Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Proximity across the distant worlds of university–industry collaborations

2020; Elsevier BV; Volume: 100; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/pirs.12586

1435-5957

Utku Ali Rıza Alpaydın, Rune Dahl Fitjar,

Intellectual Capital and Performance Analysis

Papers in Regional ScienceVolume 100, Issue 3 p. 689-711 FULL ARTICLEOpen Access Proximity across the distant worlds of university–industry collaborations Utku Ali Rıza Alpaydın, Corresponding Author Utku Ali Rıza Alpaydın utku.alpaydin@uis.no orcid.org/0000-0001-8025-6011 Centre for Innovation Research, Department of Innovation, Management and Marketing, UiS Business School, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway Correspondence Utku Ali Rıza Alpaydın, Centre for Innovation Research, Department of Innovation, Management and Marketing, UiS Business School, University of Stavanger, PO Box 8600 Forus, 4036 Stavanger, Norway. Email: utku.alpaydin@uis.noSearch for more papers by this authorRune Dahl Fitjar, Rune Dahl Fitjar orcid.org/0000-0001-5333-2701 Centre for Innovation Research, Department of Innovation, Management and Marketing, UiS Business School, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, NorwaySearch for more papers by this author Utku Ali Rıza Alpaydın, Corresponding Author Utku Ali Rıza Alpaydın utku.alpaydin@uis.no orcid.org/0000-0001-8025-6011 Centre for Innovation Research, Department of Innovation, Management and Marketing, UiS Business School, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway Correspondence Utku Ali Rıza Alpaydın, Centre for Innovation Research, Department of Innovation, Management and Marketing, UiS Business School, University of Stavanger, PO Box 8600 Forus, 4036 Stavanger, Norway. Email: utku.alpaydin@uis.noSearch for more papers by this authorRune Dahl Fitjar, Rune Dahl Fitjar orcid.org/0000-0001-5333-2701 Centre for Innovation Research, Department of Innovation, Management and Marketing, UiS Business School, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, NorwaySearch for more papers by this author First published: 24 November 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12586Citations: 1 Funding information: H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions, Grant/Award Number: 722295 AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstracten This paper examines the extent to which firms perceive different dimensions of proximity to be important for the formation of their interactions with universities. Furthermore, it investigates whether the importance of the different types of proximities varies depending on the type of interaction—be it about knowledge exploration, knowledge exploitation, competence enhancement, advice-seeking or marketing. Using data from a survey of 1,200 Norwegian firms, we find that most managers believe cognitive, institutional, social and geographical proximity were important for their decision to collaborate with university partners and that the importance of proximity types varies depending on the contents of the interaction. Resumenes Este artículo estudia en qué medida las empresas perciben la importancia de las diferentes dimensiones de la proximidad para la formación de interacciones con universidades. Además, se investiga si la importancia de los distintos tipos de proximidades varía en función del tipo de interacción, ya sea de exploración de conocimientos, de explotación de conocimientos, de mejora de la competencia, de búsqueda de asesoramiento o de comercialización. A partir de los datos de una encuesta realizada a 1.200 empresas noruegas, se pudo descubrir que la mayoría del personal gerente cree que la proximidad cognitiva, institucional, social y geográfica fueron importantes para su decisión de colaborar con sus socios de universidades y que la importancia de los tipos de proximidad varía en función del contenido de la interacción. 抄録ja 本稿では、企業が、大学とのインタラクションを形成するのに異なる近接性の次元が重要であると認める程度を検討する。さらに、タイプが異なる近接性の重要度は、知識探索、知識の搾取、能力強化、アドバイスの希求、またはマーケティングなど、インタラクションのタイプによって変わるのかどうかも検討する。ノルウェーの1,200の企業の調査から得たデータから、経営者のほとんどが認知的、制度的、社会的および地理的近接性が大学との共同活動を実施する意思決定に重要であると考えていること、および近接性の重要性はインタラクションの内容によって異なることが示された。 1 INTRODUCTION Universities and firms interact for multiple purposes, and their interactions therefore take many different forms. Firms collaborate with universities to explore new knowledge, for example, through contract research or joint research projects, and to exploit new knowledge through commercialization in the form of patents, licences or new spinoff firms. Firms also collaborate with universities to enhance their competence, for example, contributing to the education of university students or participating in training for firm staff. They may consult academics to solve their technical problems or seek advice on their activities, often in informal ways. And they may simply want to brand or market themselves by, for example, sponsoring the university or organizing events. However, university-industry interactions can be hard to realize. Universities and firms have been described as occupying different worlds (Bruneel, D'Este, & Salter, 2010), with differences in worldviews, organizational structures, values and cultures, goals and motivations acting as barriers to interaction. These distances are not the same across all university-firm relationships. Not all firms or all universities share the same values; have the same cognitive capacities; or operate under the same organizational principles (Sauermann & Stephan, 2013). They also do not matter equally for all types of collaboration but their importance will vary depending on the content and purpose of collaboration. Hence, university-industry