Resources exchange patterns with diverse institutional partners within R&D collaborative relationships: access to reputation and funding

This study addresses the nature of the networks which researchers use to access resources focusing on the nature of network‐mediated resource exchanges and the relationship to those network connection strengths. Innovation literature tends to assume that for research collaboration weak ties – allowing loose coupling – are optimal, and it is precisely that notion that we seek to test here. This paper addresses the manner in which relational and institutional traits interact in R&D relationships, and specifically the institutional context and functional characteristics of a tie between two researchers. We use Granovetter’s network theory to conceptualise scientific network functioning in R&D collaborative relationships, classifying ties into strong and weak ties. We then analyse how actors’ institutional contexts (and their similarity or difference) affect how researchers conduct resources exchanges. We argue ‘ tie characteristics’ can predict different patterns of exchange behaviours depending on partners’ institutional affiliations. Our findings stress that institutional affiliation determines which tie characteristics are in the best interest for the access to resources to take place

“Being able to receive at least what I give”: Resource sharing and hierarchy in the academic world of nanotechnology

[EN] In this study we investigate the academic field of nanotechnology for analyzing the relation between hierarchical positions occupied by researchers and the type of social ties and resource exchanges that they have with external partners. To do this, we use a theoretical multidisciplinary perspective of scientific collaborations, which combines the approach of networking and resource sharing (Granovetter, 1973, Lin, 2001) with a sociological approach to power relations (Bourdieu, 1997). Following the intuition of Nan Lin (2001), we conclude that the positions of researchers in institutional hierarchies are crucial to the way they access resources. Occupying an elevated position represents a sure and steady exchange of resources. This means always being able to receive at least the equivalent of what you give, in a playing field of academic power relations that is perpetuated over time.[ES] En el presente estudio nos aproximamos al ámbito académico de la nanotecnología, donde analizamos la relación que existe entre las posiciones jerárquicas que ocupan los investigadores y el tipo de vínculos sociales y de recursos que intercambian con colaboradores externos. Para ello recurrimos a una perspectiva teórica multidisciplinar de las colaboraciones científicas. Por un lado, al enfoque de las redes y el intercambio de recursos y por el otro, al enfoque sociológico de las relaciones de poder. Como comprobaremos durante nuestro desarrollo, las posiciones jerárquicas de los investigadores son determinantes en la forma que tienen de acceder a los recursos. Ocupar una posición elevada equivale a intercambiar recursos de forma segura y constante. Significa poder recibir siempre al menos los que das, dentro de un campo académico de relaciones de poder, que se reproduce en el tiempo.Villanueva-Felez, Á.; Martínez Novo, R.; Woolley, RD. (2014). "El poder de recibir al menos lo que doy": El intercambio de recursos y la jerarquía en el mundo académico de la nanotecnología. Revista española de Documentación Científica. 37(4):1-11. doi:10.3989/redc.2014.4.1144S11137

Nanotechnology researchers' collaboration relationships: A gender analysis of access to scientific information

Women are underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields, particularly at higher levels of organizations. This article investigates the impact of this underrepresentation on the processes of interpersonal collaboration in nanotechnology. Analyses are conducted to assess: (1) the comparative tie strength of women's and men's collaborations, (2) whether women and men gain equal access to scientific information through collaborators, (3) which tie characteristics are associated with access to information for women and men, and (4) whether women and men acquire equivalent amounts of information by strengthening ties. Our results show that the overall tie strength is less for women's collaborations and that women acquire less strategic information through collaborators. Women and men rely on different tie characteristics in accessing information, but are equally effective in acquiring additional information resources by strengthening ties. This article demonstrates that the underrepresentation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics has an impact on the interpersonal processes of scientific collaboration, to the disadvantage of women scientists.Villanueva-Felez, Á.; Woolley, RD.; Cañibano Sánchez, C. (2015). Nanotechnology researchers' collaboration relationships: A gender analysis of access to scientific information. Social Studies of Science. 45(1):100-129. doi:10.1177/0306312714552347S100129451ACKER, J. (1990). HIERARCHIES, JOBS, BODIES: Gender & Society, 4(2), 139-158. doi:10.1177/089124390004002002Aitken, C., Power, R., & Dwyer, R. (2008). A very low response rate in an on-line survey of medical practitioners. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 32(3), 288-289. doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2008.00232.xAngrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics. doi:10.1515/9781400829828Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61(8), 1139-1160. doi:10.1177/0018726708094863Beaver, D. D. (2001). Scientometrics, 52(3), 365-377. doi:10.1023/a:1014254214337Boardman, P. C., & Corley, E. A. (2008). University research centers and the composition of research collaborations. Research Policy, 37(5), 900-913. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.01.012Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), 19-47. doi:10.1177/053901847501400602Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511812507Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social Space and Symbolic Power. Sociological Theory, 7(1), 14. doi:10.2307/202060Bouty, I. (2000). INTERPERSONAL AND INTERACTION INFLUENCES ON INFORMAL RESOURCE EXCHANGES BETWEEN R&D RESEARCHERS ACROSS ORGANIZATIONAL BOUNDARIES. Academy of Management Journal, 43(1), 50-65. doi:10.2307/1556385Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599-616. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40(10), 1393-1402. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.002Bozeman, B., & Rogers, J. D. (2002). A churn model of scientific knowledge value: Internet researchers as a knowledge value collective. Research Policy, 31(5), 769-794. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00146-9Bozeman, B., Dietz, J. S., & Gaughan, M. (2001). Scientific and technical human capital: an alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management, 22(7/8), 716. doi:10.1504/ijtm.2001.002988Brass, D. J. (1985). MEN’S AND WOMEN’S NETWORKS: A STUDY OF INTERACTION PATTERNS AND INFLUENCE IN AN ORGANIZATION. Academy of Management Journal, 28(2), 327-343. doi:10.2307/256204Chompalov, I., Genuth, J., & Shrum, W. (2002). The organization of scientific collaborations. Research Policy, 31(5), 749-767. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00145-7Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. L. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of Response Rates in Web- or Internet-Based Surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60(6), 821-836. doi:10.1177/00131640021970934Durbin, S. (2010). Creating Knowledge through Networks: a Gender Perspective. Gender, Work & Organization, 18(1), 90-112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00536.xEcklund, E. H., Lincoln, A. E., & Tansey, C. (2012). Gender Segregation in Elite Academic Science. Gender & Society, 26(5), 693-717. doi:10.1177/0891243212451904Ensign, P. C. (2009). Knowledge Sharing among Scientists. doi:10.1057/9780230617131Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena Unbound. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511541414Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511810503FOX, M. F. (2001). WOMEN, SCIENCE, AND ACADEMIA. Gender & Society, 15(5), 654-666. doi:10.1177/089124301015005002Fox, M. F. (2010). Women and Men Faculty in Academic Science and Engineering: Social-Organizational Indicators and Implications. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(7), 997-1012. doi:10.1177/0002764209356234Fox, M. F., & Stephan, P. E. (2001). Careers of Young Scientists: Social Studies of Science, 31(1), 109-122. doi:10.1177/030631201031001006Fox, M. F., Sonnert, G., & Nikiforova, I. (2009). Successful Programs for Undergraduate Women in Science and Engineering: Adapting versus Adopting the Institutional Environment. Research in Higher Education, 50(4), 333-353. doi:10.1007/s11162-009-9120-4Friedkin, N. (1980). A test of structural features of granovetter’s strength of weak ties theory. Social Networks, 2(4), 411-422. