Social Networks and Scientific Problem-Solving

• In Event: 1555 - Section on Science, Knowledge, and Technology Refereed Roundtables (1 hour)
  In Refereed Roundtable 60min: 6. Sociology of Knowledge: How Fields and Domains Reach Consensus and Solve Problems

Abstract

Problem-solving is a vital aspect of scientific innovation. It is especially important in the biopharmaceutical field which, despite its innovative reputation, faces high project failure rates. In this field, problem-solving is a social activity; biopharmaceutical scientists utilize network contacts to move their projects forward in the face of challenging research obstacles. This paper studies what types of social network contacts facilitate biopharmaceutical scientists’ problem-solving efforts during the first two problem-solving phases when they first identify the presence of a problem and try to understand its nature. Extant research suggests that different types of social network contacts are optimal for the demands of each of these two phases. While intuitive, there may be path dependence between phases. Interestingly, two theoretical perspectives set different expectations whether contacts that prove helpful at one problem-solving phase will continue to prove helpful at the other problem-solving phase. To ask the question of what types of social network contacts facilitate each of two problem-solving phases, I draw upon concepts and theories from cognitive psychology, tie strength, knowledge networks, organizational authority, and the “needs perspective” of creative innovation. To answer this question, I utilize data from a survey about scientific problem-solving and social networks administered to members of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists. These data are modeled with a multi-level path model with fixed effects that controls for respondent-level characteristics, path dependence, and several other controls. Limitations, directions for future study, and implications of results for the study of problem solving, creativity, and other parts of the innovation process are discussed.

Author

• David Jeremy McBee, University of Arizona