Showing papers by "Walter W. Powell published in 2005"

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

Abstract: 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 gaiola de ferro revisitada: isomorfismo institucional e racionalidade coletiva nos campos organizacionais

Abstract: What makes organizations so similar? We contend that the engine of rationalization and bureaucratization has moved from the competitive marketplace to the state and the professions. Once a set of organization emerges as a field, a paradox arises: rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them. We describe three isomorphic processes - coercive, mimetic, and normative - leading to this outcome. We then specify hypotheses about the impact of resource centralization and structuration on isomorphic change. Finally, we suggest implications for theories of organizations and social change.

Network Dynamics and Field Evolution: The Growth of Interorganizational Collaboration in the Life Sciences

Abstract: The development of collaborative network ties and configurations in the commercial biotechnology field is examined, in order to demonstrate how patterns and the logic of interaction and attachment emerge, take root, and shift over time. The ties between biotechnology firms, public research organizations (including public and private universities, nonprofit research institutes, and research hospitals), pharmaceutical companies, and venture capital firms are assessed. Three approaches are taken to analyze and understand network structures: (1) examination of the network to see how random or uniform the process of expansion is; (2) mapping the field's development by drawing network configurations, in order to assess the extent of attachment bias; and (3) assessing alternate mechanisms of attachment by examining network formation and dissolution. The data sample, comprising interorganizational agreements for United States and European firms, was developed from the database BioScan and covered the years 1988-1999. Also utilized were insights drawn from interviews of scientists, managers, and university faculty. The dominant forms of partner organizations were coded according to a 24-cell matrix of types of partner organizations and types of activities. Three types of analysis are conducted: (1) degree distributions, (2) discrete-time network visualizations, and (3) attachment bias. Four attachment mechanisms are hypothesized and tested: (1) accumulative advantage, (2) homophily, (3) follow-the-threat, and (4) multiconnectivity. Results show how different rules for affiliation shape network evolution. It was found that, over the period 1988-1999, collaborative activities shifted from commercialization to finance and research and development. The commercialization activities of early-entry corporations are supplanted by universities, research institutes, venture capital, and small firms. As collaborative activities increase and diversify, subnetworks form. Structural components, choices, and opportunities reinforce an attachment logic based on differential connections to various collaborators. (TNM)

Universities and the production of knowledge – Introduction

Abstract: The system of higher education is undergoing heightened evaluation and reform in a number of advanced industrial nations. There are pressures for greater productivity and efficiency, demands for more responsiveness and enhanced application, as well as reforms in the financing of universities. We believe it is important to move beyond traditional policy research and reform perspectives in order to understand the changing role of higher education. There are several reasons for this initiative. First, pressures for reform or change are not only generated from higher education policy makers, but stem from a number of forces inside and outside the formal higher education sector, such as perceived or real demographic, economic, and social changes. Furthermore, universities are no longer the only contributors to the production of knowledge. Research institutes, private firms, and government laboratories are increasingly active in the generation of novel basic science. Some pundits characterize these developments as reflecting the greater involvement of universities in the marketplace. We think such a framing is both too narrow and too simple. Too narrow because the marketplace is but one among a number of forces that affect the organization of knowledge production in society, too simple because the concept of the ‘‘marketplace’’ is often used in ways that obscure the mix of public policies and social and economic pressures that trigger change. In the spring of 2003 we brought together researchers who study higher education, knowledge generation, knowledge regimes and national systems of innovation for a productive dialogue, drawing from good empirical social science, to assess the changing role of knowledge and universities in society, and the linkages between knowledge, universities, and economic growth. In doing so we aimed to bridge communities that normally do not talk to one another. Students of higher education systems and reforms seem to communicate little with students of knowledge production, research and science and technology. The conference was intended as a setting for the presentation of empirical research, not for opinion papers, policy debates, or reflections Higher Education (2005) 49: 1–8 Springer 2005