IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ing/wpaper/201402.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Connections Matter: How Personal Network Structure Influences Biomedical Scientistsâ Engagement in Medical Innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Llopis,Oscar
  • DâEste,Pablo

Abstract

In this study, we analyze the determinants of biomedical scientistsâ participation in various types of activities and outputs related to medical innovation. More specifically, we argue that scientists occupying brokerage positions among their contacts will in a more favorable position to deliver medical innovation outcomes, compared to scientists embedded in more dense networks. However, we also theorize that beyond a threshold, the coordination costs of brokerage may surpass its potential benefits. In addition to that, we study the influence of two individual-level attributes as potential determinants of the participation in medical innovation activities: cognitive breadth and perceived beneficiary impact. We situate our analysis within the context of the Spanish biomedical research framework, where we analyze a sample of 1,309 biomedical scientists.

Suggested Citation

  • Llopis,Oscar & DâEste,Pablo, 2014. "Connections Matter: How Personal Network Structure Influences Biomedical Scientistsâ Engagement in Medical Innovation," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201402, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 07 Mar 2014.
    • Handle: RePEc:ing:wpaper:201402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.ingenio.upv.es/sites/default/files/working-paper/2014-02.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    2. Rotolo, Daniele & Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio, 2013. "When does centrality matter? Scientific productivity and the moderating role of research specialization and cross-community ties," MPRA Paper 53406, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Jeongsik “Jay” Lee, 2010. "Heterogeneity, Brokerage, and Innovative Performance: Endogenous Formation of Collaborative Inventor Networks," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 804-822, August.
    4. Perkmann, Markus & Tartari, Valentina & McKelvey, Maureen & Autio, Erkko & Broström, Anders & D’Este, Pablo & Fini, Riccardo & Geuna, Aldo & Grimaldi, Rosa & Hughes, Alan & Krabel, Stefan & Kitson, Mi, 2013. "Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 423-442.
    5. M. Ann McFadyen & Matthew Semadeni & Albert A. Cannella, 2009. "Value of Strong Ties to Disconnected Others: Examining Knowledge Creation in Biomedicine," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(3), pages 552-564, June.
    6. Nigam, Amit, 2013. "How institutional change and individual researchers helped advance clinical guidelines in American health care," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 16-22.
    7. Corey C. Phelps & Ralph Heidl & Anu Wadhwa, 2012. "Networks, knowledge, and knowledge networks: A critical review and research agenda," Post-Print hal-00715591, HAL.
    8. Ding, Waverly & Choi, Emily, 2011. "Divergent paths to commercial science: A comparison of scientists' founding and advising activities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 69-80, February.
    9. Giuseppe Soda & Akbar Zaheer, 2012. "A network perspective on organizational architecture: performance effects of the interplay of formal and informal organization," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 751-771, June.
    10. Akbar Zaheer & Geoffrey G. Bell, 2005. "Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(9), pages 809-825, September.
    11. Morgan, Myfanwy & Barry, Christine A. & Donovan, Jenny L. & Sandall, Jane & Wolfe, Charles D.A. & Boaz, Annette, 2011. "Implementing ‘translational’ biomedical research: Convergence and divergence among clinical and basic scientists," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(7), pages 945-952.
    12. Karl E. Weick & Kathleen M. Sutcliffe & David Obstfeld, 2005. "Organizing and the Process of Sensemaking," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 409-421, August.
    13. Julie Battilana & Tiziana Casciaro, 2013. "Overcoming Resistance to Organizational Change: Strong Ties and Affective Cooptation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 59(4), pages 819-836, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Llopis, Oscar & D’Este, Pablo, 2016. "Beneficiary contact and innovation: The relation between contact with patients and medical innovation under different institutional logics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1512-1523.

    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. Llopis, Oscar & DâEste, Pablo & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes, 2018. "Connections matter: the influence of network sparseness, network diversity and a tertius iungens orientation on innovation," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201801, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 28 Oct 2019.
    2. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & Díaz-Faes, Adrián A., 2021. "Connecting others: Does a tertius iungens orientation shape the relationship between research networks and innovation?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(4).
    3. Llopis, Oscar & D’Este, Pablo, 2016. "Beneficiary contact and innovation: The relation between contact with patients and medical innovation under different institutional logics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(8), pages 1512-1523.
    4. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Yi & Zhu, Guilong & Mu, Rongping, 2020. "Do research institutes benefit from their network positions in research collaboration networks with industries or/and universities?," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 94.
    5. Yan Yan & Jiancheng Guan, 2018. "How multiple networks help in creating knowledge: evidence from alternative energy patents," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 51-77, April.
    6. Ben Zhang & Xiaohong Wang, 2017. "Empirical study on influence of university-industry collaboration on research performance and moderating effect of social capital: evidence from engineering academics in China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 257-277, October.
    7. Qinwei Cao & Manqing Tan & Peng Xie & Jian Huang, 2022. "Can emerging economies take advantage of their population size to gain international academic recognition? Evidence from key universities in China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(2), pages 927-957, February.
    8. Yindan Ye & Kevin De Moortel & Thomas Crispeels, 2020. "Network dynamics of Chinese university knowledge transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(4), pages 1228-1254, August.
    9. Zhang, JingJing & Yan, Yan & Guan, JianCheng, 2019. "Recombinant distance, network governance and recombinant innovation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 260-272.
    10. Gilsing, Victor A. & Cloodt, Myriam & Bertrand–Cloodt, Danielle, 2016. "What makes you more central? Antecedents of changes in betweenness-centrality in technology-based alliance networks," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 209-221.
    11. Guan, Jiancheng & Zhang, Jingjing & Yan, Yan, 2015. "The impact of multilevel networks on innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 545-559.
    12. Jiancheng Guan & He Wei, 2015. "A bilateral comparison of research performance at an institutional level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(1), pages 147-173, July.
    13. Stea, Diego & Foss, Nicolai J. & Christensen, Peter Holdt, 2015. "Physical separation in the workplace: Separation cues, separation awareness, and employee motivation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 462-471.
    14. 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).
    15. Coget, Jean-Francois & Haag, Christophe & Gibson, Donald E., 2011. "Anger and fear in decision-making: The case of film directors on set," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 476-490.
    16. Soda, Giuseppe & Zaheer, Akbar & Sun, Xiaoming & Cui, Wentian, 2021. "Brokerage evolution in innovation contexts: Formal structure, network neighborhoods and knowledge," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(10).
    17. Moshe Farjoun & Christopher Ansell & Arjen Boin, 2015. "PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1787-1804, December.
    18. Zhang, Yi & Chen, Kaihua, 2022. "Network growth dynamics: The simultaneous interaction between network positions and research performance of collaborative organisations," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    19. Jiancheng Guan & Lanxin Pang, 2018. "Bidirectional relationship between network position and knowledge creation in Scientometrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 201-222, April.
    20. Fabiano, Gianluca & Marcellusi, Andrea & Favato, Giampiero, 2021. "R versus D, from knowledge creation to value appropriation: Ownership of patents filed by European biotechnology founders," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D85 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Network Formation
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives

    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:ing:wpaper:201402. 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: Ester Planells (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ingenes.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.