Advertisement

“Learning Hubs” on the Global Innovation Network

  • Michael A. VerbaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 882)

Abstract

In this paper, drawing on techniques from patentometrics, network analysis, and probability theory, we model the global system of innovation as a dynamic network. The sphere of technologically relevant knowledge is conceptualized as a reflexive, directed, link- and node-weighted complex network, with distinct spheres of knowledge (or technology domains) representing network nodes and learning (or knowledge flows) across domains acting as inter-nodal links. The empirical knowledge network is constructed from a sweeping patent database, including records from more than 100 patent-granting authorities over the 22-year period spanning 1991–2012. After establishing the structure of the global innovation network, we simulate its dynamics and study its evolution over time. The modelling exercise reveals technological trends and provides a ranking of technologies in terms of their level of technological dynamism.

Keywords

Innovation Knowledge network Network dynamics Patents Citations 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out on the Dutch national e-infrastructure with the support of SURF Foundation. The author is thankful to the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) for its grant program for high-performance computing and to the staff of SURF. Additionally, this study was partially supported by United Nations University—Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (UNU-MERIT). The author is particularly grateful to Jojo Jacob and Mathijs Kattenberg for their help and technical advice during the course of this project. All remaining errors are my own.

References

  1. 1.
    Bohlin, L., Edler, D., Lancichinetti, A., Rosvall, M.: Community detection and visualization of networks with the map equation framework (2014). http://www.mapequation.org/publications.htmlGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bohlin, L., Viamontes Esquivel, A., Lancichinetti, A., Rosvall, M.: Robustness of journal rankings by network flows with different amounts of memory. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borgatti, S.P.: Centrality and network flow. Soc. Netw. 27(1), 55–71 (2005). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873304000693MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carnabuci, G., Bruggeman, J.: Knowledge specialization, knowledge brokerage and the uneven growth of technology domains. Soc. Forces 88(2), 607–641 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Feldman, M.P., Kogler, D.F., Rigby, D.L.: rKnowledge: the spatial diffusion and adoption of rDNA methods. Reg. Stud. 49(5), 798–817 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.980799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fortunato, S.: Community detection in graphs. Phys. Rep. 486(3–5), 75–174 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.11.002MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Freeman, L.C., Borgatti, S.P., White, D.R.: Centrality in valued graphs: a measure of betweenness based on network flow. Soc. Netw. 13(2), 141–154 (1991)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lafond, F.: Knowledge networks. Ph.D. thesis, Maastricht University, December 2015Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lambiotte, R., Rosvall, M.: Ranking and clustering of nodes in networks with smart teleportation. Phys. Rev. E 85(5), 056107 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leydesdorff, L.: Patent classifications as indicators of intellectual organization. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 59(10), 1582–1597 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leydesdorff, L., Kushnir, D., Rafols, I.: Interactive overlay maps for US patent (USPTO) data based on international patent classification (IPC). Scientometrics 98(3), 1583–1599 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0923-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McNerney, J., Fath, B.D., Silverberg, G.: Network structure of inter-industry flows. Phys. Stat. Mech. Appl. 392(24), 6427–6441 (2013). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437113006948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Newman, M.E.: A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Soc. Netw. 27(1), 39–54 (2005). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378873304000681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
  15. 15.
    Paci, R., Sassu, A., Usai, S.: International patenting and national technological specialization. Technovation 17(1), 25–38 (1997). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016649729600065XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pons, P., Latapy, M.: Computing communities in large networks using random walks. J. Graph Algorithms Appl. 10(2), 191–218 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosvall, M., Bergstrom, C.T.: Maps of random walks on complex networks reveal community structure. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105(4), 1118–1123 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Triulzi, G.: Looking for the right path: technology dynamics, inventive strategies and catching-up in the semiconductor industry. Ph.D. thesis, Maastricht University, December 2015Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Valverde, S., Solé, R.V., Bedau, M.A., Packard, N.: Topology and evolution of technology innovation networks. Phys. Rev. E 76, 056118 (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.76.056118

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and ManagementTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations