Collaborating for Knowledge Creation and Application: The Case of Nanotechnology Research Programs

References

• Agrawal A. (2001) University to industry knowledge transfer: Literature review and unanswered questions. Internat. J. Management Rev. 3(4) 285–302.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agrawal A., Henderson R. (2002) Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Sci. 48(1) 44–60.Link, Google Scholar
• Ahuja G. (2000) Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Admin. Sci. Quart. 45(3) 425–455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allison P. D. (1999) Logistic Regression Using the SAS System: Theory and Application. (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) .Google Scholar
• Argote L., Ingram P. (2000) Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 82(1) 150–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Argote L., Ophir R. (2002) Intraorganizational learning. , Baum J. A. C., ed. The Blackwell Companion to Organizations. (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK) , 181–207.Google Scholar
• Armstrong J. S., Overton T. S. (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J. Marketing Res. 14(3) 396–402.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Arora A., Gambardella A. (1994) Evaluating technological information and utilizing it: Scientific knowledge, technological capability and external linkages in biotechnology. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 24(1) 91–114.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Avenel E., Favier A. V., Ma S., Mangematin V., Rieu C. (2007) Diversification and hybridization in firm knowledge bases in nanotechnologies. Res. Policy 36(6) 864–870.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bae J., Gargiulo M. (2004) Partner substitutability, alliance network structure, and firm profitability in the telecommunications industry. Acad. Management J. 47(6) 843–859.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barron D. N. (1992) The analysis of count data: Overdispersion and autocorrelation. Sociol. Methodol. 22 179–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baum J. A. C., Calabrese T., Silverman B. S. (2000) Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management J. 21(3) 267–294.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benner M., Sandstorm U. (2000) Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Res. Policy 29(2) 291–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bozeman B., Corley E. (2004) Scientists' collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Res. Policy 33(4) 599–616.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bozeman B., Gaughan M. (2007) Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers' interactions with industry. Res. Policy 36(5) 694–707.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bozeman B., Laredo P., Mangematin V. (2007) Understanding the emergence and deployment of “nano” S&T. Res. Policy 36(6) 807–812.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cockburn I. M., Henderson R. M. (1998) Absorptive capacity, co-authoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. J. Indust. Econom. 46(2) 157–182.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen M. A., Eliashberg J., Ho T.-H. (1996) New product development: The performance and time-to-market tradeoff. Management Sci. 42(2) 173–186.Link, Google Scholar
• Cohen W., Florida R., Randazzese L., Walsh J. (1998) Industry and the academy: Uneasy partners in the cause of technological advance. , Noll R. G., ed. Challenges to Research Universities. (Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC) , 171–199.Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Levinthal D. A. (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1) 128–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen W. M., Nelson R. R., Walsh J. P. (2002) Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Sci. 48(1) 1–23.Link, Google Scholar
• Cyert R. M., March J. G. (1963) A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) .Google Scholar
• DeCarolis D. M., Deeds D. L. (1999) The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance: An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management J. 20(10) 953–968.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Defazio D., Lockett A., Wright M. (2009) Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Res. Policy 38(2) 293–305.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duque R. B., Ynalvez M., Sooryamoorthy R., Dzorgbo D.-B. S., Shrum W. (2005) Collaboration paradox: Scientific productivity, the Internet, and problems of research in developing areas. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35(5) 755–785.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer J. H., Nobeoka K. (2000) Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: The Toyota case. Strategic Management J. 21(3) 345–367.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dyer J. H., Singh H. (1998) The relational view: Cooperative strategies and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Management Rev. 23(4) 660–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Florida R., Cohen W. M. (1999) Engine or infrastructure? The university role in economic development. , Branscomb L. M., Kodama F., Florida R., eds. Industrializing Knowledge: University–Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA) , 589–610.Google Scholar
• Gambardella A. (1992) Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research: The U.S. pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s. Res. Policy 21(5) 391–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garud R., Nayyar P. R. (1994) Transformative capacity: Continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management J. 15(5) 365–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gittelman M., Kogut B. (2003) Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Sci. 49(4) 366–382.Link, Google Scholar
• Granovetter M. (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Amer. J. Sociol. 91(3) 481–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grant R. M. (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management J. 17(Winter special issue) 109–122.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griliches Z. (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. J. Econom. Literature 28(4) 1661–1707.Google Scholar
