| Abstract: |
Social embeddedness appears to be a promising way to analyze knowledge
collaborations, notably to better understand their build up and their spatial
patterns. Nevertheless, measurement problems and an over-territorialized
conception of the notion exist. When studying the formation of these
partnerships, authors have underlined the embeddedness of innovators in social
ties as a major factor (Walker, Kogut, 1994 ; Zucker et al., 1998); others
have shed light on institutional devices (Ponomariov, Boardman, 2010 ; Eom,
Lee, 2010), but few have integrated both relational and institutional forms of
embeddedness. Moreover, “embeddedness is mostly conceived of as a spatial
concept related to the local and regional levels of analysis†(Hess, 2004):
scholars argued (Moka et al., 2007) and showed (Fischer, 1982 ; Wellman, 1996;
Grossetti, 2002) that social ties easily build-up in the neighborhood. They
thus conclude social embeddedness favors local partnerships without
demonstrating it really. Finally at the empirical level, precise data are
missing to identify social embeddedness (Giuri, Mariani, 2007). Therefore,
regarding the existing studies, “the analytical scales and the spatiality of
embeddedness needs to be scrutinized†(Hess, 2004) theoretically and
empirically to determine “who is embedded, in what and what is so spatial
about it ?†(Pike et al., 2000). We propose here to address this deficit
thanks to the formulation of a method robust enough. In this perspective, an
analytical framework which does not postulate the social network hegemony is
needed. We realized further theoretical refinements by introducing the concept
of « coordination resources » to indicate modalities that permit connections
between actors without using interpersonal ties. To identify embeddedness
effects, we then present an original method essentially based on interviews.
We use it to a group of 264 cases of science-industry collaborations realized
in France. Several results are revealed thanks to statistical and econometric
treatments. We reaffirm the major weigh of social embeddedness in the build-up
of partnerships and the complementary role of coordination resources. Social
embeddedness appears to be independent from the partners features. It
nevertheless impacts the geography of the partnership although it is not
possible to associate systematically social embeddedness and local
collaborations. |