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(80)90006-4Gaughan, M. (2005). Introduction to the Symposium: Women in Science. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 30(4), 339-342. doi:10.1007/s10961-005-2579-zGaughan, M., & Corley, E. A. (2010). Science faculty at US research universities: The impacts of university research center-affiliation and gender on industrial activities. Technovation, 30(3), 215-222. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2009.12.001Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. doi:10.1086/225469Hansen, M. T. (1999). The Search-Transfer Problem: The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge across Organization Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82. doi:10.2307/2667032Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 422. doi:10.2307/2393451Islam, N., & Miyazaki, K. (2009). Nanotechnology innovation system: Understanding hidden dynamics of nanoscience fusion trajectories. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(1), 128-140. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2008.03.021Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1-18. doi:10.1016/s0048-7333(96)00917-1Koch, N. S., & Emrey, J. A. . (2001). The Internet and Opinion Measurement: Surveying Marginalized Populations. Social Science Quarterly, 82(1), 131-138. doi:10.1111/0038-4941.00012Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child Care, Research Collaboration, and Gender Differences in Scientific Productivity. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(1), 54-71. doi:10.1177/016224399602100103Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673-702. doi:10.1177/0306312705052359Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477-1490. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1030.0136Lin, N. (2001). Social Capital. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815447McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, A. A. (2004). SOCIAL CAPITAL AND KNOWLEDGE CREATION: DIMINISHING RETURNS OF THE NUMBER AND STRENGTH OF EXCHANGE RELATIONSHIPS. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735-746. doi:10.2307/20159615McFadyen, M. A., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A. (2009). Value of Strong Ties to Disconnected Others: Examining Knowledge Creation in Biomedicine. Organization Science, 20(3), 552-564. doi:10.1287/orsc.1080.0388Manfreda, K. L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., & Vehovar, V. (2008). Web Surveys versus other Survey Modes: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Response Rates. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 79-104. doi:10.1177/147078530805000107Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring Tie Strength. Social Forces, 63(2), 482. doi:10.2307/2579058Mason, M. A., & Ekman, E. M. (2007). Mothers on the Fast TrackHow a New Generation Can Balance Family and Careers. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195182675.001.0001Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. doi:10.5465/amr.1998.533225Oliver, A. L., & Liebeskind, J. P. (1997). Three Levels of Networking for Sourcing Intellectual Capital in Biotechnology. International Studies of Management & Organization, 27(4), 76-103. doi:10.1080/00208825.1997.11656719Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and Relationships: Social Networks and Mobility in the Workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673. doi:10.2307/2657354Rhoton, L. A. (2011). Distancing as a Gendered Barrier. Gender & Society, 25(6), 696-716. doi:10.1177/0891243211422717Rothstein, M. G., & Davey, L. M. (1995). Gender differences in network relationships in academia. Women in Management Review, 10(6), 20-25. doi:10.1108/09649429510095999Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 369-386. doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(200003)21:33.0.co;2-mSCOTT, D. B. (1996). SHATTERING THE INSTRUMENTAL-EXPRESSIVE MYTH. Gender & Society, 10(3), 232-247. doi:10.1177/089124396010003003Shapin, S. (1994). A Social History of Truth. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226148847.001.0001Shrum, W., Chompalov, I., & Genuth, J. (2001). Trust, Conflict and Performance in Scientific Collaborations. Social Studies of Science, 31(5), 681-730. doi:10.1177/030631201031005002Smith-Doerr, L. (2004). Flexibility and Fairness: Effects of the Network Form of Organization on Gender Equity in Life Science Careers. Sociological Perspectives, 47(1), 25-54. doi:10.1525/sop.2004.47.1.25Stix, G. (2001). Little Big Science. Scientific American, 285(3), 32-37. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0901-32Uzzi, B. (1996). The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: The Network Effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674. doi:10.2307/2096399Uzzi, B. (1997). Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks: The Paradox of Embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35. doi:10.2307/2393808Vinck, D. (2010). The Sociology of Scientific Work. doi:10.4337/9781849807197Fan, W., & Yan, Z. (2010). Factors affecting response rates of the web survey: A systematic review. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 132-139. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.015Ziman, J. M. (Ed.). (1994). Prometheus Bound. doi:10.1017/cbo978051158506