• Gulati R. (1995) Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Acad. Management J. 38(1) 85–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R. (1999) Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management J. 20(5) 397–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R. (2007) Managing Network Resources: Alliances, Affiliations, and Other Relational Assets. (Oxford University Press, New York) .Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R., Sytch M. (2007) Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships: Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer's performance in procurement relationships. Admin. Sci. Quart. 52(1) 32–69.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulbrandsen M., Smeby J.-C. (2005) Industry funding and university professors' research performance. Res. Policy 34(6) 932–950.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen M. T. (2002) Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organ. Sci. 13(3) 232–248.Link, Google Scholar
• Hoffmann W. (2007) Strategies for managing a portfolio of alliances. Strategic Management J. 28(8) 827–856.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holland M. (1928) Research, science and innovation. , Wile F. W., ed. A Century of Industrial Progress. (American Institute of the City of New York and Doran, Doubleday & Co., New York) , 312–334.Google Scholar
• Kale P., Dyer J. H., Singh H. (2002) Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strategic Management J. 23(8) 747–767.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huang Z., Chen H., Yip A., Ng G., Guo F., Chen Z.-K., Roco M. C. (2003) Longitudinal patent analysis for nanoscale science and engineering: Country, institution and technology field. J. Nanoparticle Res. 5 333–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kale P., Singh H., Perlmutter H. (2000) Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management J. 21(3) 217–237.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz J. S., Martin B. R. (1997) What is research collaboration? Res. Policy 26(1) 1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Khanna T., Gulati R., Nohria N. (1998) The dynamics of learning alliances: Competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic Management J. 19(3) 193–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleinbaum D. G., Kupper L. L., Muller K. E., Nizam A. (1998) Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods, 3rd ed. (Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, Pacific Grove, CA) .Google Scholar
• Klevorick A. K., Levin R. C., Nelson R. R., Winter S. G. (1995) On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Res. Policy 24(2) 185–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knudsen M. P. (2007) The relative importance of interfirm relationships and knowledge transfer for new product development success. J. Product Innovation Management 24(2) 117–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B., Zander U. (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 3(3) 383–397.Link, Google Scholar
• Landry M., Traore N., Godin B. (1996) An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity. Higher Ed. 32(3) 283–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lavie D. (2006) The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Acad. Management Rev. 31(3) 638–658.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lavie D. (2007) Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management J. 28(12) 1187–1212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lavie D., Rosenkopf L. (2006) Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Acad. Management J. 49(6) 797–818.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee C., Lee K., Pennings J. M. (2001) Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management J. 22 615–640.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee S., Bozeman B. (2005) The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35(5) 673–702.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin R. C., Klevorick A. K., Nelson R., Winter S. G. (1987) Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers Econom. Activity: Microeconom. 3 783–831.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal D. A., March J. G. (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management J. 14 95–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leydesdorff L. (2000) The triple helix: An evolutionary model of innovation. Res. Policy 29(2) 243–255.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Madhok A., Tallman S. B. (1998) Resources, transactions and rents: Managing value through interfirm collaborative relationships. Organ. Sci. 9(3) 326–339.Link, Google Scholar
• Mansfield E. (1968) The Economics of Technological Change. (W. W. Norton, New York) .Google Scholar
• March J. G. (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1) 71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Markman G. D., Siegel D. S., Wright M. (2008) Research and technology commercialization. J. Management Stud. 45(8) 1401–1423.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadyen M. A., Cannella A. A. (2004) Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Acad. Management J. 47(5) 735–746.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mehta M. D. (2002) Nanoscience and nanotechnology: Assessing the nature of innovation in these fields. Bull. Sci. Tech. Soc. 22(4) 269–273.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer M. (2000) Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Res. Policy 29(3) 409–434.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer M., Persson O. (1998) Nanotechnology—Interdisciplinarity, patterns of collaboration and differences in application. Scientometrics 42(2) 195–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Meyer-Krahmer F., Schmoch U. (1998) Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four fields. Res. Policy 27(8) 835–851.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mogoutov A., Kahane B. (2007) Data search strategy for science and technology emergence: A scalable and evolutionary query for nanotechnology tracking. Res. Policy 36(6) 893–903.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mowery D. C., Oxley J. E., Silverman B. S. (1996) Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management J. 17(Winter special issue) 77–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mowery D. C., Nelson R. R., Sampat B. N., Ziedonis A. A. (2001) The growth of patenting and licensing by the U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Res. Policy 30(1) 99–119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nahapiet J., Ghoshal S. (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad. Management Rev. 23(2) 242–266.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nonaka I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organ. Sci. 5(1) 14–37.Link, Google Scholar
• Nonaka I., von Krogh G. (2009) Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organ. Sci. 20(3) 635–652.Link, Google Scholar
