Jason Owen-Smith

Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of Spillovers in the Boston Biotechnology Community

We contend that two important, nonrelational, features of formal interorganizational networks-geographic propinquity and organizational form-fundamentally alter the flow of information through a network. Within regional economies, contractual linkages among physically proximate organizations represent relatively transparent channels for information transfer because they are embedded in an ecology rich in informal and labor market transmission mechanisms. Similarly, we argue that the spillovers that result from proprietary alliances are a function of the institutional commitments and practices of members of the network. When the dominant nodes in an innovation network are committed to open regimes of information disclosure, the entire structure is characterized by less tightly monitored ties. The relative accessibility of knowledge transferred through contractual linkages to organizations determines whether innovation benefits accrue broadly to membership in a coherent network component or narrowly to centrality. We draw on novel network visualization methods and conditional fixed effects negative binomial regressions to test these arguments for human therapeutic biotechnology firms located in the Boston metropolitan area.

Network dynamics and field evolution: The growth of interorganizational collaboration in the life sciences

A recursive analysis of network and institutional evolution is offered to account for the decentralized structure of the commercial field of the life sciences. Four alternative logics of attachment—accumulative advantage, homophily, follow‐the‐trend, and multiconnectivity—are tested to explain the structure and dynamics of interorganizational collaboration in biotechnology. Using multiple novel methods, the authors demonstrate how different rules for affiliation shape network evolution. Commercialization strategies pursued by early corporate entrants are supplanted by universities, research institutes, venture capital, and small firms. As organizations increase their collaborative activities and diversify their ties to others, cohesive subnetworks form, characterized by multiple, independent pathways. These structural components, in turn, condition the choices and opportunities available to members of a field, thereby reinforcing an attachment logic based on differential connections to diverse partners.

A Comparison of U.S. and European University-Industry Relations in the Life Sciences

We draw on diverse data sets to compare the institutional organization of upstream life science research across the United States and Europe. Understanding cross-national differences in the organization of innovative labor in the life sciences requires attention to the structure and evolution of biomedical networks involving public research organizations (universities, government laboratories, nonprofit research institutes, and research hospitals), science-based biotechnology firms, and multinational pharmaceutical corporations. We use network visualization methods and correspondence analyses to demonstrate that innovative research in biomedicine has its origins in regional clusters in the United States and in European nations. But the scientific and organizational composition of these regions varies in consequential ways. In the United States, public research organizations and small firms conduct R&D across multiple therapeutic areas and stages of the development process. Ties within and across these regions link small firms and diverse public institutions, contributing to the development of a robust national network. In contrast, the European story is one of regional specialization with a less diverse group of public research organizations working in a smaller number of therapeutic areas. European institutes develop local connections to small firms working on similar scientific problems, while cross-national linkages of European regional clusters typically involve large pharmaceutical corporations. We show that the roles of large and small firms differ in the United States and Europe, arguing that the greater heterogeneity of the U.S. system is based on much closer integration of basic science and clinical development.

To Patent or Not: Faculty Decisions and Institutional Success at Technology Transfer

We draw on qualitative data derived from field work on two university campuses to develop an explanation for widely disparate rates of new invention disclosure. We argue that faculty decisions to disclose are shaped by their perceptions of the benefits of patent protection. These incentives to disclose are magnified or minimized by the perceived costs of interacting with technology transfer offices and licensing professionals. Finally, faculty considerations of the costs and benefits of disclosure are colored by institutional environments that are supportive or oppositional to the simultaneous pursuit of academic and commercial endeavors.

Networks, Propinquity, and Innovation in Knowledge-Intensive Industries

Industrial districts and regional clusters depend on the networks that arise from reciprocal linkages among co-located organizations, while physical proximity among firms can alter the nature of information and resource flows through networks. We consider the joint effects of geographic propinquity and network position on organizational innovation using negative binomial count models of patenting activity for U.S.-based life science firms in industrial districts and regional clusters across a 12-year time period, 1988–1999. We find evidence that regional agglomeration and network centrality exert complementary, but contingent, influences on organizational innovation. Results show that in the high-velocity, research-intensive field of biotechnology, geographic and network positions have both independent and contingent effects on organizational innovation. The influence of centrality in local, physically co-located partner networks depends on the extent to which firms are also embedded in a global network comprising physically distant partners. Such global centrality, however, alters how proximity to two important classes of organization-other biotechnology firms and public sector research organizations, such as universities, research institutes, and teaching hospitals—influences innovation. Regional agglomeration shapes the character of information and resource flows through networks, while much of what makes industrial clusters region-like involves the structure of their internal networks. We conclude that network effects persist both independently and interdependently with geographic variables, and regional characteristics influence the degree to which centrality enhances innovation.

