PL EN


Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2020 | 16 | nr 3 Proximity and Innovation in Clusters: How Close, How Far? | 167--196
Tytuł artykułu

The Role Proximity Plays in University-Driven Social Networks. The Case of the US and EU Life-Science Clusters

Warianty tytułu
Języki publikacji
EN
Abstrakty
W ciągu ostatniej dekady badania w dziedzinie technologii i innowacji posunęły się w kierunku rozwoju pojęcia "ekosystemu" innowacji. Takie podejście stało się szczególnie przydatne w zrozumieniu dynamiki związanej ze złożonym procesem inwencji i jego przełożeniem na innowację, która dalej rozprzestrzenia się w społeczeństwie. Koncepcja ekosystemu innowacji opiera się na założeniu, że innowacje i postęp technologiczny nie wynikają z wynalazczych wysiłków jednej osoby, lecz raczej ze wspólnych wysiłków badawczych i interakcji społecznych. Artykuł stanowi wkład w powstającą debatę na temat ekosystemów innowacji poprzez dostarczanie nowych informacji i wiedzy na temat struktury powiązań społecznych w uniwersyteckich ekosystemach innowacji. W szczególności celem artykułu jest zbadanie roli różnych typów bliskości w budowaniu więzi społecznych w uniwersyteckich ekosystemach innowacji na przykładzie sektora nauk przyrodniczych i biotechnologii. Omawiane są dwa główne problemy badawcze: 1) struktura i rodzaj sieci społecznych w otoczeniu wybranych uniwersytetów oraz 2) rola bliskości - geograficznej, społecznej, poznawczej, technologicznej, instytucjonalnej i kulturowej - jako czynnika silniejszych więzi społecznych i częstszych interakcji. Autorka stosuje wywiad jakościowy i metody obserwacji bezpośredniej, które pozwalają lepiej zrozumieć złożoną naturę tworzenia się powiązań społecznych w ramach ekosystemu uniwersyteckiego nauk przyrodniczych. Badanie obejmuje kilka wybranych ekosystemów uniwersyteckich nauk przyrodniczych w Unii Europejskiej i Stanach Zjednoczonych. Wyniki wywiadów, analiza dostępnej literatury przedmiotu oraz innych zebranych dowodów empirycznych, umożliwiają opracowanie odpowiednich wniosków oraz implikacji dla polityki i dalszych badań. (abstrakt oryginalny)
EN
Over the last decade, the research in the field of technology and innovation has progressed towards the development of the notion of an 'ecosystem' that lays within the idea that innovation and technological advances stem from collective research efforts and social interactions. The paper delivers new insights on successful university-based innovation ecosystems, by exploring the role of proximities in university-driven social networks. Two research problems are discussed: 1/ the structure and dynamics of university-driven social networks, and 2/ the role of proximities as pre-conditions for stronger social ties and more frequent interactions. The author applies a qualitative interview and direct observation methods on the example of several selected life-science university-based ecosystems in the EU and the US. The study identifies several fundamental relationships: (1) the presence of high physical, cognitive and organizational proximities within university-based ecosystems contributes to social networking and the interchange of knowledge; (2) cognitive and organizational proximities are the primary motives for social collaborations within university-based ecosystems; (3) physical proximity matters most when strong social networks already exist; (4) physical proximity allows ecosystem players to have more informal interactions; (5) cultural and social proximities increase more effective communication, trust and knowledge sharing; (6) social networking within university-based ecosystems may be partially engineered by the brokerage function of intermediary organizations and managers, aiming to narrow organizational, technological and cognitive proximities between ecosystem players. Bridging organizational, cognitive and social distances must be one of the regional innovation policies priorities. Further research must consider increasing technological convergence, shortening technological cycles and globalization processes within the life-science sector. (original abstract)
Twórcy
  • Kozminski University, Poland
Bibliografia
  • Adams, R. (2002). Social Policy For Social Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave.^http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-80178-3
  • Adler, P.S., & Kwon, S.W. (2000). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27, 17-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/4134367
  • Antonelli, C. (2000). Collective knowledge communication and innovation: The evidence of technological districts. Regional Studies, 34, 535-547. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343400050085657
  • Anselin, L., Acs, Z., & Varga, A. (1997). Entrepreneurship, geographic spillovers and university research: A spatial econometric approach. Journal of Urban Economics, 42, 422-448. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.1997.2032
  • Audretsch, D.B., & Stephan, P.E. (1996). Company-scientist locational links: The case of biotechnology. The American Economic Review, 86, 641-652. 10.4236/ojpm.2011.13012
  • Audretsch, D.B., & Feldman, M.P. (2004). Knowledge spillovers and the geography of innovation. Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 4, 13-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1574-0080(04)80018-X
  • Autio, E., & Thomas, L. (2014). Innovation ecosystems: Implications for innovation. In M. Dodgson,D. Gann, N. & Phillips (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Management. Oxford: Oxford Handbooks. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199694945.013.012
  • Bania, N., Eberts, R., & Fogarty, M. (1993). Universities and the startup of new companies: Can we generalize from Route 128 and Silicon Valley? The Review of Economics and Statistics. 75, 761-766. https://doi.org/10.2307/2110037
  • Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429494468- 63
  • Baptista, R. (2001). Geographical clusters and innovation diffusion. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 66(1), 31-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(99)00057-8
  • Broekel, T. & Boschma, R. (2016). The cognitive and geographical structure of knowledge links and how they influence firms' innovation performance. Regional Statistics, 6(2), 3-26. https://doi.org/10.15196/RS06201
  • Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887
  • Brockhoff, K., & Teichert, T. (1995). Cooperative R&D and partners' measures of success International. International Journal of Technology Management, 10(1),111-123. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.1995.025617
  • Caniëls, M., Kronenberg, K., & Werker, C. (2014). Conceptualizing proximity in research collaborations between universities and firms. In R. Rutten, P.Benneworth, D.Irawati,& F. Boekema (Eds.), The Social Dynamics of Innovation Networks, Oxon: Routledge.
  • Carayannis, E., & Campbell, D. (2012). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other?. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41-69. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2
  • Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. University technology transfer offices: Parametric and non-parametric evidence. Research Policy, 3(34), 369-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.007
  • Christensen, T., Lämmer-Gamp, G., & Köcker, M. (2012). Let's make a perfect cluster policy and cluster programme. Berlin/Copenhagen: The Danish Ministry of Science Innovation and Higher Education. Retrived from https://vdivde- it.de/system/files/pdfs/lets-make-a-perfect-cluster-policy-and-cluster-programme.pdf
  • Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology. 94, 95- 120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228943.
  • European Commission. (2015). Open Innovation 2.0 Yearbook 2015. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/open-innovation- publications
  • Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-Industry- Government Innovation In Action. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203929605
  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Journal of Social Science Information, 42(3), 293-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184030423002
  • Etzkowitz, H., Mello, J.M.C., & Almeida, M. (2005). Towards "meta-innovation" in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy, 34, 411-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.011
  • Feldman, M. (1999). The new economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: A review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8, 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599900000002
  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: A "triple helix" of university industry-government relations. Minerva, 36, 203-208. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004348123030
  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The triple helix: university - industry - government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development. EASST Review, 14, 14-19. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2480085
  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ''Mode 2'' to a triple helix of university-industry- government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99) 00055-4
  • Fisher, J. C., & Pry, R. (1971). A simple substitution model of technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 3, 75-88.^https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(71) 80005-7
  • Fitjar, R.D., Huber, F., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2016). Not too close, not too far: testing the Goldilocks principle of 'optimal' distance in innovation networks.. Industry and Innovation, 23(6), 465-487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2016.1184562
  • Fransman, M. (2018). Innovation Ecosystems: Increasing Competitiveness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1108459706
  • Huggins, R., Prokop, D., & Thompson, P. (2019). Universities and open innovation: The determinants of network centrality. Journal of Technology Transfer, 15(03). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09720-5
  • Johnston, A., & Huggins, R. (2017). University- industry links and the determinants of their spatial scope: A study of the knowledge intensive business services sector. Regional Science, 96(2), 247-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12185
  • McAdam, M., & Debackere, K., (2018). Beyond 'triple helix' toward 'quadruple helix' models in regional innovation systems: Implications for theory and practice, Journal of R&D Management, 48(1), 3-6. http://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12309
  • Garnsey, E., & Heffernan, P. (2010). High-technology clustering through spin-out and attraction: The Cambridge case. Regional Studies, 8(39), 1127-1144. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400500328289
  • Glaeser, E., Kallal, H., Scheinkman, J., & Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal ofPolitical Economy, 100, 1126-1152. https://doi.org/10.1086/261856
  • Golejewska, A. (2018). Innovativeness of enterprises in Poland in the regional context. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 14(1), 29-44. https://doi.org/10.7341/20181412
  • González-López, M., Dileo, I., & Losurdo, F. (2014). University-industry collaboration in the European regional context: The cases of Galicia and Apulia Region. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 10(3), 57- 88. https://doi.org/10.7341/20141033
