IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulp/sbbeta/2023-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Exploring resource seeking in a scientific collaboration network and its effect on scientists' knowledge creation

Author

Listed:
  • Karine Revet
  • Isabel Maria Bodas-Freitas
  • Barthélemy Chollet
  • Pablo D’Este

Abstract

Scientists display heterogeneous profiles regarding the focus of their knowledge production activities, their collaboration strategies and their outcomes. Despite increasing interests on research collaboration, little is known about how scientists mobilize their research network. In their knowledge creation efforts, scientists collaborate with colleagues from both academia and industry. These collaborations, leading or not to co-authorship, allow scientists to access to a number of research resources. The objective of this study is to explore whether and how knowledge production across the four Stokes’ quadrants (different focus on fundamental understandings and on immediate industrial and social application) is associated with specific modes of mobilizing research resources. This study examines empirically the relationship between scientific knowledge production, research resources and collaboration networks, using bibliometric and survey data on 116 scientists active in biotechnology in the Netherlands. Our results suggest that different knowledge creation objectives and outcomes are associated with particular ways of activating the network, and mobilize it to access specific research resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Karine Revet & Isabel Maria Bodas-Freitas & Barthélemy Chollet & Pablo D’Este, 2023. "Exploring resource seeking in a scientific collaboration network and its effect on scientists' knowledge creation," Working Papers of BETA 2023-11, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    • Handle: RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2023-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://beta.u-strasbg.fr/WP/2023/2023-11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bozeman, Barry & Gaughan, Monica, 2011. "How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1393-1402.
    2. Gonzalez-Brambila, Claudia N. & Veloso, Francisco M. & Krackhardt, David, 2013. "The impact of network embeddedness on research output," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1555-1567.
    3. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    4. Meyer, Martin, 2006. "Are patenting scientists the better scholars?: An exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(10), pages 1646-1662, December.
    5. Catalina Mart�nez & Joaqu�n M. Azagra-Caro & St�phane Maraut, 2013. "Academic Inventors, Scientific Impact and the Institutionalisation of Pasteur's Quadrant in Spain," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 438-455, July.
    6. Kolympiris, Christos & Kalaitzandonakes, Nicholas & Miller, Douglas, 2015. "Location choice of academic entrepreneurs: Evidence from the US biotechnology industry," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 227-254.
    7. Paul-Hus, Adèle & Mongeon, Philippe & Sainte-Marie, Maxime & Larivière, Vincent, 2017. "The sum of it all: Revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 80-87.
    8. Chiara Franzoni, 2009. "Do scientists get fundamental research ideas by solving practical problems?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 18(4), pages 671-699, August.
    9. Lim, Kwanghui, 2004. "The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries (1981-1997)," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 287-321, March.
    10. Haeussler, Carolin, 2011. "Information-sharing in academia and the industry: A comparative study," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 105-122, February.
    11. Muriithi, Petronilla & Horner, David & Pemberton, Lyn & Wao, Hesborn, 2018. "Factors influencing research collaborations in Kenyan universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 88-97.
    12. Cassiman, Bruno & Veugelers, Reinhilde & Arts, Sam, 2018. "Mind the gap: Capturing value from basic research through combining mobile inventors and partnerships," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1811-1824.
    13. Alexander Oettl, 2012. "Reconceptualizing Stars: Scientist Helpfulness and Peer Performance," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1122-1140, June.
    14. Grit Laudel, 2002. "What do we measure by co-authorships?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 3-15, April.
    15. Michelle Gittelman & Bruce Kogut, 2003. "Does Good Science Lead to Valuable Knowledge? Biotechnology Firms and the Evolutionary Logic of Citation Patterns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 366-382, April.
    16. D’Este, Pablo & Llopis, Oscar & Rentocchini, Francesco & Yegros, Alfredo, 2019. "The relationship between interdisciplinarity and distinct modes of university-industry interaction," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    17. Rajshree Agarwal & Atsushi Ohyama, 2013. "Industry or Academia, Basic or Applied? Career Choices and Earnings Trajectories of Scientists," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 950-970, April.
