Elsevier

Technovation

Volumes 94–95, June–July 2020, 102002
Technovation

Do research institutes benefit from their network positions in research collaboration networks with industries or/and universities?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.10.005Get rights and content

Highlights

  • This paper finds the scientific benefits from inter-organizational network positions.

  • This paper investigates the research institute’ scientific benefits in IUR networks.

  • This paper riches the empirical study of the scientific effect in IUR networks.

  • Scientific effects in different collaboration networks are different.

Abstract

There is scarce empirical evidence on the impact of inter-organizational collaboration across research institutes, industries or/and universities on the scientific performance of research institutes. This paper fills this gap by examining how the research institutes’ bilateral/trilateral collaborations with industries or/and universities influence their research outputs from a network perspective. We construct a unique dataset based on the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ inter-organizational research collaboration networks with industries or/and universities, which enables us to build three homogeneous, heterogeneous and hybrid inter-organizational research networks as our multi-scenario sample. Our study confirms that the scientific performance of research institutes is significantly affected by their network positions in the research collaboration networks with industries or/and universities. Specifically, in the homogeneous “University-Research Institute” (UR) collaboration network, the degree centrality and the structural holes of the research institutes affect their scientific performance respectively in an inverted U-shaped manner and a positive linear one. By contrast, in both the heterogeneous “Industry-Research Institute” (IR) and the hybrid “Industry-University-Research Institute” (IUR) collaboration networks, the degree centrality and the structural holes of research institutes affect their scientific performance respectively in a positive linear manner and an inverted U-shaped one. Our findings indicate that the impact pattern of the network positions of innovative organizations on their performance likely varies with the network structure and composition in different inter-organizational contexts.

Introduction

In today's highly competitive and open environment, the inter-organizational research collaboration has become more and more important for national innovation systems (see, e.g., Lundvall et al., 2002; Zhao et al., 2015). Research institutes, as the critical actors in the inter-organizational research collaboration, are expected to become the engines of economic development and competitiveness by promoting knowledge creation and transfer in their inter-organizational research collaboration with industries and/or universities (Zhang et al., 2016). In fact, the roles and function that research institutes play are different from those of universities and industries in national innovation systems (De Fuentes and Dutrenit, 2012, Zhang et al., 2016). Specifically, the research institutes usually devote efforts on cutting-edge research in science and technology (S&T) field and are committed to serving the major national S&T needs (Bai, 2016), the universities are the major educational and training institutions (Liu and White, 2001), and the industry sector focuses efforts on providing services and products by S&T. These differences in their roles and function indicate the necessity of interactions among them for complementary advantages. Thus, more and more innovative organizations have deemed IUR collaboration as an important way for enhancing their innovative competitiveness. At the same time, the Industry-University-Research Institute (IUR) collaboration has been deemed as a key strategy and approach for improving national innovative capability in many countries (Zhang et al., 2016). The IUR collaboration has attracted the increasing attention of scholars (e.g., Banal-Estañol et al., 2015; Guan and Zhao, 2013; Laursen et al., 2011; Rentocchini et al., 2014; Perkmann et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2016). In this context, an interesting and practically valuable topic catches our attention. That is, “Does the research institutes get benefits from their research collaboration with industries and/or universities?”

Unfortunately, to our knowledge, this interesting topic has not been explored so far even though it may provide some significant implications for research institutes to effectively coordinate their research collaboration relationships with industries and/or universities. As Zhang et al. (2016) noted, most of current studies neglected the important role that research institutes play in the national innovation systems and thus excluded them from the analysis or only treated them as subsidiary bodies included in the category of university sectors when examining the research collaboration across research institutes, universities and industries (e.g., Scandura, 2016; Welsh et al., 2008; Orozco and Ruiz, 2010), and little attention is devoted to the impact of IUR collaboration on the scientific performance of research institutes. To fill this research gap, our study focuses on this topic from a network perspective.

