Identifying High-Status Nodes in Knowledge Networks

Part of the Annals of Information Systems book series (AOIS, volume 12)


The status of a node in a social network plays an important part in determining evolution of the network around it. High-status nodes in knowledge networks are likely to attract more links and influence the use of knowledge by nodes connected directly or indirectly to them. In this study, we model knowledge flow within an innovative organization and contend that it exhibits unique characteristics not incorporated in most social network measures designed to determine node status. Based on the model, we propose the use of a new measure based on team identification and random walks to determine status in knowledge networks. Using data obtained on collaborative patent networks, we find that the new measure performs better than others in identifying high-status inventors.


Betweenness Centrality Knowledge Network Patent Citation Network Measure Knowledge Flow 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This research was supported in part by “NanoMap: Mapping Nanotechnology Development,” NSF, Grant #0533749 and the Faculty Development and Research Committee of Towson University. Portions of this chapter were presented in the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-42) in 2009.


  1. 1.
    Agrawal, A., Cockburn, I.M., and McHale, J. Gone but not forgotten: Knowledge flows, labor mobility, and enduring social relationships. Journal of Economic Geography, 6:571–591, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahuja, G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3):425–455, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Albert, R. and Barabasi, A.-L. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Reviews of Modern Physics, 74(1):49, 2002.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bell, G.G. Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 26:287–295, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonacich, P. Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92(5):1170–1182, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Borgatti, S.P. Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27:55–71, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Breschi, S. and Lissoni, F. (2006). “Cross-firm” inventors and social networks: Local knowledge spillovers revisited. Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, pp. 79–80.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brin, S. and Page, L. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Computer Networks, 30(1–7):107–117, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Burt, R. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen, H., Roco, M.C., Li, X., and Lin, Y. Trends in Nanotechnology Patents. Nature Nanotechnology, 3(3):123–125, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chesbrough, H.W. and Tece, D.J. When is virtual virtuous? organizing for innovation. Harvard Business Review, 74(1):65–74, 1996.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fleming, L. Recombinant uncertainty in technological research. Management Science, 47(1):117–132, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fleming, L., King, C., and Juda, A. Small worlds and regional innovation, 18(6):2007.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fortunato, S. Community detection in graphs, 2009 (Publication no. arXiv:0906.0612v1). from Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freeman, L.C. Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1:215–239, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freeman, L.C., Borgatti, S.P., and White, D.R. Centrality in valued graphs: A measure of betweenness based on network flow. Social Networks, 13:141–154, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Friedkin, N.E. Theoretical foundations for centrality measures. American Journal of Sociology, 96:1478–1504, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Girvan, M., and Newman, M.E.J. Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(12):7821–7826, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hansen, M.T. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44:82–111, 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hansen, M.T. Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13(3):232–248, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Henderson, R.M., and Cockburn, I. Measuring competence: Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal, 15:63–84, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huang, Z., Chen, H., Chen, Z.-K., and Roco, M.C. International nanotechnology development in 2003: Country, institution, and technology field analysis based on USPTO patent database. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6:325–354, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jaffe, A.B., and Trajtenberg, M. Patents, Citations, and Innovations: A Window on the Knowledge Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kogut, B., and Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3):383–397, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lanjouw, J.O. and Schankerman, M. Characteristics of patent litigation: A window of competition. Journal Law and Economics, 38:463–495, 2001.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leon, D., Albert, D.-G., Jordi, D., and Alex, A. Comparing community structure identification. Journal of Statistical Mechanics, (9):8, 2005.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lorrain, F. and White, H.C. Structural equivalence of individuals in social networks. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(January), 49–80, 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nerkar, A. Old is gold? the value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Management Science, 49(2):211–229, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nerkar, A. and Paruchuri, S. Evolution of R&D capabilities: The role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science, 51(5):771–785, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Newman, M.E.J. Who is the best connected scientist? a study of scientific coauthorship networks. In E. Ben-Naim, H. Frauenfelder and Z. Toroczkai (eds), Complex Networks, pp. 337–370. Berlin: Springer, 2004.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Newman, M.E.J. A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks. Social Networks, 27:39–54, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Newman, M.E.J. and Girvan, M. Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E, 69:026113, 2004.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Noh, J.D. and Rieger, H. Stability of shortest paths in complex networks with random edge weights. Physical Review E, 66:066127, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Patrakosol, B. and Olson, D.L. How interfirm collaboration benefits IT innovation. Information & Management, 44:53–62, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Podolny, J.M. and Stuart, T.E. A role-based ecology of technological change. The American Journal of Sociology, 100(5):1224–1260, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rappa, M.A., and Garud, R. Modeling contribution spans of scientists in a field: The case of cochlear implants. R&D Management, 22(4):337–348, 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reagans, R. and Zuckerman, E.W. Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4):502–517, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rosenkopf, L., and Nerkar, A. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration and impact in the optical disc industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22:287–306, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scott, J. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook (2nd ed.). London: Sage, 2000.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Singh, J. Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51(5):756–770, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Singh, J. External collaboration, social networks and knowledge creation: Evidence from Scientific Publications. Paper presented at the Danish Research Unit of Industrial Dynamics Summer Conference 2007, Denmark, 2007.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J.W., and Fleming, L. Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Paper presented at the DRUID Tenth Anniversary Summer Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sorenson, O. and Stuart, T.E. Syndication networks and the spatial diffusion of venture capital investments. American Journal of Sociology, 106:1546–1588, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stephenson, K.A. and Zelen, M. Rethinking centrality: Methods and examples. Social Networks, 11:1–37, 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tsai, W.P. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4):996–1004, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Uzzi, B. and Spiro, J. Collaborations and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2):447–504, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer US 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information SciencesTowson UniversityTowsonUSA
  2. 2.Eller College of ManagementUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations