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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    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. Adrián A Díaz-Faes & Oscar Llopis & Pablo D’Este & Jordi Molas-Gallart, 2024. "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.
    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. Cai, Yuzhuo, 2023. "Towards a new model of EU-China innovation cooperation: Bridging missing links between international university collaboration and international industry collaboration," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    5. Rizova, Polly S. & Gupta, Samir & Maltz, Elliot N. & Walker, Robert W., 2018. "Overcoming equivocality on projects in the fuzzy front end: Bringing social networks back in," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 40-55.
    6. Rosa Kuipers-Dirven & Matthijs Janssen & Jarno Hoekman, 2023. "Assessing university policies for enhancing societal impact of academic research: A multicriteria mapping approach," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 371-383.
    7. Gifford, Rachel & Molleman, Eric & van der Vaart, Taco, 2022. "Two sides to every coin: Assessing the effects of moving physicians to employment contracts," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    8. Henrik Florén & Johan Frishammar & Vinit Parida & Joakim Wincent, 2018. "Critical success factors in early new product development: a review and a conceptual model," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 411-427, June.
    9. Yu Zhou & Guangjian Liu & Xiaoxi Chang & Ying Hong, 2021. "Top-down, bottom-up or outside-in? An examination of triadic mechanisms on firm innovation in Chinese firms," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(1), pages 131-162, February.
    10. Joaquín M. Azagra-Caro & Carlos Benito-Amat & Ester Planells-Aleixandre, 2022. "Academic artists’ engagement and commercialisation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 1273-1296, August.
    11. Haefner, Naomi & Wincent, Joakim & Parida, Vinit & Gassmann, Oliver, 2021. "Artificial intelligence and innovation management: A review, framework, and research agenda✰," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    12. Thanos Fragkandreas, 2023. "Case study research on innovation systems: paradox, dialectical analysis and resolution," Working Papers 65, Birkbeck Centre for Innovation Management Research, revised 15 May 2023.
    13. Juanita Irina Sánchez Romero & Ricardo León Sánchez Arenas & Vera Z. Pérez & Carlos Ocampo-López & Diana P. Giraldo, 2022. "Mapping of the Interests and Influences Perceived in the Actors That Make Up the National System of Innovation in Rehabilitation in Colombia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-14, August.
    14. Mohsen Jafari Songhori & Madjid Tavana & Takao Terano, 2020. "Product development team formation: effects of organizational- and product-related factors," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 88-122, March.
    15. Isabel Vogel & Chris Barnett, 2023. "Laying the Foundations for Impact: Lessons from the GCRF Evaluation," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(2), pages 281-297, April.
    16. Luke Rhee & Paul M. Leonardi, 2018. "Which pathway to good ideas? An attention‐based view of innovation in social networks," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 1188-1215, April.
    17. Potstada, Michael & Zybura, Jan, 2014. "The role of context in science fiction prototyping: The digital industrial revolution," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 101-114.
    18. Daniel Muzio & David M. Brock & Roy Suddaby, 2013. "Professions and Institutional Change: Towards an Institutionalist Sociology of the Professions," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(5), pages 699-721, July.
    19. Mary M. Maloney & Priti Pradhan Shah & Mary Zellmer-Bruhn & Stephen L. Jones, 2019. "The Lasting Benefits of Teams: Tie Vitality After Teams Disband," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(2), pages 260-279, March.
    20. Mashiho Mihalache & Oli Mihalache & Jan Ende, 2021. "International Diversification and MNE Innovativeness: A Contingency Perspective of Foreign Subsidiary Portfolio Characteristics," Management International Review, Springer, vol. 61(6), pages 769-798, December.

    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.