经纪权力与知识整合:科研社会资本作用机制

Brokerage power and knowledge integration:Research on the mechanism of academic social capital

结构洞理论对社会网络研究贡献甚大,将社会网络分析的关注点从网络构型和连结强度转移到节点位置。根据该理论,社会资本根源于潜藏在网络断片之间的经纪机会,恰当地利用这种机会则会带来至少两种优势:第一,经纪权力,基于对网络断片之间交流通路的垄断控制,行动者可坐收渔利,以经纪人的身份安排其所沟连社群间的关系、控制其间资源流动,获取有利的套利比率。第二,知识整合,行动者在异质社群间担任连结纽带,得以接触并熟谙迥异的思维方式与默会知识,卓有效率地搜集新颖信息,进而率先发现创新机会,促进创新涌现。两种优势指向全然不同的社会机制,大多既往研究却未加甄别、混为一谈。本研究收集Science期刊2000-2018年刊载论文数据构建网络模型,运用回归分析方法,检验结构洞社会资本在科研场域的适用性,并比较结构洞两种优势的差异。结果表明:在科研合作网络中占据结构洞位置对收获同行承认有促进作用;知识整合的作用强度高于经纪权力。

Structural holes theory has great contributions to the research on social networks,which shifts the focus from network configuration and connection strength to the node location.According to this theory,social capital is rooted in the potential for brokering opportunities hidden among network fragments,and appropriate use of such opportunities can bring at least two advantages:First,brokerage power.By controlling the path through network segmentations,brokers as tertius gaudens can arrange the communication of the segmentations,control the flows of resources,and obtain the opportunities of arbitrage;Second,knowledge integration.Serving as a link between heterogeneous groups,actors access to and familiarize different ways of thinking and diverse tacit knowledge,effectively collecting novel information,and thereby taking the lead in discovering innovative opportunities and promoting innovation.However,most of the previous studies confused and undistinguished these two advantages that are rooted in completely different social mechanisms.We collect the information of publication in Science from 2000 to 2018 to build the network model,test the hypotheses of structural holes theory in the scientific research field by regression analysis,and compare these two advantages of the structural holes in the scientific co-authorship network.The results show:Occupation of structural holes promotes peer recognition;The role of the knowledge integration surpass that of the brokerage power.The theoretical significance of this study are as follows:First,this research clearly define and summarize the advantages of structural holes as two different mechanisms:brokerage power and knowledge integration,which is ambiguous in the existing literature.Although these two mechanisms have certain connections and sometimes may play a role together in individual cases,they are distinct social mechanisms,and thus clearly distinguishing them is of importance.Second,this research uses different measures to separately quantify the brokerage power and knowledge integration and compare these two different mechanisms of structural holes.We use the betweenness centrality to measure the brokerage power and the constraint coefficient to measure the knowledge integration.The betweenness centrality aims to measure the degree to which nodes are located at the"transportation hub"of the entire network lines.The constraint coefficient is a comprehensive indicator that measures the degree of the heterogeneity of node groups that directly and indirectly connected to the nodes.Therefore,these two measures are effective tools for brokerage power and knowledge integration,respectively.Most existing related studies often ignore the differences between mediation centrality and constraint coefficient,and generally just choose one as the measure of structural holes.This study analyzes the difference between these two measures and compare their effect on the citation.Thirdly,this study innovatively finds out that knowledge integration in academia is more effective in improving professional situations than brokerage power.Brokerage power builds advantages based on others'dependence on academic resources and opportunities for collaboration.The heterogeneity of the communities connected by the"transportation hub"may adversely weaken its power base,thus being ineffective in large-scale scientific research networks with strong heterogeneity.The advantages of knowledge integration are precisely based on the heterogeneity of surrounding communities.Only by re-creating concepts from disparate and sometimes contradictory sources can innovation emerge and win recognition from peers across academic fields.