IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v111y2017i3d10.1007_s11192-017-2350-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The impact of individual collaborative activities on knowledge creation and transmission

Author

Listed:
  • Nuha Zamzami

    () (Concordia University
    King Abdul-Aziz University)

  • Andrea Schiffauerova

    (Concordia University
    Masdar Institute of Science and Technology)

Abstract

Collaboration is a major factor in the knowledge and innovation creation in emerging science-driven industries where the technology is rapidly changing and constantly evolving, such as nanotechnology. The objective of this work is to investigate the role of individual scientists and their collaborations in enhancing the knowledge flows, and consequently the scientific production. The methodology involves two main phases. First, the data on all the nanotechnology journal publications in Canada was extracted from the SCOPUS database to create the co-authorship network, and then employ statistical data mining techniques to analyze the scientists’ research performance and partnership history. Also, a questionnaire was sent directly to the researchers selected from our database seeking the predominant properties that make a scientist sufficiently attractive to be selected as a research partner. In the second phase, an agent-based model using Netlogo has been developed to study the network in its dynamic context where several factors could be controlled. It was found that scientists in centralized positions in such networks have a considerable positive impact on the knowledge flows, while loyalty and strong connections within a dense local research group negatively affect the knowledge transmission. Star scientists appear to play a substitutive role in the network and are selected when the usual collaborators, i.e., most famous, and trustable partners are scarce or missing.

Suggested Citation

  • Nuha Zamzami & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2017. "The impact of individual collaborative activities on knowledge creation and transmission," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1385-1413, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2350-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2350-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-017-2350-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    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. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
    2. Guan, Jiancheng & Liu, Na, 2016. "Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 97-112.
    3. Guan, Jian Cheng & Yan, Yan, 2016. "Technological proximity and recombinative innovation in the alternative energy field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1460-1473.
    4. Beaudry, Catherine & Allaoui, Sedki, 2012. "Impact of public and private research funding on scientific production: The case of nanotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1589-1606.
    5. Triulzi, Giorgio & Scholz, Ramon & Pyka, Andreas, 2011. "R&D and knowledge dynamics in university-industry relationships in biotech and pharmaceuticals: An agent-based model," FZID Discussion Papers 33-2011, University of Hohenheim, Center for Research on Innovation and Services (FZID).
    6. Catherine Beaudry & Ramine Kananian, 2013. "Follow the (Industry) Money -- The Impact of Science Networks and Industry-to-University Contracts on Academic Patenting in Nanotechnology and Biotechnology," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 241-260, April.
    7. Ebadi, Ashkan & Schiffauerova, Andrea, 2015. "How to become an important player in scientific collaboration networks?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 809-825.
    8. Ashkan Ebadi & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2016. "How to boost scientific production? A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1093-1116, March.
    9. Holger Graf, 2011. "Gatekeepers in regional networks of innovators," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(1), pages 173-198.
    10. Gilsing, Victor & Nooteboom, Bart & Vanhaverbeke, Wim & Duysters, Geert & van den Oord, Ad, 2008. "Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1717-1731, December.
    11. Abbasi, Alireza & Altmann, Jörn & Hossain, Liaquat, 2011. "Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 594-607.
    12. Alireza Abbasi & Jorn Altmann, 2010. "On the Correlation between Research Performance and Social Network Analysis Measures Applied to Research Collaboration Networks," TEMEP Discussion Papers 201066, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Oct 2010.
    13. Allen, Robert C., 1983. "Collective invention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, March.
    14. Beaudry, Catherine & Schiffauerova, Andrea, 2011. "Impacts of collaboration and network indicators on patent quality: The case of Canadian nanotechnology innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 362-376.
    15. Lynne G. Zucker & Michael R. Darby, 2005. "Socio-economic Impact of Nanoscale Science: Initial Results and NanoBank," NBER Working Papers 11181, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Alireza Abbasi & Jorn Altmann & Junseok Hwang, 2009. "Evaluating Scholars Based on their Academic Collaboration Activities: The RC-Index and CC-Index for Quantifying Collaboration Activities of Researchers and Scientific Communities," TEMEP Discussion Papers 200915, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Sep 2009.
    17. Lee Fleming & Charles King & Adam I. Juda, 2007. "Small Worlds and Regional Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(6), pages 938-954, December.
    18. Ina Drejer & Anker Lund Vinding, 2006. "Organisation, 'anchoring' of knowledge, and innovative activity in construction," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(9), pages 921-931.
    19. Andrea Schiffauerova & Catherine Beaudry, 2011. "Star scientists and their positions in the Canadian biotechnology network," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(4), pages 343-366.
    20. Melissa A. Schilling & Corey C. Phelps, 2007. "Interfirm Collaboration Networks: The Impact of Large-Scale Network Structure on Firm Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(7), pages 1113-1126, July.
    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. Gita Ghiasi & Matthew Harsh & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2018. "Inequality and collaboration patterns in Canadian nanotechnology: implications for pro-poor and gender-inclusive policy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 785-815, May.
    2. Liming Zhao & Haihong Zhang & Wenqing Wu, 2019. "Cooperative knowledge creation in an uncertain network environment based on a dynamic knowledge supernetwork," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 657-685, May.
    3. Mengyang Wang & Lihe Chai, 2018. "Three new bibliometric indicators/approaches derived from keyword analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(2), pages 721-750, August.

    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:spr:scient:v:111:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2350-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.