  • Gordon, I.R., & McCann, P. (2000). Industrial clusters: Complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks?, Journal of Urban Studies, 37(3), 513-532. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098002096
  • Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-80. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
  • Hughes, A., & Kitson, M. (2012). Pathways to impact and the strategic role of universities: New evidence on the breadth and depth of university knowledge exchange in the UK and the factors constraining its development. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 723-750. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bes017
  • Kim, H. (2013). Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Assessing normal distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Journal of Restorative Dentistry Endodontics, 38(1), 52-54. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23495371
  • Kenney, M. (2000). Understanding Silicon Valley. The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region. Stanford: Stanford University Press. http://doi.org/ 10.0804737347
  • Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2006.00121
  • Krugman, P. (1991). Geography and Trade. Cambridge: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/1059-0560(92)90026-9
  • Jensen, C., & Tragardh, B. (2004). Narrating the triple helix concept in ''weak'' regions: Lessons from Sweden. International Journal of Technology Management, 27, 513- 530. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6536- 3_22
  • Lorenzen, M. (2007). Social capital and localised learning: Proximity and place in technological and institutional dynamics. Journal of Urban Studies, 44(4). https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980601184752
  • Maskell, P., & Mallberg, P. (1999). The competitiveness of firms and regions. 'Ubiquitification' and importance of localised learning. European Urban and Regional Studies, 6, 9-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/096977649900600102
  • Monge, P., Rothman, L., Eisenberg, E., Miller, K., & Kirste, K. (1985). The dynamics of organizational proximity. Management Science, 31, 1129-1141. http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.9.1129. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-66. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225
  • Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning by interaction: Absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4, 1-12. http://doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1009941416749
  • Petruzzelli, A.M. (2011). The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university-industry collaborations: A joint-patent analysis. Technovation, 31(7), 309-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.01.008
  • Ponds, R., Van Oort, F. G., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86, 423-443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00126.x
  • Ponds, R., Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2009). Innovation, spillovers and university-industry collaboration: An extended knowledge production function approach. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(2), 231-255. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbp036
  • QS World University Rankings. (2018). Retrieved from www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/
  • Saad, M., & Zawdie, G. (2011). Theory and Practice of Triple Helix Model in Developing Countries: Issues and Challenges.New York: Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838211
  • Schiumi, G., & Carlucci, D. (2018). Managing strategic partnerships with universities in innovation ecosystems: A research agenda. Journal of Open Innovation Technology, Market, and Complexity, 4(25). https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc4030025
  • Tratjenberg, M., Henderson R., & Jaffe, A. (1997). University versus corporate patents: A window on the basicness of invention. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 5, 19-50. https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599700000006
  • Tortoriello, M. (2015). The social underpinnings of absorptive capacity: The moderating effects of structural holes on innovation generation based on external knowledge. Journal of Strategic Management, 36 (4), 586-597. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2228
  • Evald, M., Klyver, K., & Svendsen, S. (2006). The changing importance of the strength of ties throughout the entrepreneurial process. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 14, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495806000027
  • Utterback, J., & Abernathy, W. (1975). A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega. 3(6), 639-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(75)90068-7
  • Vonortas, N. S. (2009). Innovation networks in industry. In F. Malerba, & N. S. Vonortas (Eds.), Innovation Networks in Industry. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. http://doi.org/10.1848448015
  • Werker, C., Ooms W., & Caniëls C. J. (2016). Personal and related kinds of proximity driving collaborations: A multi-case study of Dutch nanotechnology researchers. SpringerPlus, 5(1751). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3445-1
  • Ziemiański, P. (2018). The perception of an entrepreneur's structural, relational and cognitive social capital among young people in Poland - An exploratory study. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 14(1), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.7341/20181416
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.ekon-element-000171604087

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Zgłoszenie zostało wysłane

Musisz być zalogowany aby pisać komentarze.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.