Much of the prior research on interorganizational learning has focused on the role of absorptive capacity, a firm's ability to value, assimilate, and utilize new external knowledge. However, this definition of the construct suggests that a firm has an equal capacity to learn from all other organizations. We reconceptualize the firm-level construct absorptive capacity as a learning dyad-level construct, relative absorptive capacity. One firm's ability to learn from another firm is argued to depend on the similarity of both firms' (1) knowledge bases, (2) organizational structures and compensation policies, and (3) dominant logics. We then test the model using a sample of pharmaceutical–biotechnology R&D alliances. As predicted, the similarity of the partners' basic knowledge, lower management formalization, research centralization, compensation practices, and research communities were positively related to interorganizational learning. The relative absorptive capacity measures are also shown to have greater explanatory power than the established measure of absorptive capacity, R&D spending. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3094223.pdf

Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning

bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis

How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines

https://iris.polito.it/bitstream/11583/2522888/1/SmartCity_Trends_%20paper.pdf

Current trends in Smart City initiatives: some stylised facts

The definitions of the term ‘bibliometrics’ as used in the literature are examined and evaluated. Most such definitions are held to be too broad. A new definition is proposed; then its advantages and possible defects pointed out. A crucial question is whether Zipf's law of word occurrence should be considered a part of this particular sub-discipline.

A. Pritchard

Papers

Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics