BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Runiewicz-Wardyn Małgorzta (Kozminski University, Poland)
Tytuł
The Role Proximity Plays in University-Driven Social Networks. The Case of the US and EU Life-Science Clusters
Źródło
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), 2020, vol. 16, nr 3, s. 167-196, tab., rys., bibliogr. s. 190-194
Tytuł własny numeru
Proximity and Innovation in Clusters: How Close, How Far?
Słowa kluczowe
Więzi społeczne, Ekosystem, Innowacje, Uniwersytet, Innowacyjne sieci współpracy
Social bond, Ecosystem, Innovations, University, Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs)
Uwagi
Klasyfikacja JEL: D91, O31, R10
streszcz., summ.
Abstrakt
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)

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)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Adams, R. (2002). Social Policy For Social Work. Basingstoke: Palgrave.^http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-80178-3
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780429494468- 63
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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.
  19. European Commission. (2015). Open Innovation 2.0 Yearbook 2015. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/open-innovation- publications
  20. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-Industry- Government Innovation In Action. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203929605
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Fransman, M. (2018). Innovation Ecosystems: Increasing Competitiveness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://doi.org/10.1108459706
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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
  33. 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
  34. Glaeser, E., Kallal, H., Scheinkman, J., & Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal ofPolitical Economy, 100, 1126-1152. https://doi.org/10.1086/261856
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-80. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. Kenney, M. (2000). Understanding Silicon Valley. The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region. Stanford: Stanford University Press. http://doi.org/ 10.0804737347
  42. 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
  43. Krugman, P. (1991). Geography and Trade. Cambridge: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/1059-0560(92)90026-9
  44. 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
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. 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
  52. QS World University Rankings. (2018). Retrieved from www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2299-7075
Język
eng
URI / DOI
https://doi.org/10.7341/20201636
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu