, Volume 84, Issue 3, pp 543–561 | Cite as

Identification of technological knowledge intermediaries

  • Hyojeong Lim
  • Yongtae Park


Intermediaries in a technological knowledge network have recently been highlighted as crucial innovation drivers that accelerate technological knowledge flows. Although the patent network analysis has been frequently used to monitor technological knowledge structures, it has examined only sources or recipients of the technological knowledge by mainly estimating technological knowledge inflows or outflows of a network node. This study, therefore, aims to identify technological knowledge intermediaries when a technology-level knowledge network is composed of several industries. First, types of technological knowledge flows are deductively classified into four types by highlighting industry affiliations of source technologies and recipient technologies. Second, a directed technological knowledge network is generated at the technology class level, using patent co-classification analysis. Third, for each class, mediating scores are measured according to the four types. The empirical analysis illustrates the Korea’s technological knowledge network between 2000 and 2008. As a result, the four types of mediating scores are compared between industries, and industry-wise technological knowledge intermediaries are identified. The proposed approach is practical to explore converging processes in technology development where technology classes act as technological knowledge intermediaries among diverse industries.


Technological knowledge intermediary Industry affiliation Patent co-classification Network analysis 


  1. Archibugi, D., & Pianta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation, 16(9), 451–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arundel, A., & Kabla, I. (1998). What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy, 27(2), 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basberg, B. L. (1984). Patent statistics and the measurement of technological change: An assessment of the Norwegian patent data, 1840–1980. World Patent Information, 6(4), 158–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bavelas, A. (1948). A mathematical model for group structures. Applied Anthropology, 7, 16–30.Google Scholar
  5. Breschi, S., Lissoni, F., & Malerba, F. (2003). Knowledge-relatedness in firm technological diversification. Research Policy, 32(1), 69–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burt, R. (1976). Positions in networks. Social Forces, 55(1), 93–122.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt, R. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, D. Z., Chang, H. W., Huang, M. H., & Fu, F. C. (2005). Core technologies and key industries in Taiwan from 1978 to 2002: A perspective from patent analysis. Scientometrics, 64(1), 31–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Engelsman, E. C., & van Raan, A. F. J. (1994). A patent-based cartography of technology. Research Policy, 23(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernandez, R. M., & Gould, R. V. (1994). A dilemma of state power: Brokerage and influence in the national health policy domain. The American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1455–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeman, L. (1977). A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40(1), 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galaskiewicz, J., & Krohn, K. (1984). Positions, roles, and dependencies in a community interorganizational system. Sociological Quarterly, 25, 527–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators: A Survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(4), 1661–1707.Google Scholar
  15. Grupp, H. (1996). Spillover effects and the science base of innovations reconsidered: An empirical approach. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 6(2), 175–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall, B., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2001). The NBER patent citation data file: Lessons, insights and methodological tools. NBER working paper no. W8498, Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
  17. Han, Y., & Park, Y. (2006). Patent network analysis of inter-industrial knowledge flows: The case of Korea between traditional and emerging industries. World Patent Information, 28(3), 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heinze, T., & Bauer, G. (2007). Characterizing creative scientists in nano-S&T: Productivity, multidisciplinarity, and network brokerage in a longitudinal perspective. Scientometrics, 70(3), 811–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ho, M., & Verspagen, B. (2006). The role of national borders and regions in knowledge flows. In E. H. Lorenz & B. Å. Lundvall (Eds.), How Europe’s economies learn: Coordinating competing models (pp. 50–73). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market values. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984.Google Scholar
  22. Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1999). International knowledge flows: Evidence from patent citations. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8(1), 105–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keenan, M. (2002). Identifying emerging generic technologies at the national level: The UK experience. Journal of Forecasting, 22(2–3), 129–160.Google Scholar
  24. Lacasa, I., Grupp, H., & Schmoch, U. (2003). Tracing technological change over long periods in Germany in chemicals using patent statistics. Scientometrics, 57(2), 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leydesdorff, L. (1987). Various methods for the mapping of science. Scientometrics, 11(5), 295–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Betweenness centrality as an indicator of the interdisciplinarity of scientific journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(9), 1303–1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lissoni, F. (2008). Academic inventors as brokers: An exploratory analysis of the KEINS database. CESPRI working paper.Google Scholar
  28. Ma, Z., & Lee, Y. (2008). Patent application and technological collaboration in inventive activities: 1980–2005. Technovation, 28(6), 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marsden, P. (1982). Brokerage behavior in restricted exchange networks. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 201–218). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  30. No, H. J., & Park, Y. (2009). Trajectory patterns of technology fusion: Trend analysis and taxonomical grouping in nanobiotechnology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change (in press). doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2009.06.006.
  31. OECD. (1994). The measurement of scientific and technological activities: Using patent data as science and technology indicators. Paris, OECD. OCDE/GD(94)114.Google Scholar
  32. Okamura, K., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). European alliance and knowledge networks. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 18(5), 535–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oppenheim, C. (2000). Do patent citations count? In B. Cronin & H. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge (pp. 405–432). Medford: Information Today.Google Scholar
  34. Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ronde, P. (2001). Technological clusters with a knowledge-based principle: Evidence from a Delphi investigation in the French case of the life sciences. Research Policy, 30(7), 1041–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scherer, F. M. (1982). Inter-industry technology flows in the United States. Research Policy, 11(4), 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shin, J., Lee, W., & Park, Y. (2006). On the benchmarking method of patent-based knowledge flow structure: Comparison of Korea and Taiwan with USA. Scientometrics, 69(3), 551–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shin, J., & Park, Y. (2007). Building the national ICT frontier: The case of Korea. Information Economics and Policy, 19, 249–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Todorov, R. (1989). Co-classification analysis for science mapping: An example from superconductivity. In A. F. J. Van Raan, A. J. Nederhof, & H. F. Moed (Eds.), Science and technology indicators (pp. 261–270). University of Leiden: DSWO Press.Google Scholar
  40. Verspagen, B. (1997). Measuring intersectoral technology spillovers: Estimates from the European and US patent office databases. Economic Systems Research, 9(1), 47–65.Google Scholar
  41. Verspagen, B. (1999). Large firms and knowledge flows in the Dutch R&D system: A case study of Philips electronics. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 11(2), 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verspagen, B. (2001). Small worlds and technology networks: The case of European research collaboration. KNOW conference. Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  43. Verspagen, B., & De Loo, I. (1999). Technology spillovers between sectors over time. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 60(3), 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yoffie, D. B. (1997). Competing in the age of digital convergence. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technology Management, Economics and Policy ProgramSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringSeoul National UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations