In recent years, considerable attention has been paid to the effectiveness of knowledge transfer processes between academia and industry. Although there is growing evidence that the characteristics of individual researchers are important when explaining cases of successful transfer, few studies have taken the individual researcher as their unit of analysis. This study uses social network theory techniques to gain a better insight into knowledge transfer processes. In particular, the authors study how the characteristics of ties among individuals and the interdisciplinary and pervasive nature of research affect the diversity of knowledge transfer activities. To this end, an empirical study was conducted among researchers in the field of nanotechnology, a sector chosen for its interdisciplinary nature and expected pervasiveness. Data were collected using a survey carried out in Spain and The Netherlands, allowing the authors to correct for environmental and contextual effects.
ArrowK. J. (1962), ‘Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for innovation’, in NelsonR., ed, The Rate and Direction of Innovative Activity, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, pp 609–626.
2.
Azagra-CaroJ.M. (2007), ‘What type of faculty member interacts with what type of firms? Some reasons for the delocalization of university–industry interaction’, Technovation, Vol 27, No 11, pp 704–715.
3.
BoormanB. (1975), ‘A combinational optimization model for transmission of job information through contact networks’, Bell Journal of Economics, Vol 6, No 1, pp 216–249.
4.
BoutyI. (2000), ‘Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 43, No 1, pp 50–65.
5.
BozemanB. (2000), ‘Technology transfer and public policy: A review of research and theory’, Research Policy, Vol 29, No 4–5, pp 627–655.
6.
BozemanB.CorleyE. (2004), ‘Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital’, Research Policy, Vol 33, No 4, pp 599–616.
7.
D'EsteP.PatelP. (2007), ‘University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?’, Research Policy, Vol 36, No 9, pp 1295–1313.
8.
GibbonsD. E. (2004), ‘Friendship and advice networks in the context of changing professional values’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 49, No 2, pp 238–262.
9.
GranovetterM. S. (1973), ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol 78, No 6, pp 1360–1380.
10.
HallR. (1993), ‘A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 14, No 8, pp 607–618.
11.
HansenM. T. (1999), ‘The search–transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization sub-units’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 44, No 1, pp 82–111.
12.
HusslerC.RondeP. (2007), ‘The impact of cognitive communities on the diffusion of academic knowledge: Evidence from the networks of inventors of a French university’, Research Policy, Vol 36, No 2, pp 288–302.
13.
InkpenA.C.TsangE. W. K. (2005), ‘Social capital, networks and knowledge transfer’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 30, No 1, pp 146–165.
14.
KatzJ. S.MartinB. R. (1997), ‘What is research collaboration?’, Research Policy, Vol 26, No 1, pp 1–18.
15.
LiebeskindJ. P.OliverA. L.ZuckerL.BrewerM. (1996), ‘Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms’, Organization Science, Vol 7, No 4, pp 428–443.
16.
McFadyenM. A.CannellaA. A.Jr (2004), ‘Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 47, No 5, pp 735–746.
17.
McFadyenM. A.CannellaA. A.Jr (2005) ‘Knowledge creation and the location of university research scientists’ interpersonal exchange relations: Within and beyond the university’, Strategic Organization, Vol 3, No 2, pp 131–155.
18.
MeyerM.MorlacchiP.PerssonO.ArchambaultE.MalschI. (2004), Continuous Professional Development in Emerging Technology Sectors, SPRU Report for the UK Engineering and Technology Board, SPRU, University of Sussex, Brighton, pp 1–60.
19.
MollenhorstG.VölkerB.FlapH. (2008), ‘Social contexts and personal relationships: The effect of meeting opportunities on similarity for relationships of different strength’, Social Networks, Vol 30, No 1, pp 60–68.
20.
MurrayF. (2001), ‘Following distinctive paths of knowledge: Strategies for organizational knowledge building within science-based firms’, in NonakaI.TeeceD. J., eds, Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization, Sage, London, pp 182–201.
21.
OliverA. L.LiebeskindJ. P. (1997), ‘Three levels of networking for sourcing intellectual capital in biotechnology: Implications for studying interorganizational networks’, International Studies of Management and Organization, Vol 27, No 4, pp 76–103.
22.
PalmbergC. (2008), ‘The transfer and commercialization of nanotechnology: A comparative analysis of university and company researchers’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 33, No 6, pp 631–652.
23.
PolanyiM. (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday, New York.
24.
PowellW. W. (1990), ‘Neither market nor hierarchy: Network form of organization’, Research in Organizational Behaviour, Vol 12, pp 295–336.
25.
SalernoM.LandoniP.VergantiR. (2008), ‘Designing foresight studies for nanoscience and nanotechnology (NST) future developments’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol 75, No 8, pp 1202–1223.
26.
UzziB. (1996), ‘The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect’, American Sociological Review, Vol 6, No 14, pp 674–698.
27.
ZanderU.KogutB. (1995), ‘Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: An empirical test’, Organization Science, Vol 6, No 1, pp 76–92.