Measuring personal networks and their relationship with scientific production

The analysis of social networks has remained a crucial and yet understudied aspect of the efforts to measure Triple Helix linkages. The Triple Helix model aims to explain, among other aspects of knowledge-based societies, ¿the current research system in its social context. This paper develops a novel approach to study the research system from the perspective of the individual, through the analysis of the relationships among researchers, and between them and other social actors. We develop a new set of techniques and show how they can be applied to the study of a specific case (a group of academics within a university department). We analyse their informal social networks and show how a relationship exists between the characteristics of an individual¿s network of social links and his or her research output

What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach

Ambiguity surrounding the effect of external engagement on academic research has raised questions about what motivates researchers to collaborate with third parties. We argue that what matters for society is research that can be absorbed by users. We define openness as a willingness by researchers to make research more usable by external partners by responding to external influences in their own research practices. We ask what kinds of characteristics define those researchers who are more open to creating usable knowledge. Our empirical study analyses a sample of 1583 researchers working at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). Results demonstrate that it is personal factors (academic identity and past experience) that determine which researchers have open behaviours. The paper concludes that policies to encourage external engagement should focus on experiences which legitimate and validate knowledge produced through user encounters, both at the academic formation career stage as well as through providing ongoing opportunities to engage with third parties.The data used for this study comes from the IMPACTO project funded by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research - CSIC (Ref. 200410E639). The work also benefited from a mobility grant awarded by Eu-Spri Forum to Julia Olmos Penuela & Paul Benneworth for her visiting research to the Center of Higher Education Policy Studies. Finally, Julia Olmos Penuela also benefited from a post-doctoral grant funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (APOSTD-2014-A-006).Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2015). What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach. Minerva. 53(4):381-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4S381410534Abreu, Maria, Vadim Grinevich, Alan Hughes, and Michael Kitson. 2009. Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research and UK-IRC.Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2008. Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 39: 617–635.Ajzen, Icek. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 27–58.Alrøe, Hugo Fjelsted, and Erik Steen Kristensen. 2002. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19(1): 3–23.Audretsch, David B., Werner Bönte, and Stefan Krabel. 2010. Why do scientists in public research institutions cooperate with private firms. In DRUID Working Paper, 10–27.Baldini, Nicola, Rosa Grimaldi, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2007. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70(2): 333–354.Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barnett, R. 2009. Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 34(4): 429–440.Becher, Tony. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 19(2): 151–161.Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. McGraw-Hill International.Bekkers, Rudi, and Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37(10): 1837–1853.Belderbos, René, Martin Carree, Bert Diederen, Boris Lokshin, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22(8): 1237–1263.Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291–301.Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19(1): 69–89.Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2011. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press.Bleiklie, Ivar, and Roar Høstaker. 2004. Modernizing research training-education and science policy between profession, discipline and academic institution. Higher Education Policy 17(2): 221–236.Bozeman, Barry, Daniel Fay, and Catherine P. Slade. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer 38(1): 1–67.Collini, Stefan. 2009. Impact on humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen. The Times Literary Supplement 5563: 18–19.D’Este, Pablo, and Markus Perkmann. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(3): 316–339.D’Este, Pablo, Oscar Llopis, and Alfredo Yegros. 2013. Conducting pro-social research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research: INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series.Deem, Rosemary, and Lisa Lucas. 2007. Research and teaching cultures in two contrasting UK policy contexts: Academic life in education departments in five English and Scottish universities. Higher Education 54(1): 115–133.DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.Downing, David B. 2005. The knowledge contract: Politics and paradigms in the academic workplace. Lincoln: Nebraska University of Nebraska Press.Donovan, Claire. 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy 34(8): 585–597.Durning, Bridget. 2004. Planning academics and planning practitioners: Two tribes or a community of practice? Planning Practice and Research 19(4): 435–446.Edquist, Charles. 1997. System of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, ed. C. Edquist, 1–35. London: Pinter.Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.Fromhold-Eisebith, Martina, Claudia Werker, and Marcel Vojnic. 2014. Tracing the social dimension in innovation networks. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47(1): 93–114.Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Gläser, Jochen. 2012. How does Governance change research content? On the possibility of a sociological middle-range theory linking science policy studies to the sociology of scientific knowledge. Technical University Berlin. Technology Studies Working Papers. http://www.ts.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg226/TUTS/TUTS-WP-1-2012.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2015.Goethner, Maximilian, Martin Obschonka, Rainer K. Silbereisen, and Uwe Cantner. 2012. Scientists’ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology 33(3): 628–641.Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932–950.Haeussler, Carolin, and Jeannette Colyvas. 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy 40(1): 41–54.Hessels, Laurens K., Harro van Lente, John Grin, and Ruud E.H.M. Smits. 2011. Changing struggles for relevance in eight fields of natural science. Industry and Higher Education 25(5): 347–357.Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro Van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37(4): 740–760.Hoye, Kate, and Fred Pries. 2009. ‘Repeat commercializers’, the ‘habitual entrepreneurs’ of university–industry technology transfer. Technovation 29(10): 682–689.Jacobson, Nora, Dale Butterill, and Paula Goering. 2004. Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication 25(3): 246–259.Jain, Sanjay, Gerard George, and Mark Maltarich. 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy 38(6): 922–935.Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2013. Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture 22(2): 189–196.Jensen, Pablo. 2011. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 26–36.Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Kronenberg, Kristin, and Marjolein Caniëls. 2014. Professional proximity in research collaborations. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Krueger, Rob, and David Gibbs. 2010. Competitive global city regions and sustainable development’: An interpretive institutionalist account in the South East of England. Environment and planning A 42: 821–837.Lam, Alice. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’? Research Policy 40(10): 1354–1368.Landry, Réjean, Malek Saïhi, Nabil Amara, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2010. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy 39(10): 1387–1403.Lee, Alison, and David Boud. 2003. Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education 28(2): 187–200.Lee, Yong S. 1996. ‘Technology transfer’ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of university–industry collaboration. Research Policy 25(6): 843–863.Lee, Yong S. 2000. The sustainability of university–industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer 25(2): 111–133.Leisyte, Liudvika, Jürgen Enders, and Harry De Boer. 2008. The freedom to set research agendas—illusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch Universities. Higher Education Policy 21(3): 377–391.Louis, Karen Seashore, David Blumenthal, Michael E. Gluck, and Michael A. Stoto. 1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1): 110–131.Lowe, Philip, Jeremy Phillipson, and Katy Wilkinson. 2013. Why social scientists should engage with natural scientists. Contemporary Social Science 8(3): 207–222.Martín-Sempere, María José, Belén Garzón-García, and Jesús Rey-Rocha. 2008. Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349–367.Martin, Ben. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. A. Geuna, A.J. Salter, and W.E. Steinmueller, 7–29. Cheltenhan: Edward Elgar.Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Miller, Thaddeus R., and Mark W. Neff. 2013. De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva 51(3): 295–315.Muthén, Bengt O. 1998–2004. Mplus Technical Appendices. Muthén & Muthén. Los Angeles, CA.: Muthén & Muthén.Nedeva, Maria. 2013. Between the global and the national: Organising European science. Research Policy 42(1): 220–230.Neff, Mark William. 2014. Research prioritization and the potential pitfall of path dependencies in coral reef science. Minerva 52(2): 213–235.Nelson, Richard R. 2001. Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1): 13–19.Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Paul Benneworth, and Elena Castro-Martínez. 2014a. Are ‘STEM from Mars and SSH from Venus’? Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of research’s social value. Science and Public Policy 41: 384–400.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Elena Castro-Martínez, and Manuel Fernández-Esquinas. 2014b. Diferencias entre áreas científicas en las prácticas de divulgación de la investigación: un estudio empírico en el CSIC. Revista Española de Documentación Científica. doi: 10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096 .Ouimet, Mathieu, Nabil Amara, Réjean Landry, and John Lavis. 2007. Direct interactions medical school faculty members have with professionals and managers working in public and private sector organizations: A cross-sectional study. Scientometrics 72(2): 307–323.Perkmann, Markus, Valentina Tartari, Maureen McKelvey, Erkko Autio, Anders Brostrom, Pablo D’Este, Riccardo Fini, et al. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy 42(2): 423–442.Philpott, Kevin, Lawrence Dooley, Caroline O’Reilly, and Gary Lupton. 2011. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31(4): 161–170.Rutten, Roel, and Frans Boekema. 2012. From learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context. Regional Studies 46(8): 981–992.Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger A. Pielke. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 10(1): 5–16.Sauermann, Henry, and Paula Stephan. 2013. Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science 24(3): 889–909.Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Shane, Scott. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4): 448–469.Spaapen, Jack, and Leonie van Drooge. 2011. Introducing ‘productive interactions’ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation 20(3): 211–218.Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Tartari, Valentina, and Stefano Breschi. 2012. Set them free: scientists’ evaluations of the benefits and costs of university–industry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change 21(5): 1117–1147.Tinker, Tony, and Rob Gray. 2003. Beyond a critique of pure reason: From policy to politics to praxis in environmental and social research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(5): 727–761.van Rijnsoever, Frank J., Laurens K. Hessels, and Rens L.J. Vandeberg. 2008. A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy 37(8): 1255–1266.Venkataraman, Sankaran. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editor’s perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth 3: 119–138.Verspagen, Bart. 2006. University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Surveys 20(4): 607–632.Villanueva-Felez, Africa, Jordi Molas-Gallart, and Alejandro Escribá-Esteve. 2013. Measuring personal networks and their relationship with scientific production. Minerva 51(4): 465–483.Watermeyer, Richard. 2015. Lost in the ‘third space’: the impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. European Journal of Higher Education (online first, doi: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044546 ).Weingart, Peter. 2009. Editorial for Issue 47/3. Minerva 47(3): 237–239.Ziman, John. 1996. ‘Postacademic science’: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 1: 67–80.Zomer, Arend H., Ben W.A. Jongbloed, and Jürgen Enders. 2010. Do spin-offs make the academics’ heads spin? The impacts of spin-off companies on their parent research organisation. Minerva 48(3): 331–353

Exchanging information through social links: The role of friendship, trust and reciprocity

This paper shows that the features that characterize the exchange of information among individuals vary depending on the type of information exchanged (novel or specific) and the institutional affiliation of the individuals involved. It unbundles the concept of strong and weak links into three main tie characteristics: trust, friendship and reciprocity. Using data from a survey of nanotechnology researchers, we identify the characteristics of 594 links between researchers and individuals from different institutional groups (firms, governmental organizations and universities). Findings suggest behavioral regularities that are contingent on the kind of information being exchanged and the contact?s institutional membership. For, instance, when university researchers exchange novel information between themselves, the level of trust becomes essential, but exchanges with individuals from other institutional settings (firms and governmental organizations) will be characterized instead by reciprocity and friendship. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on the relational perspective of social networks and university-society relationships.nanotechnology, institutional affiliation, Knowledge transfer, tie strengh