Popularization of Science

Popularization of Science

Typology of drivers and risks of stability in formal science and technology collaborative network

Authors
Reza Asadi Fard 1
Arman Kheledi 2
Eesa Niazi 3
1 Associate Professor, Innovation Policy and Foresight Department,Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Foresight Department, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran.
3 Assistant Professor, Development and social welfare Research Group, Strategic Studies of Cooperation, Development and Social Welfare Institute, Golestan University, Gorgan, Iran.
10.22034/popsci.2025.430296.1311
Abstract
Introduction: In recent decades, formal science and technology cooperation networks have emerged as a pivotal tool for innovation and sustainable development.
Objective: Given the significance of the subject, identifying and classifying the drivers and risks of sustainability in formal science and technology cooperation networks is imperative. This not only contributes to a better understanding of the factors contributing to the success or failure of these networks
Methodology: This research employed a quantitative strategy using a multiple case study method. The case studies involved formal cooperation networks in biotechnology, nanotechnology, molecular medicine, and medicinal plants, which were purposefully selected. Data was collected through a literature review and a questionnaire (comprising 27 questions across six dimensions). For data analysis, the binomial test using SPSS software and quantitative analysis using Excel were employed. The study population consisted of managers of member centers in the five studied networks, with a total of 112 individuals from 83 member centers completing the questionnaires.
Findings: The results of this study indicate that factors related to the dimensions of "networked cooperation infrastructure in the country," "characteristics of the country's science and technology space," and "network cooperation mechanisms" were classified as weak drivers, while "management characteristics" were categorized as strong drivers. Additionally, opportunistic behaviors among network members were identified as the most critical acute risk in formal science and technology cooperation networks in Iran.
Conclusions: These drivers can contribute to the sustainability and longevity of the network by strengthening collaborations and increasing synergy among network members. On the other hand, risks such as political and economic fluctuations, technological changes, managerial and cultural challenges, and lack of coordination among network members can hinder the achievement of desired goals and even lead to the collapse of cooperation networks.
Keywords
Science and technology collaborative networks
Formal networks
Stability
Risks
Drivers
Subjects
نانولب. (1400). شبکه آزمایشگاهی فناوری نانو. http://www.nanolab.ir/
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
Asadifard, R., Tabatabaeian, S. H., Bamdad Sofi, J., & Taghva, M. R. (2017). A model for investigating the stability factors in formal science and technology collaborative networks: A case study of Iran. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 122, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.038
Bianchi, P., & Bellini, N. (1991). Public policies for local networks of innovators. Research Policy, 20(5), 487–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(91)90071-8
Bignami-Van Assche, S. (2005). Network stability in longitudinal data: A case study from rural Malawi. Social Networks, 27(3), 231–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2005.04.001
Ceglie, G., & Dini, M. (1999). SME cluster and network development in developing countries: The experience of UNIDO. UNIDO.
Danilovic, M., & Winroth, M. (2005). A tentative framework for analyzing integration in collaborative manufacturing network settings: A case study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22(1–2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2005.03.005
Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006). Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 659–669. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.21318923
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
Enkel, E., & Gassmann, O. (2006). Determinants of innovation networks: The case of the European innovation network for radiation dosimetry. Retrieved on 3(01), 2011.
Hasnain-Wynia, R., Sofaer, S., Bazzoli, G. J., Alexander, J. A., Shortell, S. M., Conrad, D. A., Chan, B., Zukoski, A. P., & Sweney, J. (2003). Members’ perceptions of community care network partnerships’ effectiveness. Medical Care Research and Review, 60(4_suppl), 40S–62S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558703259095
Hicklin, A. (2004). Network stability: Opportunity or obstacles? Public Organization Review, 4(2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PORJ.0000031620.95791.7f
Humphrey, J., & Schmitz, H. (1995). Principles for promoting clusters & networks of SMEs (Vol. 1). UNIDO.
Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., Olander, H., Blomqvist, K., & Panfilii, V. (2012). Orchestrating R&D networks: Absorptive capacity, network stability, and innovation appropriability. European Management Journal, 30(6), 552–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.03.006
Jack, S. L., & Anderson, A. R. (2002). The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00076-3
Jackson, M. O., & Wolinsky, A. (1996). A strategic model of social and economic networks. Journal of Economic Theory, 71(1), 44–74. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeth.1996.0108
Kapucu, N., & Garayev, V. (2013). Designing, managing, and sustaining functionally collaborative emergency management networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(3), 312–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012444719
Kilduff, M., Tsai, W., & Hanke, R. (2006). A paradigm too far? A dynamic stability reconsideration of the social network research program. Academy of Management Review, 31(4), 1031–1048. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2006.22528167
Kumar, P., & Zaheer, A. (2019). Ego-network stability and innovation in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 62(3), 691–716. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2017.0416
Mbn. (1400). شبکه بیوتکنولوژی پزشکی کشور. http://www.mbn.ir/
McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735–746. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159615
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2000). How networks are governed. In C. J. Heinrich & L. E. Lynn Jr. (Eds.), Governance and performance: New perspectives (pp. 238–262). Georgetown University Press.
Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. G. (2006). A manager's guide to choosing and using collaborative networks (Vol. 8). IBM Center for the Business of Government.
Mpnet. (1400). شبکه ملی پژوهش و فناوری گیاهان دارویی. www.mpnet.ir
Musiolik, J., & Markard, J. (2011). Creating and shaping innovation systems: Formal networks in the innovation system for stationary fuel cells in Germany. Energy Policy, 39(4), 1909–1922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.007
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0054
Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307302554
Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393698
Sarwar, R., & Hassan, S.-U. (2015). A bibliometric assessment of scientific productivity and international collaboration of the Islamic World in science and technology (S&T) areas. Scientometrics, 105(2), 1059–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1718-z
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. R. (2020). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (7th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Turrini, A., Cristofoli, D., Frosini, F., & Nasi, G. (2010). Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public Administration, 88(2), 528–550. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01826.x
UNESCO. (2020). Science, technology and innovation in Iran. http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/ir?theme=science-technology-and-innovation
Wixted, B., & Holbrook, J. A. (2012). Environmental complexity and stakeholder theory in formal research network evaluations. Prometheus, 30(3), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109028.2012.721008
World Bank. (2020). Researchers in R&D (per million people) - Iran, Islamic Rep. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.SCIE.RD.P6?locations=IR
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed., Vol. 5). Sage.
Zakocs, R. C., & Edwards, E. M. (2006). What explains community coalition effectiveness? A review of the literature. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30(4), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2005.12.004