• Ocasio W. (1997) Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management J. 18(S1) 187–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Owen-Smith J., Powell W. W. (2003) The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Res. Policy 32(9) 1695–1711.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perkmann M., Walsh K. (2007) University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. Internat. J. Management Rev. 9(4) 259–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J., Salancik G. R. (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. (Harper & Row, New York) .Google Scholar
• Podolny J. M. (1994) Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(3) 458–483.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Porter A. L., Youtie J., Shapira P., Schoeneck D. J. (2008) Refining search terms for nanotechnology. J. Nanoparticle Res. 10(5) 715–728.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Powell W. W. (1990) Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. , Staw B. M., Cummings L. L., eds. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12. (JAI Press, Greenwich, CT) , 295–336.Google Scholar
• Powell W. W., Koput K. W., Smith-Doerr L. (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(1) 116–145.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raflos I. (2007) Strategies for knowledge acquisition in bionanotechnology: Why are interdisciplinary practices less widespread than expected? Innovation 20(4) 395–412.Google Scholar
• Reagans R., McEvily B. (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2) 240–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robinson D. K. R., Rip A., Mangematin V. (2007) Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology. Res. Policy 36(6) 871–879.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rosenkopf L., Almeida P. (2003) Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Sci. 49(6) 751–766.Link, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel F. T. (2001) Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management J. 22(6–7) 687–699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel F. T., Deeds D. L. (2004) Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management J. 25(3) 201–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel F. T., Thursby M. (2005) University-incubator firm knowledge flows: Assessing their impact on incubator firm performance. Res. Policy 34(3) 305–320.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel F. T., Thursby M. (2007) The nanotech versus the biotech revolution: Sources of productivity in incumbent firm research. Res. Policy 36(6) 832–849.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel F. T., Agung S. D., Jiang L. (2007) University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Indust. Corporate Change 16(4) 691–791.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saxton T. (1997) The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance outcomes. Acad. Management J. 40(2) 443–461.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schartinger D., Rammer C., Fischer M. M., Fröhlich J. (2002) Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants. Res. Policy 31(3) 303–328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Schilling M. A., Phelps C. C. (2007) Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Sci. 53(7) 1113–1126.Link, Google Scholar
• Shan W., Walker G., Kogut B. (1994) Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management J. 15(5) 387–394.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shipilov A. V. (2006) Network strategies and performance of Canadian investment banks. Acad. Management J. 49(3) 590–604.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stinchcombe L. A. (1965) Social structure and organizations. , March J. G., ed. Handbook of Organizations. (Rand-McNally, Chicago) , 142–193.Google Scholar
• Stokes D. E. (1997) Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. (Brookings Institute Press, Washington, DC) .Google Scholar
• Stuart T. E. (2000) Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management J. 21(8) 791–811.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stuart T. E., Hoang H., Hybels R. C. (1999) Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(2) 315–349.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece D. J. (1987) Profiting from technological innovations: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing, and public policy. , Teece D. J., ed. The Competitive Challenge: Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal. (Ballinger Publishing Company, Cambridge, MA) , 185–219.Google Scholar
• Uzzi B. (1996) The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 61(4) 674–698.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uzzi B. (1997) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1) 35–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van De Ven A. H. (1986) Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Sci. 32(5) 590–607.Link, Google Scholar
• Van Looy B., Ranga M., Callaert J., Debackere K., Zimmermann E. (2004) Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew effect? Res. Policy 33(3) 425–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
• von Krogh G., Ichigo K., Nonaka I. (2000) Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK) .Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wiersema M. F., Bowen H. P. (2009) The use of limited dependent variable techniques in strategy research: Issues and methods. Strategic Management J. 30(6) 679–692.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williamson O. E. (1983) Organizational innovation: The transaction cost approach. , Ronen J., ed. Entrepreneurship. (Lexington Books, Lexington, MA) , 101–133.Google Scholar
• Yli-Renko H., Autio E., Sapienza H. J. (2001) Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management J. 22(6–7) 587–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaheer A., Bell G. G. (2005) Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management J. 26(9) 809–825.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaheer A., McEvily B., Perrone V. (1998) Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organ. Sci. 9(2) 141–159.Link, Google Scholar
• Zahra S. A., George G. (2002) Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad. Management Rev. 27(2) 185–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zucker L. G., Darby M. R., Armstrong J. S. (2002) Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance. Management Sci. 48(1) 138–153.Link, Google Scholar
• Zucker L. G., Darby M. R., Furner J., Liu R. C., Ma H. (2007) Minerva unbound: Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and new knowledge production. Res. Policy 36(6) 850–863.Crossref, Google Scholar