| Literature DB >> 34074011 |
Long Cheng1, Meng Wang1, Xuming Lou1, Zifeng Chen1, Yang Yang1.
Abstract
Divisive faultlines caused by the uneven distribution of relationship strength play an essential role in knowledge search in the technological innovation network, which serves as an important requirement for the technological innovation network's macro level to expand to the meso-subgroup level and promote its healthy development. Given that the biopharmaceutical industry, as a high-tech industry, plays a vital role in promoting healthy development, this paper uses the joint patent applications of global biopharmaceutical firms from 2003 to 2018 as a sample to construct a technological innovation network, to explore the relationship between divisive faultlines and knowledge search in the technological innovation network. We also study the moderating effect of structural holes in this relationship. The empirical results show that divisive faultlines significantly affect the depth of knowledge search in the technological innovation network. Divisive faultlines have an inverted U-shaped effect on the breadth of knowledge search in the technological innovation network. Structural holes positively moderate the relationship between divisive faultlines and depth of knowledge search but negatively moderate the inverted U-shaped relationship between divisive faultlines and breadth of knowledge search. This research reveals the relationship between divisive faultlines and the knowledge search in the technological innovation network. The research results provide a theoretical basis and management enlightenment to improve biopharmaceutical firms' knowledge search ability and promote healthy and sustainable development.Entities:
Keywords: biopharmaceutical; divisive faultlines; health; knowledge search; structural holes; technological innovation network
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34074011 PMCID: PMC8197315 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18115614
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The theoretical model.
Descriptive statistics and person correlation matrix.
| Variable | Mean | Sd | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. KSD | 0.508 | 0.198 | 1 | ||||||||
| 2. KSB | 4.862 | 2.184 | 0.550 *** | 1 | |||||||
| 3. DF | 0.904 | 0.313 | 0.051 ** | 0.040 * | 1 | ||||||
| 4. SH | 0.483 | 0.193 | 0.046 * | −0.344 *** | 0.395 *** | 1 | |||||
| 5. NS | 7.923 | 6.077 | −0.032 | 0.347 *** | −0.146 *** | −0.644 *** | 1 | ||||
| 6. ND | 0.426 | 0.302 | 0.006 | −0.256 *** | 0.247 *** | 0.633 *** | −0.283 *** | 1 | |||
| 7. BC | 0.693 | 1.623 | −0.096 *** | 0.343 *** | −0.150 *** | −0.452 *** | 0.527 *** | −0.318 *** | 1 | ||
| 8. KB | 9.195 | 3.946 | −0.239 *** | 0.575 *** | 0.028 | −0.452 *** | 0.448 *** | −0.322 *** | 0.522 *** | 1 | |
| 9. TRDC | 12.043 | 14.269 | −0.104 *** | 0.563 *** | 0.041 * | −0.469 *** | 0.595 *** | −0.361 *** | 0.551 *** | 0.781 *** | 1 |
Notes: n = 1798; ***, **, and * denote statistical significances at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Multicollinearity test.
| Variable Name | Variable Representation | Variance Inflation Factor | Tolerance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Divisive Faultlines | DF | 1.32 | 0.760 |
| Structural Holes | SH | 3.28 | 0.305 |
| Network Size | NS | 2.48 | 0.403 |
| Network Density | ND | 1.85 | 0.541 |
| Betweenness Centrality | BC | 1.69 | 0.592 |
| Knowledge Base | KB | 2.81 | 0.356 |
| Technology research and development Capability | TRDC | 3.40 | 0.294 |
Regression results.
| Variable | KSD | KSB | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
| NS | −0.013 * | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.016 | 0.019 | 0.018 * |
| (0.007) | (0.004) | (0.004) | (0.015) | (0.015) | (0.011) | |
| ND | 0.290 *** | 0.203 *** | 0.165 *** | −0.029 | 0.002 | 0.249 *** |
| (0.023) | (0.015) | (0.014) | (0.030) | (0.031) | (0.030) | |
| BC | −0.098 *** | −0.049 *** | −0.035 *** | 0.211 *** | 0.202 *** | 0.084 *** |
| (0.013) | (0.007) | (0.006) | (0.037) | (0.036) | (0.027) | |
| KB | −0.015 | −0.003 | −0.001 | 0.013 | 0.000 | −0.031 |
| (0.016) | (0.009) | (0.009) | (0.040) | (0.040) | (0.030) | |
| TRDC | 0.016 | −0.058 *** | −0.036 *** | 0.242 *** | 0.256 *** | 0.087 *** |
| (0.010) | (0.006) | (0.006) | (0.028) | (0.030) | (0.023) | |
| DF | 0.798 *** | 0.706 *** | 1.971 *** | 2.057 *** | ||
| (0.022) | (0.020) | (0.378) | (0.349) | |||
| DF2 | −1.633 *** | −1.293 *** | ||||
| (0.281) | (0.277) | |||||
| SH | 0.241 *** | −1.791 *** | ||||
| (0.024) | (0.073) | |||||
| DF × SH | 0.242 *** | −4.330 ** | ||||
| (0.069) | (1.779) | |||||
| DF2 × SH | 3.369 ** | |||||
| (1.308) | ||||||
| _cons | 0.499 *** | 0.120 *** | 0.010 | 1.353 *** | 0.786 *** | 1.852 *** |
| (0.041) | (0.023) | (0.022) | (0.078) | (0.135) | (0.123) | |
| N | 1798.000 | 1798.000 | 1798.000 | 1798.000 | 1798.000 | 1798.000 |
| R2 | 0.5585 | 0.8614 | 0.8769 | 0.4072 | 0.4253 | 0.6840 |
| Wald chi2 | 502.79 | 3336.42 | 5573.28 | 289.57 | 366.70 | 1063.87 |
Notes: The statistics in parentheses are t-statistics. ***, **, and * denote the statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.
Figure 2The moderating effect of structural holes on divisive faultlines and the depth of the knowledge search.
Figure 3The moderating effect of structural holes on the divisive faultlines and the breadth of the knowledge search.
Results of the robustness test.
| Variable | KSD | KSB | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | Model 5 | Model 6 | |
| NS | −0.019 | −0.000 | −0.013 ** | 0.018 * | 0.022 ** | 0.021 ** |
| (0.013) | (0.008) | (0.006) | (0.010) | (0.010) | (0.010) | |
| ND | 0.685 *** | 0.432 *** | 0.098 *** | 0.030 * | 0.062 *** | −0.041 * |
| (0.035) | (0.024) | (0.019) | (0.015) | (0.017) | (0.025) | |
| BC | −0.333 *** | −0.193 *** | −0.136 *** | 0.153 *** | 0.145 *** | 0.153 *** |
| (0.024) | (0.014) | (0.010) | (0.011) | (0.011) | (0.011) | |
| KB | −0.031 | 0.001 | −0.011 | −0.002 | −0.008 | −0.008 |
| (0.023) | (0.014) | (0.010) | (0.016) | (0.016) | (0.016) | |
| TRDC | 0.068 *** | −0.083 *** | −0.045 *** | 0.094 *** | 0.105 *** | 0.113 *** |
| (0.013) | (0.009) | (0.006) | (0.010) | (0.010) | (0.010) | |
| DF | 1.377 *** | 1.382 *** | 1.102 *** | 1.208 *** | ||
| (0.029) | (0.019) | (0.148) | (0.167) | |||
| DF2 | −0.929 *** | −1.027 *** | ||||
| (0.109) | (0.129) | |||||
| SH | −1.392 *** | −0.425 *** | ||||
| (0.053) | (0.064) | |||||
| DF × SH | 1.063 *** | −2.626 ** | ||||
| (0.135) | (1.065) | |||||
| DF2 × SH | 1.780 ** | |||||
| (0.861) | ||||||
| _cons | −0.858 *** | −1.459 *** | −0.657 *** | 0.412 *** | 0.079 | 0.299 *** |
| (0.055) | (0.030) | (0.042) | (0.029) | (0.054) | (0.065) | |
| N | 1798.000 | 1798.000 | 1798.000 | 1798.000 | 1798.000 | 1798.000 |
| Pseudo R2 | 0.0285 | 0.0434 | 0.0465 | 0.0153 | 0.0160 | 0.0165 |
| Log−likelihood | −1365.9876 | −1345.0422 | −1340.6433 | −2405.076 | −2403.1779 | −2402.0112 |
Notes: The statistics in parentheses are t-statistics. ***, **, and * denote the statistical significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.