To reveal the influence mechanism between IUR collaboration and the scientific performance of research institutes, this study attempt to employ Social Network Analysis (SNA) to examine whether the research institutes’ scientific performance depends on their bilateral/trilateral research collaborations with industries or/and universities. In this manner, this study contributes to the existing literature in following several aspects. First, in contrast to existing literature that largely neglected research institutes and mainly focused on the relationship between the firms’ or universities’ performance and their structural characteristics within inter-organizational collaboration networks (e.g., Guan and Zhao, 2013; Schilling and Phelps, 2007; Paruchuri, 2010; Phelps, 2010), this paper investigates the inter-organizational research collaboration systematically from the perspective of research institutes, which can provide some preliminary empirical evidence on the impact of IUR collaboration on scientific performance of research institutes. Second, this paper contributes to the innovation network studies. Our research findings show that the effects of network positions of research institutes on their performance exhibit diverse manners in different networks. This indicates that the network structure and composition in different inter-organizational collaboration contexts can affect the influence mechanism of network positions on performance, which is largely ignored by prior research on inter-organizational innovation networks (e.g., Guan and Zhao, 2013; Paruchuri, 2010; Phelps, 2010). Third, this paper explores the inter-organizational research collaboration across the industries, universities and research institutes in the context of China, which has not been fully explored so far (Chen and Guan, 2011, Gao et al., 2014). Thus this paper enriches the empirical research of IUR collaboration in the newly industrialized economy (NIE) context. Finally, being different from the previous studies that tended to use the panel data of a particular research field to construct the whole network of inter-organizational collaboration and then examined the impact of the network structure on the performance of participants (e.g., Guan and Zhao, 2013; Schilling and Phelps, 2007; Paruchuri, 2010; Phelps, 2010), this paper uses the longitudinal data of the focal organization to create the ego-networks of this organization with other different organizations and focuses on the relationship between the focal organization’ performance and its network characteristics. Thus this paper may be an exploratory study providing a fresh perspective for the studies on the performance of the focal organization in the inter-organizational collaboration network.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical background and develops hypotheses. Section 3 introduces research setting, data, network construction, variables as well as estimation method. Section 4 presents analytical results. In Section 5, we make discussion on research findings and present some implications for theory and practice; besides, the limitations of our study and future research are also presented. Finally, we summarize our conclusions in Section 6.

Section snippets

Theory background and hypotheses

In the current “open innovation paradigm”, the inter-organizational research collaboration can help participants share the costs of sizeable investments (Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007, Guan and Wei, 2015), reduce risks (Liyanage, 1995), search for knowledge inputs and gain access to complementary resources (Guan et al., 2015, Marquardt, 2013), facilitate information and knowledge flows between partners (Chesbrough et al., 2008, Gomes-Casseres et al., 2006, Mowery et al., 1996, Schilling, 2015)

Research setting and data collection

In this study, we test these hypotheses in the context of China's science and technology innovation system. Specifically, we choose three different but relational inter-organizational collaboration networks of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), a typical composite research institute in China, with industries or/and universities as our research sample. There are three reasons for our choice. First, the inter-organizational research collaboration across research institutes, industries and

Empirical analysis and results

The descriptive statistics about variables in three (UR, IR and IUR) collaboration networks are presented in Table 1, and the correlation analysis results between variables are shown in Table 2. In addition, Table 3a, Table 3b, Table 3c respectively reports the results of negative binomial models for the scientific performance of the CAS in three collaboration networks. Moreover, Fig. 5, Fig. 6 vividly present the effects of the CAS's network position (degree centrality and structural holes

Research findings and discussions

The purpose of this paper is to explore whether the research institutes get benefits from their network positions in the inter-organizational research collaboration network setting. For this purpose, we construct three (bilateral or trilateral) different inter-organizational research collaboration networks of research institutes with industries or/and universities as our multi-scenario sample, which enriches the empirical studies concerning the impact of the inter-organizational research

Conclusions

Even though current studies have devoted much attention on the relationship between network position and organizational performance in the inter-organizational collaboration network, the issue whether the research institutes’ scientific performance is influenced by their network positions in the inter-organizational collaboration network has not yet examined so far. To fill this glaring gap, this study reveals the relationships between research institutes’ network positions and research

Acknowledgments

The work in this paper was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project number 71471170; 71233003; 71103173), the Major Research Task of Institute of Policy and Management in Chinese Academy of Sciences (Project number Y201121Z01), the Beijing Cairncross Economic Research Foundation (Project number 2016), the program for scientific research start-up funds of Guangdong Ocean University, the innovation strong school project of Guangdong Ocean University, and the Research

References (130)

  • L.C. Freeman

    Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification

    Social. Netw.

    (1979)
  • G. George et al.

    The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies

    J. Bus. Ventur.

    (2002)
  • B. Gomes-Casseres et al.

    Do alliances promote knowledge flows?

