When does centrality matter? Scientific productivity and the moderating role of research specialization and cross-community ties

Rotolo, Daniele and Messeni Petruzzelli, Antonio (2013): When does centrality matter? Scientific productivity and the moderating role of research specialization and cross-community ties. Published in: Journal of Organizational Behavior No. 34 (2013): pp. 648-670.

Abstract

The present study addresses the ongoing debate concerning academic scientific productivity. Specifically, given the increasing number of collaborations in academia and the crucial role networks play in knowledge creation, we investigate the extent to which building social capital within the academic community represents a valuable resource for a scientist’s knowledge-creation process. We measure the social capital in terms of structural position within the academic collaborative network. Furthermore, we analyse the extent to which an academic scientist’s research specialization and ties that cross-community boundaries act as moderators of the aforementioned relationship. Empirical results derived from an analysis of an Italian academic community from 2001 to 2008 suggest academic scientists that build social capital by occupying central positions in the community outperform their more isolated colleagues. However, scientific productivity declines beyond a certain threshold value of centrality, hence revealing the existence of an inverted U-shaped relationship. This relationship is negatively moderated by the extent to which an academic focuses research activities in few scientific knowledge domains, whereas it is positively moderated by the number of cross-community ties established.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: scientific performance; social capital; structural centrality; research specialization; cross-community ties
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights

References

Adams, J. D., & Griliches, Z. (1998). Research productivity in a system of universities. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 49/50(1), 127–162. DOI:-

Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S. W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40. DOI:10.2307/4134367

Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.48.1.44.14279

Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455. DOI:10.2307/2667105

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 469–478. DOI:10.2307/2095801

Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 596–606. DOI:10.2307/2094424

Andrews, K. M., & Delahaye, B. L. (2000). Influences on knowledge processes in organizational learning: The psychosocial filter. Journal of Management Studies, 37(6), 797–810. DOI:10.1111/1467-6486.00204

Azoulay, P., Ding, W., & Stuart, T. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63(4), 599–623. DOI:10.1016/j.jebo.2006.05.015

Balconi, M., Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2004). Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent data. Research Policy, 33(1), 127–145. DOI:10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00108-2

Balkundi, P., & Harrison, D. A. (2006). Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 49–68. DOI:10.5465/amj.2006.20785500

Barabási, A. (2005). Network theory. The emergence of the creative enterprise. Science, 308, 639–641. DOI:10.1126/science.1112554

Bonacich, P. (1987). Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5), 1170–1182. DOI:10.1086/228631

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies: Harvard, MA.

Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895. DOI:10.1126/science.1165821

Brass, D. J. (1992). Power in organizations: A social network perspective. In G. Moore & J. A. Whitt (Eds.), Research in politics and society (pp. 295–323). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 441–470. DOI:10.2307/256588

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: Social structure of competition. London: Harvard Business Press.

Cattani, G., & Ferriani, S. (2008). A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science, 19(6), 824–844. DOI:10.1287/orsc.1070.0350

Cicourel, A. V. (1973). Cognitive sociology. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books.

Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cole, S. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84(4), 958–977. DOI:10.1086/226868

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120. DOI:10.1086/228943

Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A. M., & Shore, L. M. (2007). The employee-organization relationship: Where do we go from here? Human Resource Management Review, 17(2), 166–179. DOI:10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.03.008

Cross, R., & Cummings, J. N. (2004). Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 928–937. DOI:10.2307/20159632

Crow, M., & Bozeman, B. (1987). R&D laboratory classification and public policy: The effects of environmental context on laboratory behavior. Research Policy, 16(5), 229–258. DOI:10.1016/0048-7333(87)90009-6

Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Dahlander, L., & Frederiksen, L. (2011). The core and cosmopolitans: A relational view of innovation in user communities. Organization Science, forthcoming. DOI:10.1287/orsc.1110.0673

Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Toward a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(5), 487–521. DOI:10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1

Fabrizio, K. R., & Di Minin, A. (2008). Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy, 37(5), 914–931. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.010

Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.47.1.117.10671

Fleming, L. (2007). Breakthroughs and the “Long Tail” of Innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(1), 69–74. DOI:-

Fox, M. F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65(4), 293–305. DOI:-

Fox, M. F. (1999). Gender, hierarchy, and science. In J. S. Chafetz (Ed.), Handbook of the Sociology of Gender (pp. 441–457). New York, NY: Kluwer.

Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. DOI:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7

Gao, X., & Guan, J. (2011). Network model of knowledge diffusion. Scientometrics, 90(3), 749–762. DOI:10.1007/s11192-011-0554-z

Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. (2003). Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49(4), 366–382. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.49.4.366.14420

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. DOI:10.1086/225469

Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481. DOI:10.1086/228311

Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 619–652. DOI:10.2307/2393756

Hadani, M., Coombes, S., Das, D., & Jalajas, D. (2012). Finding a good job: Academic network centrality and early occupational outcomes in management academia. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(5), 723–739. DOI:10.1002/job.788

Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111. DOI:10.2307/2667032

Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13(3), 232–248. DOI:10.1287/orsc.13.3.232.2771

Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952–965. DOI:10.1002/asi.10291

Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749. DOI:10.2307/2393655

Hausman, J. A., Hall, B. H., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52(4), 902–938. DOI:10.2307/1911191

Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 119–127. DOI:10.1162/003465398557221

Hoetker, G. (2007). The use of logit and probit models in strategic management research: Critical issues. Strategic Management Journal, 28(4), 331–343. DOI:10.1002/smj.582

Ibarra, H. (1993). Network centrality, power, and innovation involvement: Determinants of technical and administrative roles. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 471–501. DOI:10.2307/256589

Jeppesen, L. B., & Lakhani, K. R. (2010). Marginality and problem-solving effectiveness in broadcast search. Organization Science, 21(5), 1016–1033. DOI:10.1287/orsc.1090.0491

Kanter, R. M. (1988). When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective, and social conditions form innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18. DOI:10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1

Kelchtermans, S., & Veugelers, R. (2010). The great divide in scientific productivity: Why the average scientist does not exist. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(1), 295–336. DOI:10.1093/icc/dtq074

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Lechner, C., Frankenberger, K., & Floyd, S. W. (2010). Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 865–889. DOI:10.5465/amj.2010.52814620

Lehman, H. (1953). Age and achievement. Princeton.: Princeton University Press.

Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review, 81(1), 114. DOI:-

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(52), 95–112. DOI:10.1002/smj.4250141009

Leydesdorff, L., & Rafols, I. (2009). A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 348–362. DOI:10.1002/asi.20967

Lissoni, F., Mairesse, J., Montobbio, F., & Pezzoni, M. (2011). Scientific productivity and academic promotion: A study on French and Italian physicists. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(1), 253–294. DOI:10.1093/icc/dtq073

Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16(1), 317–323. DOI:-

Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65. DOI:-

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration And exploitation In organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. DOI:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71

Mayhew, B. H., & Levinger, R. L. (1976). Size and the density of interaction in human aggregates. American Journal of Sociology, 82(1), 86–110. DOI:10.1086/226271

McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, A. A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735–746. DOI:10.2307/20159615

Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377. DOI:10.1007/BF02129600

Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. The reward and communication systems of science reconsidered. Science, 159(3810), 56–63. DOI:10.1126/science.159.3810.56

Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238. DOI:10.1177/000312240406900204

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. DOI:10.2307/259373

Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330. DOI:10.1016/S0048-7333(97)00013-9

Nerkar, A., & Paruchuri, S. (2005). Evolution of R&D capabilities: The role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science, 51(5), 771–785. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.1040.0354

Newman, M. E. J. (2001a). Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64(1), 016131. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016131

Newman, M. E. J. (2001b). Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. Physical Review E, 64(1), 016132. DOI:10.1103/PhysRevE.64.016132

O’Reilly, C. A. (1980). Individuals and information overload in organizations: Is more necessarily better? Academy of Management Journal, 23(4), 684–696. DOI:10.2307/255556

Paruchuri, S. (2010). Intraorganizational networks, interorganizational networks, and the impact of central inventors: A longitudinal study of pharmaceutical firms. Organization Science, 21(1), 63–80. DOI:10.1287/orsc.1080.0414

Pelz, D. C. (1956). Some social factors related to performance in a research organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1(3), 310–325. DOI:10.2307/2390926

Perry-Smith, J. E., & Shalley, C. E. (2003). The social side of creativity: A static and dynamic social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 89–106. DOI:10.2307/30040691

Pezzoni, M., Sterzi, V., & Lissoni, F. (2012). Career progress in centralized academic systems: Social capital and institutions in France and Italy. Research Policy, 41(4), 704–719. DOI:10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.009

Podolny, J. M. (1993). A status-based model of market competition. American Journal of Sociology, 98(4), 829. DOI:10.1086/230091

Porter, A., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745. DOI:10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. DOI:-

Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267. DOI:10.2307/3556658

Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25(6), 541–562. DOI:10.1002/smj.398

Sandefur, R. L., & Laumann, E. O. (1998). A paradigm for social capital. Rationality and Society, 10(4), 481–501. DOI:10.1177/104346398010004005

Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision Making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York, NY: The Macmillan Co.

Simonin, B. L. (1999). Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20(7), 595–623. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199907)20:7<595::AID-SMJ47>3.0.CO;2-5

Sorenson, O., & Stuart, T. E. (2001). Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1546–1588. DOI:10.1086/321301

Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 316–325. DOI:10.2307/3069458

Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1991). Inequality in scientific performance: Adjustment for attribution and journal impact. Social Studies of Science, 21(2), 351–368. DOI:-

Stirling, A. (2007). A General framework for analysing diversity in science, technology and society. Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 4(15), 707–719. DOI:10.1098/rsif.2007.0213

Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476. DOI:10.2307/257085

Tushman, M. L., & Katz, R. (1980). External communication and project performance: An investigation into the role of gatekeepers. Management Science, 26(11), 1071–1085. DOI:10.1287/mnsc.26.11.1071

Williamson, I. O., & Cable, D. M. (2003). Predicting early career research productivity: The case of management faculty. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(1), 25–44. DOI:10.1002/job.178

Wong, S. S. (2008). Task knowledge overlap and knowledge variety: The role of advice network structures and impact on group effectiveness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(5), 591–614. DOI:10.1002/job.490