Bridging centrality as an indicator to measure the ‘bridging role’ of actors in networks: An application to the European Nanotechnology co-publication network

Bergé, Laurent; Scherngell, Thomas; Wanzenböck, Iris

doi:10.1016/j.joi.2017.09.004

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other studies note this double effect of extension and concentration (e.g. Bergé, Scherngell, and Wanzenböck 2017;Graf and Kalthaus 2018, 12). Network-based studies do not fully explore this.…”

Section: Interpretive Resources and Narrativesmentioning

confidence: 84%

What drives global science? The four competing narratives

Marginson

2021

Studies in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 1990 there has been remarkable growth and diversification of worldwide capacity and output in science, and a distinctive global science system has emerged, primarily grounded in research universities, fostered by Internet-mediated communication and publication in English, cross-border authorship and researcher mobility. While global science overlaps with and is affected by national science systems, it is constituted by pan-national knowledge flows and collegial collaboration and has partial autonomy. Four different interpretive frameworks (narratives) have evolved to explain global science: science as an expanding cross-border network; science as an arms race between competing nations; science as a global market of competing 'World-Class Universities'; and science as a centre-periphery hierarchy in which emerging countries are permanently constrained by Euro-American dominance. The paper reviews each narrative in relation to the literature, especially in scientometrics, and empirical tendencies in global science, tracked in secondary data derived from bibliometric collections. While each narrative contains at least a grain of truth, each also conflicts with the others and each is radically insufficient. A better explanation of the drivers of global science combines ( 1) flat open networked relations with (2) the inequalities and closures shaped by global hegemony, arbitrarily modified by (3) national governments and specific resources.

show abstract

Section: Interpretive Resources and Narrativesmentioning

confidence: 84%

What drives global science? The four competing narratives

Marginson

2021

Studies in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, over time, inventors' skills and other attributes change, so knowledge exchange is dynamic (Ejermo & Karlsson, 2006). The agent's position in a network is crucial for the effective transmission of knowledge (Bergé et al, 2017). Concepts derived from the social network analysis (SNA) framework attempts to capture the agent's position and role in the network.…”

Section: Individual Inventive Activity Network and The Influence Of G...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In technological networks, brokering can produce disruptive patents as explorative and distant knowledge are combined to produce radical combinations of knowledge (Arts & Veugelers, 2015). According to Bergé et al (2017), the bridging centrality refers to a node indirectly connecting two other nodes and denotes that a 'bridge' with a brokering function between clusters of nodes is capable of 'closing' structural holes. 1 Conversely to weak ties, nodes with a higher intermediate centrality are likely to act as intermediaries for technical information, diffusing knowledge throughout the network, while bridges are more likely to transmit non-redundant information than other links.…”

Section: Individual Inventive Activity Network and The Influence Of G...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How do gatekeepers in networks influence the production of new knowledge? Evidence from Brazilian co‐invention networks

Reis

Gonçalves

Taveira

et al. 2023

Regional Science Policy & Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In co‐invention networks, gatekeepers intermediate technical knowledge exchange between economic agents and help overcome technological barriers and regional lock‐in. This study aims to investigate co‐inventors’ inventive activity and the potential effects of being a gatekeeper in a technologically‐underdevelopment country like Brazil. A hierarchical two‐level model is applied for that purpose, considering individual and regional effects. The main results show that patent production at the individual level depends on their positioning as or their direct collaborations with gatekeepers in a co‐invention network. Results also show that other individual factors that are relevant to improving the inventors’ inventive activity are having diversified knowledge, working in the industrial sector, and earning a higher salary in particular sectors, such as the manufacturing industry and higher education. Regional characteristics, such as GDP per capita, related and urelated variety, also affect the inventors’ performance.

show abstract

“…One of the most relevant factors towards success in the development and implementation of projects and innovative initiatives is the presence of an innovative environment, characterized by a network of public and private actors and analyzed under different perspectives(Bogers et al, 2017 ); in particular, networking between research centers, industries and public institutions are often referred as the Triple Helix model(Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995 ), which finds application also for the European research funding schemes(Etzkowitz, 2002 ). Networks of public-private partnerships were analysed under different point of view, with an evaluation of their impact on rural areas(Esparcia, 2014 ), consortium characteristics(Wanzenböck et al, 2020 ), engagement of actors(Huggins et al, 2020 ), effectiveness (de Arroyabe et al, 2021 ) or on the scientific literature(Bergé et al, 2017 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clustering networked funded European research activities through rank-size laws

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper treats a well-established public evaluation problem, which is the analysis of the funded research projects. We specifically deal with the collection of the research actions funded by the European Union over the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and Horizon 2020. The reference period is 2007–2020. The study is developed through three methodological steps. First, we consider the networked scientific institutions by stating a link between two organizations when they are partners in the same funded project. In doing so, we build yearly complex networks. We compute four nodal centrality measures with relevant, informative content for each of them. Second, we implement a rank-size procedure on each network and each centrality measure by testing four meaningful classes of parametric curves to fit the ranked data. At the end of such a step, we derive the best fit curve and the calibrated parameters. Third, we perform a clustering procedure based on the best-fit curves of the ranked data for identifying regularities and deviations among years of research and scientific institutions. The joint employment of the three methodological approaches allows a clear view of the research activity in Europe in recent years.

show abstract

Bridging centrality as an indicator to measure the ‘bridging role’ of actors in networks: An application to the European Nanotechnology co-publication network

Cited by 9 publications

References 28 publications

What drives global science? The four competing narratives

What drives global science? The four competing narratives

How do gatekeepers in networks influence the production of new knowledge? Evidence from Brazilian co‐invention networks

Clustering networked funded European research activities through rank-size laws

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About