscar Llopis
  • Pablo D’Este
  • Jordi Molas-Gallart

Abstract

Translational research policies aim to reshape how biomedical scientists organize, conceive, and conduct science in order to accelerate healthcare improvements and medical innovations. Yet most analyses and evaluations of these initiatives focus on measuring the outputs generated in the different stages of the research process rather than observing scientists’ research practices directly. In this article, we analyze the collaboration networks formed by the biomedical scientists participating in a large translational research initiative. Based on data derived from a large-scale survey, we examine the network configurations established by biomedical scientists to advance their research in the context of the CIBER program—a Spanish flagship initiative aimed at supporting translational research. We adopt an ego-network perspective and draw on three network attributes—network diversity, tie strength, and tie content—to understand how scientists use their interpersonal connections to mobilize tangible and intangible resources and enable the translation of scientific knowledge into practical applications. Our cluster analysis identifies a range of scientist profiles: downstream-oriented scientists, upstream-oriented scientists, and brokering scientists. It shows that the scientists participating in the CIBER program deploy different types of collaborative behavior and engage in a variety of medical innovation activities. This suggests that the results achieved by a research program aimed at supporting collaborative networks will depend on the types of networks in which the participating scientists engage. Consequently, evaluations of these programs need to capture collaboration patterns, and should focus primarily on the collaborative process rather than the outputs that emerge from the collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Adrián A & Oscar Llopis & Pablo D’Este & Jordi Molas-Gallart, 2023. "Assessing the variety of collaborative practices in translational research: An analysis of scientists’ ego-networks," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 426-440.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2023:i:2:p:426-440.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvad003
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Proksch, Dorian & Busch-Casler, Julia & Haberstroh, Marcus Max & Pinkwart, Andreas, 2019. "National health innovation systems: Clustering the OECD countries by innovative output in healthcare using a multi indicator approach," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 169-179.
    2. Jorrit P Smit & Laurens K Hessels, 2021. "The production of scientific and societal value in research evaluation: a review of societal impact assessment methods [Systems Thinking, Knowledge and Action: Towards Better Models and Methods]," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 323-335.
    3. Adrián A Díaz-Faes & Paula Otero-Hermida & Müge Ozman & Pablo D’Este, 2020. "Do women in science form more diverse research networks than men? An analysis of Spanish biomedical scientists," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Bob Kijkuit & Jan Van Den Ende, 2007. "The Organizational Life of an Idea: Integrating Social Network, Creativity and Decision‐Making Perspectives," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(6), pages 863-882, September.
    5. Jorge Walter & Daniel Z. Levin & J. Keith Murnighan, 2015. "Reconnection Choices: Selecting the Most Valuable (vs. Most Preferred) Dormant Ties," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(5), pages 1447-1465, October.
    6. Paul S. Adler & Seok-Woo Kwon, 2013. "The Mutation of Professionalism as a Contested Diffusion Process: Clinical Guidelines as Carriers of Institutional Change in Medicine," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 930-962, July.
    7. Daniel Z. Levin & Rob Cross, 2004. "The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1477-1490, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2024:i:2:p:426-440. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. D'Este, Pablo & Mc Kelvey, Maureen & Yegros-Yegros, Alfredo, 2018. "Innovation from science: the role of network content and legitimacy ties," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201802, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 28 Oct 2019.
    4. Fernández-Pérez, Virginia & García-Morales, Victor J. & Pullés, Dainelis Cabeza, 2016. "Entrepreneurial decision-making, external social networks and strategic flexibility: The role of CEOs' cognition," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 296-309.
    5. Shu, Rui & Ren, Shenggang & Zheng, Yi, 2018. "Building networks into discovery: The link between entrepreneur network capability and entrepreneurial opportunity discovery," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 197-208.
    6. Nault, Kelly A. & Sezer, Ovul & Klein, Nadav, 2023. "It’s the journey, not just the destination: Conveying interpersonal warmth in written introductions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    7. M. Max Evans & Ilja Frissen & Anthony K. P. Wensley, 2018. "Organisational Information and Knowledge Sharing: Uncovering Mediating Effects of Perceived Trustworthiness Using the PROCESS Approach," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-29, March.
    8. M. Kamil Kozan & Levent Akdeniz, 2014. "Role of Strong versus Weak Networks in Small Business Growth in an Emerging Economy," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-16, February.
    9. Gareth D. Leeves, 2014. "Increasing returns to education and the impact on social capital," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(5), pages 449-470, October.
    10. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    11. Fang Li & Sheng Zhang & Yuhuan Jin, 2018. "Sustainability of University Technology Transfer: Mediating Effect of Inventor’s Technology Service," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, June.
    12. Wang, Le & Luo, Xin (Robert) & Li, Han, 2022. "Envy or conformity? An empirical investigation of peer influence on the purchase of non-functional items in mobile free-to-play games," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 308-324.
    13. Shigeno, Hidenori & Matsuzaki, Taisuke & Ueki, Yasushi & Tsuji, Masatsugu, 2023. "The Effect of the Covid-19 Pandemic on the Innovation Process of Small and Medium-sized Regional Firms," 32nd European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2023: Realising the digital decade in the European Union – Easier said than done? 278018, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    14. Xin Liu & Lin Zhang & Abhinav Gupta & Xiaoming Zheng & Changqi Wu, 2022. "Upper echelons and intra‐organizational learning: How executive narcissism affects knowledge transfer among business units," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(11), pages 2351-2381, November.
    15. Hangeun Lee & Seong Ho Lee, 2019. "The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Long-Term Relationships in the Business-to-Business Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-12, September.
    16. von den Driesch, Till & Eva Susanne da Costa, Maika & Christina Flatten, Tessa & Brettel, Malte, 2015. "How CEO experience, personality, and network affect firms' dynamic capabilities," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 245-256.
    17. Yildiz, H. Emre, 2016. "“Us vs. them” or “us over them”? On the roles of similarity and status in M&As," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 51-65.
    18. Yuzhuo Cai & Borja Ramis Ferrer & Jose Luis Martinez Lastra, 2019. "Building University-Industry Co-Innovation Networks in Transnational Innovation Ecosystems: Towards a Transdisciplinary Approach of Integrating Social Sciences and Artificial Intelligence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-23, August.
    19. Fang Di & Richards Timothy J. & Grebitus Carola, 2019. "Modeling Product Choices in a Peer Network," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 22(1), pages 1-13, June.
    20. Deist, Maximilian K. & McDowell, William C. & Bouncken, Ricarda B., 2023. "Digital units and digital innovation: Balancing fluidity and stability for the Creation, Conversion, and Dissemination of sticky knowledge," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    21. Cefis, Elena & Leoncini, Riccardo & Marengo, Luigi, 2024. "Is innovation failure just a dead end?," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 481-493.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:32:y:2023:i:2:p:426-440.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.