Research Collaboration in Co-inventor Networks: Combining Closure, Bridging and Proximities

Cassi L. and Plunket A. Research collaboration in co-inventor networks: combining closure, bridging and proximities, Regional Studies. This paper investigates the determinants of co-inventor tie formation using micro-data on genomic patents from 1990 to 2006 in France. In a single analysis, it considers the relational and proximity perspectives that are usually treated separately. In order to do so, it analyses various forms of proximity as alternative driving forces behind network ties that occur within existing components (that is, closure ties) as well as those between two distinct components (that is, bridging ties). Thus, the paper investigates not only the respective impacts of network and proximity determinants, but also how they overlap, interact and possibly act as substitutes or complements.

[1]  C. Autant‐Bernard,et al.  Social distance versus spatial distance in R & D cooperation: Empirical evidence from European collaboration choices in micro and nanotechnologies , 2007 .

[2]  Daniel Tzabbar,et al.  The structural evolution of multiplex organizational networks: Research and commerce in biotechnology , 2008 .

[3]  Ajay Agrawal,et al.  How do spatial and social proximity influence knowledge flows? Evidence from patent data , 2008 .

[4]  R. Boschma.  Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment , 2005 .

[5]  Pierre-Alexandre Balland,et al.  Proximity and the Evolution of Collaboration Networks: Evidence from Research and Development Projects within the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) Industry , 2012 .

[6]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression Models for Categorical Outcomes , 2004 .

[7]  Stefano Breschi,et al.  Tracing the links between science and technology: An exploratory analysis of scientists' and inventors' networks , 2010 .

[8]  André Torre,et al.  Proximity and Localization , 2005 .

[9]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Where Do Small Worlds Come From? , 2003 .

[10]  Franz Huber,et al.  On the Role and Interrelationship of Spatial, Social and Cognitive Proximity: Personal Knowledge Relationships of R&D Workers in the Cambridge Information Technology Cluster , 2012 .

[11]  R. Burt.  Structural Holes and Good Ideas1 , 2004, American Journal of Sociology.

[12]  José Lobo,et al.  Metropolitan patenting, inventor agglomeration and social networks: A tale of two effects , 2008 .

[13]  Koen Frenken,et al.  The Evolution of Inventor Networks in the silicon Valley and Boston Regions , 2007, Adv. Complex Syst..

[14]  J. Coleman,et al.  Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[15]  Mario A. Maggioni,et al.  Space vs. Networks in the Geography of Innovation: A European Analysis , 2006 .

[16]  Ron Boschma,et al.  Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: The proximity paradox , 2012 .

[17]  Koen Frenken,et al.  The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration , 2007 .

[18]  H. Bathelt,et al.  Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation , 2004 .

[19]  Mario A. Maggioni,et al.  Space Vs. Networks in the Geography of Innovation: A European Analysis , 2007 .

[20]  Anne Plunket,et al.  Inventive and Uninventive Clusters: The Case of Canadian Biotechnology , 2008 .

[21]  Gary King,et al.  Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data , 2001, Political Analysis.

[22]  Joris Knoben,et al.  Localized inter-organizational linkages, agglomeration effects, and the innovative performance of firms , 2009 .

[23]  Jasjit Singh,et al.  Collaborative Networks as Determinants of Knowledge Diffusion Patterns , 2005, Manag. Sci..

[24]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[25]  Martin Gargiulo,et al.  Trapped in Your Own Net? Network Cohesion, Structural Holes, and the Adaptation of Social Capital , 2000 .

[26]  R. Boschma,et al.  The Spatial Evolution of Innovation Networks: A Proximity Perspective , 2010 .

[27]  A. Cameron,et al.  Microeconometrics: Methods and Applications , 2005 .

[28]  Joel A. C. Baum,et al.  Better with Age? Tie Longevity and the Performance Implications of Bridging and Closure , 2012, Organ. Sci..

[29]  M. Newman,et al.  Why social networks are different from other types of networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[30]  M. Feldman,et al.  R&D spillovers and the ge-ography of innovation and production , 1996 .

[31]  J. S. Long,et al.  Regression Models for Categorical Outcomes using Stata , 2005 .

[32]  Nicolas Carayol,et al.  The strategic formation of inter-individual collaboration networks. Evidence from co-invention patterns , 2007 .

[33]  A. Jaffe.  Real Effects of Academic Research , 1989 .

[34]  Johannes Glückler.  Economic Geography and the Evolution of Networks , 2007 .

[35]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Optimal Cognitive Distance and Absorptive Capacity , 2005 .

[36]  S. Breschi,et al.  Mobility of Skilled Workers and Co-Invention Networks: An Anatomy of Localized Knowledge Flows , 2009 .

[37]  Matt Marx,et al.  Managing innovation in small worlds , 2009, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[38]  Sara B. Soderstrom,et al.  Dynamics of Dyads in Social Networks: Assortative, Relational, and Proximity Mechanisms , 2010 .

[39]  Sanjeev Goyal,et al.  Matching and Network Effects , 2006 .

[40]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[41]  Michel Zitt,et al.  Delineation of the genomics field by hybrid citation-lexical methods: interaction with experts and validation process , 2010, Scientometrics.

[42]  Jan W. Rivkin,et al.  Complexity, Networks and Knowledge Flow , 2002 .

[43]  A. T. Wal.  The dynamics of the inventor network in German biotechnology: geographic proximity versus triadic closure , 2014 .