The expanding role of university patenting in the life sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity

Abstract We extend debates about the sources of university capabilities at research commercialization. Drawing upon quantitative data for a panel of 89 research-intensive US universities and interview data from two academic licensing offices, we model the relationship between technology transfer experience, embeddedness in biotechnology industry networks, basic science quality and capacity, and citation impact measures of university life science patents. Technology licensing officers draw upon the expertise of corporate partners to evaluate the potential impact of invention disclosures. The information gleaned through network ties to industry enables well-connected institutions to develop higher impact patent portfolios. Reaping the benefits of such connections, however, requires experience in balancing academic and corporate priorities to avoid the danger of ‘capture’ by industrial interests as overly tight connections limit patent impact. This pattern of diminishing returns to connectivity is robust across multiple citation measures of patent quality.

Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences

The realms of science and technology in the life sciences are converging through the commercialization of university research. Major changes in the mandate of research universities were facilitated by both federal legislation that has promoted technology transfer, and the increased reliance of business firms on university research and development (R&D). This article discusses the primary factors that are blurring the division of labor between industry and academia in the life sciences, and analyzes the consequences for universities of treating knowledge as intellectual property. Universities’ efforts to enhance the commercial value of life sciences research is causing increased politicization of government research funding, a growing winner-take-all contest between the “have” and “have-not” universities, and subtle but potentially profound changes in the culture of academic research.

From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at Research One universities

Drawing on 18 years of panel data for the 89 most research-intensive US universities, this paper examines changing relationships between commercial and academic systems for the dissemination and use of new scientific findings. Increased patenting and commercial engagement on US campuses, I argue, has dramatically altered the rules that govern inter-university competition. From once separate systems with distinct stratification orders, commercial and academic standards for success have become integrated into a hybrid regime where achievement in one realm is dependent upon success in the other. Using observed variable structural equation models, I establish that the integration of public and private science occurred in progressive stages between 1981 and 1998. The implications of that periodization for organizational mobility in a hybrid academic/commercial stratification system are discussed.

Managing laboratory work through skepticism: Processes of evaluation and control

Laboratory ethnographies are the shop-floor studies of the knowledge economy. Observational data from 11 months of fieldwork in a multidisciplinary neuroscience lab suggest that scientific skepticism, long understood as an evaluative mechanism, also serves social control and monitoring functions. The author applies insights from organization theory, social psychology, science studies, and the sociology of science to demonstrate that skepticism is socially organized at the microlevel of laboratory interactions. This organization makes skepticism a solution to the problems of control, coordination, and evaluation raised by uncertain scientific work conducted in a physically dispersed multidisciplinary setting. The diverse roles skepticism plays in laboratory interactions resonate with examinations of work in a number of occupational settings while providing direct insight into mechanisms that may account for the patterning of rewards and status across knowledge-intensive workplaces

Networks, Fields and Organizations: Micro-Dynamics, Scale and Cohesive Embeddings

Social action is situated in fields that are simultaneously composed of interpersonal ties and relations among organizations, which are both usefully characterized as social networks. We introduce a novel approach to distinguishing different network macro-structures in terms of cohesive subsets and their overlaps. We develop a vocabulary that relates different forms of network cohesion to field properties as opposed to organizational constraints on ties and structures. We illustrate differences in probabilistic attachment processes in network evolution that link on the one hand to organizational constraints versus field properties and to cohesive network topologies on the other. This allows us to identify a set of important new micro-macro linkages between local behavior in networks and global network properties. The analytic strategy thus puts in place a methodology for Predictive Social Cohesion theory to be developed and tested in the context of informal and formal organizations and organizational fields. We also show how organizations and fields combine at different scales of cohesive depth and cohesive breadth. Operational measures and results are illustrated for three organizational examples, and analysis of these cases suggests that different structures of cohesive subsets and overlaps may be predictive in organizational contexts and similarly for the larger fields in which they are embedded. Useful predictions may also be based on feedback from level of cohesion in the larger field back to organizations, conditioned on the level of multiconnectivity to the field.