Scholars of the theory of the firm have begun to emphasize the sources and conditions of what has been described as “the organizational advantage,” rather than focus on the causes and consequences of market failure. Typically, researchers see such organizational advantage as accruing from the particular capabilities organizations have for creating and sharing knowledge. In this article we seek to contribute to this body of work by developing the following arguments: (1) social capital facilitates the creation of new intellectual capital; (2) organizations, as institutional settings, are conducive to the development of high levels of social capital; and (3) it is because of their more dense social capital that firms, within certain limits, have an advantage over markets in creating and sharing intellectual capital. We present a model that incorporates this overall argument in the form of a series of hypothesized relationships between different dimensions of social capital and the main mechanisms and proces...

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/259373.pdf

Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage

This article is a sequel to the conversation on learning initiated by the editors of Educational Researcher in volume 25, number 4. The author’s first aim is to elicit the metaphors for learning that guide our work as learners, teachers, and researchers. Two such metaphors are identified: the acquisition metaphor and the participation metaphor. Subsequently, their entailments are discussed and evaluated. Although some of the implications are deemed desirable and others are regarded as harmful, the article neither speaks against a particular metaphor nor tries to make a case for the other. Rather, these interpretations and applications of the metaphors undergo critical evaluation. In the end, the question of theoretical unification of the research on learning is addressed, wherein the purpose is to show how too great a devotion to one particular metaphor can lead to theoretical distortions and to undesirable practices.

https://www.it.uu.se/edu/course/homepage/cosulearning/st11/reading/Sfard_ER1998.pdf

On Two Metaphors for Learning and the Dangers of Choosing Just One

We have used 199 million papers over 5 decades and 21 million patents to demonstrate that teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge Research is increasingly done in teams across nearly all fields Teams typically produce more frequently cited research than individuals do, and this advantage has been increasing over time Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-impact research, even where that distinction was once the domain of solo authors These results are detailed for sciences and engineering, social sciences, arts and humanities, and patents, suggesting that the process of knowledge creation has fundamentally changed

/pdf/the-increasing-dominance-of-teams-in-production-of-knowledge-h591ohwfzk.pdf

The Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge

We conduct a detailed analysis of 289 absorptive capacity papers from 14 journals to assess how the construct has been utilized, examine the key papers in the field, and identify the substantive contributions to the broader literature using a thematic analysis. We argue that research in this area is fundamentally driven by five critical assumptions that we conclude have led to its reification and that this reification has led to stifling of research in this area. To address this, we propose a model of absorptive capacity processes, antecedents, and outcomes.

The Reification of Absorptive Capacity: A Critical Review and Rejuvenation of the Construct

The “tragedy of the commons” metaphor helps explain why people overuse shared resources. However, the recent proliferation of intellectual property rights in biomedical research suggests a different tragedy, an “anticommons” in which people underuse scarce resources because too many owners can block each other. Privatization of biomedical research must be more carefully deployed to sustain both upstream research and downstream product development. Otherwise, more intellectual property rights may lead paradoxically to fewer useful products for improving human health.

/pdf/can-patents-deter-innovation-the-anticommons-in-biomedical-397ss7uox8.pdf

Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research

The Social Contexts of Research. Edited by Saad Z. Nagi and Ronald G. Corwin. Pp. xii + 409. (John Wiley: New York and London, August 1972.) £5.65.

J. R. Ravetz

Papers

Sociology of Science