    18. Stuart, Toby E. & Ozdemir, Salih Zeki & Ding, Waverly W., 2007. "Vertical alliance networks: The case of university-biotechnology-pharmaceutical alliance chains," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 477-498, May.
    19. Georghiou, Luke, 1998. "Global cooperation in research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 611-626, September.
    20. Robert Rybnicek & Roland Königsgruber, 2019. "What makes industry–university collaboration succeed? A systematic review of the literature," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 89(2), pages 221-250, March.
    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. Subramanian, Annapoornima M. & Lim, Kwanghui & Soh, Pek-Hooi, 2013. "When birds of a feather don’t flock together: Different scientists and the roles they play in biotech R&D alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 595-612.
    2. Wang, Fang, 2024. "Does the recombination of distant scientific knowledge generate valuable inventions? An analysis of pharmaceutical patents," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    3. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2013. "Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 688-703.
    4. Jong, Simcha & Slavova, Kremena, 2014. "When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 645-654.
    5. Waverly W. Ding, 2011. "The Impact of Founders' Professional-Education Background on the Adoption of Open Science by For-Profit Biotechnology Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(2), pages 257-273, February.
    6. Simeth, Markus & Raffo, Julio D., 2013. "What makes companies pursue an Open Science strategy?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1531-1543.
    7. Hugo Horta & Shihui Feng & João M. Santos, 2022. "Homophily in higher education research: a perspective based on co-authorships," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 523-543, January.
    8. Alberto Baccini & Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Normative versus strategic accounts of acknowledgment data: The case of the top-five journals of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 603-635, January.
    9. Anckaert, Paul-Emmanuel & Cassiman, David & Cassiman, Bruno, 2020. "Fostering practice-oriented and use-inspired science in biomedical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    10. René Belderbos & Nazareno Braito & Jian Wang, 2024. "Heterogeneous university research and firm R&D location decisions: research orientation, academic quality, and investment type," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(5), pages 1959-1989, October.
    11. Soh, Pek-Hooi & Subramanian, Annapoornima M., 2014. "When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 807-821.
    12. Wesley M. Cohen & Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2020. "Not in the Job Description: The Commercial Activities of Academic Scientists and Engineers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(9), pages 4108-4117, September.
    13. repec:wip:wpaper:6 is not listed on IDEAS
    14. Rotolo, Daniele & Camerani, Roberto & Grassano, Nicola & Martin, Ben R., 2022. "Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    15. Susan Cozzens & Ravtosh Bal & Elena Berger & Dhanaraj Thakur & Jian Wang, 2011. "Changing Roles for the Global South in International Collaborative Learning," Institutions and Economies (formerly known as International Journal of Institutions and Economies), Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya, vol. 3(3), pages 445-466, October.
    16. Henry Sauermann & Paula Stephan, 2013. "Conflicting Logics? A Multidimensional View of Industrial and Academic Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 889-909, June.
    17. Beck, Mathias & Junge, Martin & Kaiser, Ulrich, 2017. "Public Funding and Corporate Innovation," IZA Discussion Papers 11196, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    18. Alex Coad & Agustí Segarra-Blasco & Mercedes Teruel, 2021. "A bit of basic, a bit of applied? R&D strategies and firm performance," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(6), pages 1758-1783, December.
    19. Jo Royle & Louisa Coles & Dorothy Williams & Paul Evans, 2007. "Publishing in international journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(1), pages 59-86, April.
    20. Quatraro, Francesco & Scandura, Alessandra, 2020. "Regional patterns of unrelated technological diversification: the role of academic inventors," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 202001, University of Turin.
    21. Gersbach, Hans & Sorger, Gerhard & Amon, Christian, 2018. "Hierarchical growth: Basic and applied research," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 434-459.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Knowledge creation; Scientific networks; University-Industry collaboration; Resources; Contributions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General
    • O30 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ulp:sbbeta:2023-11. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/bestrfr.html .

    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.