    J. Financ. Econ.

    (2006)
  • C.N. Gonzalez-Brambila et al.

    The impact of network embeddedness on research output

    Res. Policy

    (2013)
  • J. Guan et al.

    The impact of university-industry collaboration networks on innovation in nanobiopharmaceuticals

    Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change

    (2013)
  • J. Guan et al.

    The impact of multilevel networks on innovation

    Res. Policy

    (2015)
  • J.C. Guan et al.

    Does country-level R&D efficiency benefit from the collaboration network structure?

    Res. Policy

    (2016)
  • Z.L. He et al.

    Research collaboration and research output: a longitudinal study of 65 biomedical scientists in a New Zealand university

    Res. Policy

    (2009)
  • I.A. Ivanova et al.

    Rotational symmetry and the transformation of innovation systems in a triple helix of university–industry–government relations

    Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change

    (2014)
  • M. Kafouros et al.

    Academic collaborations and firm innovation performance in China: the role of region-specific institutions

    Res. Policy

    (2015)
  • E.Y. Li et al.

    Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective

    Res. Policy

    (2013)
  • X.L. Liu et al.

    Comparing innovation systems: a framework and application to China's transitional context

    Res. Policy

    (2001)
  • S. Liyanage

    Breeding innovation clusters through collaborative research networks

    Technovation

    (1995)
  • B.-Å. Lundvall et al.

    National systems of production, innovation and competence building

    Res. Policy

    (2002)
  • R. Mazzoleni et al.

    Public research institutions and economic catch-up

    Res. Policy

    (2007)
  • K. Motohashi et al.

    China's innovation system reform and growing industry and science linkages

    Res. Policy

    (2007)
  • M.E.J. Newman

    Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results

    Phys. Rev. E

    (2001)
  • M.E.J. Newman

    Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality

    Phys. Rev. E

    (2001)
  • H.W. Park et al.

    Longitudinal trends in networks of university-industry-government relations in South Korea: the role of programmatic incentives

    Res. Policy

    (2010)
  • O. Afonso et al.

    A growth model for the quadruple helix

    J. Bus. Econ. Manag.

    (2012)
  • I. Aguiar-Díaz et al.

    University–industry relations and research group production: is there a bidirectional relationship?

    Ind. Corp. Change

    (2015)
  • G. Ahuja

    Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study

    Adm. Sci. Q.

    (2000)
  • G. Ahuja et al.

    Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions

    Strateg. Manag. J.

    (2001)
  • L.S. Aiken et al.

    Multiple regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions

    (1991)
  • P. Almeida et al.

    The influence of ethnic community knowledge on indian inventor innovativeness

    Organ. Sci.

    (2015)
  • V. Arza

    Channels, benefits and risks of public—private interactions for knowledge transfer: conceptual framework inspired by Latin America

    Sci. Public Policy

    (2010)
  • C. Bai

    The pioneer initiative: a new era in Chinese research

    Small

    (2016)
  • A.L. Barabasi

    Network theory - the emergence of the creative enterprise

    Science

    (2005)
  • J.A.C. Baum et al.

    Don't go it alone: alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology

    Strateg. Manag. J.

    (2000)
  • D.A. Belsley

    Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity

    (2005)
  • M.A. Blais

    Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences

    J. Personal. Assess.

    (2003)
  • R. Blundell et al.

    Dynamic count data models of techno-logical innovation

    Econ. J.

    (1995)
  • S.P. Borgatti et al.

    Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis

    (2002)
  • R.S. Burt

    Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition

    (1992)
  • R.S. Burt

    The contingent value of social capital

    Adm. Sci. Q.

    (1997)
  • R.S. Burt

    Structural holes and good ideas

    Am. J. Sociol.

    (2004)
  • A.C. Cameron et al.

    Regression Analysis of Count Data

    (2013)
  • E.G. Carayannis et al.

    “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem

    Int. J. Technol. Manag.

    (2009)
  • E.G. Carayannis et al.

    Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other?: a proposed framework for a transdisciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology

    Int. J. Soc. Ecol. Sustain. Dev.

    (2010)
  • Z. Chen et al.

    Mapping of biotechnology patents of China from 1995–2008

    Scientometrics

    (2011)
  • Cited by (69)

    • Antecedents of radical innovation speed from a knowledge network perspective

      2024, International Journal of Production Economics
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    The authors contribute equally to this paper.

    View full text