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

Abstract

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, we consider the relational and proximity perspectives that are usually treated separately. In order to do so, we analyse various forms of proximity as alternative driving forces behind network ties that occur within existing components (i.e. closure ties) as well as those between two distinct components (i.e. bridging ties). In doing so, we contrast network and proximity determinants of network formation and we investigate to what extent social networks allow economic actors to cross over geographical, technological and organizational boundaries.

Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox

“…Collaborations mainly occur when inventors are located in close geographical distance to each other, work in similar technological areas and presumably patent for the same organization. We also confirm that social, geographical and organizational variables are substitutes, as they behave in a similar way in explaining the formation of network ties (Cassi and Plunket, 2012). Second, when performance is considered, geographical distance is not significant.…”

“…Second, other forms of proximity, such as belonging to the same organization, may play similar roles to geographical proximity in sharing tacit knowledge and solving coordination problems. In a recent paper, Cassi and Plunket (2012) have indeed shown that organizational, social and geographical proximity endorse similar roles and act as substitutes in explaining the formation of co--inventor collaborations. In other words, organizational and social proximity compensate geographical distance when explaining technological collaborations.…”

“…Closure and geography should be substitutes since they endorse similar roles in knowledge communication (Cassi and Plunket, 2012). Closure should complement technological proximity, reinforcing the impact of local search.…”

“…The so--called "proximity paradox" argues that the drivers of network formation should be distinguished from the determinants of innovative performance. If proximity and network embeddedness clearly explain the formation of network relations (Autant--Bernard, et al 2007;Cassi and Plunket, 2012), interactive learning and knowledge flows (Agrawal et al 2006;Breschi and Lissoni, 2009), they may not necessarily benefit innovative performance, they may even be harmful for interactive learning (Boschma, and Frenken, 2009). This paper aims to empirically investigate the proximity paradox.…”

Does intentional mean hierarchical? Knowledge flows and innovative performance of European regions

“…The first deals with the identification and study of innovation networks (Jaffe et al 1993;Audretsch and Feldman 1996;Maurseth and Verspagen 2002;Cowan and Jonard 2003;Usai 2000, 2009;Lissoni 2004, 2009;, 2011Hoekman et al 2009;Picci 2010;Cassi and Plunket 2012;Maggioni et al , 2013; the second exploits spatial econometric techniques to account for the existence of not directly measurable (or unmeasured) spillovers effects associated with the creation of new knowledge (Audretsch and Feldman 1996;Acs et al 2002;Fischer and Varga 2003;Bottazzi and Peri 2003;Greunz 2003;Bode 2004;Moreno et al 2005;LeSage and Pace 2009;Autant-Bernad and LeSage 2010;Usai 2011;Varga et al 2010). We build on previous works (Acs et al 2002;Cowan and Jonard 2004;) which assume that knowledge can be diffused and exchanged through unintentional diffusion patterns based on spatial contiguity or intentional relations based on a-spatial networks.…”