interactions can play out differently in different cases, suggesting that different university–industry collaboration (UIC) types need to be tackled separately. Proximity (in a geographical as well as non-geographical sense) is important for the formation of networks (Boschma, 2005). If firms and universities occupy different worlds, a pertinent question is which dimensions of proximity can enable UIC of different types. Nonetheless, the number of studies looking at the importance of proximity dimensions in UICs has been limited (Ponds, van Oort, & Frenken, 2007; Steinmo & Rasmussen, 2018) and these works have largely focused on specific UIC mechanisms, such as joint research, co-patenting and spin-offs (Hoekman, Frenken, & van Oort, 2009; Marek, Titze, Fuhrmeister, & Blum, 2017). More importantly, existing studies have seldom examined the relative importance of various proximity dimensions in facilitating different forms of UICs (D'Este, Guy, & Iammarino, 2013). However, the different characteristics of UICs depending on the purpose of interactions require a closer examination of the interplay between various proximity dimensions and various UIC channels. Furthermore, prior research has employed crude measures for proximity dimensions instead of collecting primary data on actors' perceptions of the importance of proximity for the formation of the relationships. This paper fills these gaps in the literature and provides a more comprehensive understanding of the significance of proximity dimensions for a wide set of UIC channels. With the empirical analysis drawing on a customized survey of firms in Norway, conducted in 2018, this paper represents the first endeavour to analyze the role of various dimensions of proximity across different UIC channels. The results indicate that the majority of interactions occur with local and regional universities for all types of UICs. The analyses also indicate the importance of non-geographical proximity for UICs. However, the importance of proximity dimensions varies depending on the UIC type. We run a multinomial logit regression analysis to determine the relative significance of each proximity dimension for different UIC types. Compared to competence enhancement UICs, cognitive and institutional proximity matter more for knowledge exploration collaborations, while geographical proximity is less significant. Social proximity is perceived as more important by firms engaging in knowledge exploitation interactions. For advice-seeking interactions, organizational proximity is less important. The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, we discuss previous literature on distance(s) in UICs and the role of proximity in bringing the “two worlds” closer, outlining how different dimensions of proximity matter for different UIC types (Section 2). Then, we describe the data and methodology in Section 3. In Section 4, we present the findings of the analysis. A discussion of the results concludes the paper (Section 5). 2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2.1 Proximity in UICs The proximity framework provides a useful theoretical perspective on inter-organizational collaborations for knowledge exchange purposes (Nilsen & Lauvås, 2018). Proximity, defined as “being close to something measured on a certain dimension” (Knoben & Oerlemans, 2006, pp. 71–72), helps in overcoming co-ordination problems by facilitating communication and reducing uncertainty, and therefore, contributes to effective interaction in knowledge transfer between the partners (Boschma, 2005). Some studies argue that geographical proximity, or the co-location of the partners, facilitates the interaction process by allowing face-to-face communication that enables thick knowledge exchange (Storper & Venables, 2004), making knowledge, especially tacit knowledge, easier to transfer (Maskell & Malmberg, 1999). However, co-location does not necessarily ensure the effectiveness of the knowledge exchange, as it does not in itself lead partners to interact (Broekel & Boschma, 2012). Moreover, actors who are not located in close proximity can still effectively exchange knowledge, in many cases building on non-geographical dimensions of proximity—including cognitive, organizational, institutional, and social proximity (Boschma, 2005). Partners engaging in knowledge transfer need to be competent enough to understand each other—or in the proximity language, they must have cognitive proximity. Cognitive proximity depends on the similarity of the knowledge base of the agents (Boschma, 2005). For an effective knowledge transfer, the actors should be able to perceive, absorb, internalize and process the new knowledge coming from the other partner. This is easier if their knowledge base is similar. Organizational proximity denotes being subject to the same, or similar, control mechanisms and depends on the degree of formal arrangements governing the relationship between the actors (Fitjar, Huber, & Rodríguez-Pose, 2016). It reduces the chances for opportunistic behaviour of the partners in the knowledge exchange process by providing a control mechanism in the form of “checks-and-balances,” especially when the arrangement is formalized. Institutional proximity facilitates knowledge transfer by ensuring that the interacting parties are governed by similar hard/formal (regulations, laws etc.) and soft/informal (values, culture, language etc.) institutions (Boschma, 2005). Social proximity captures the social relations mainly emanating from prior ties, repeated interactions, friendship or kinship between the individuals involved in the collaboration (Boschma, 2005). Social proximity provides a solid basis for trust (Fitjar et al., 2016; Innocenti, Capone, & Lazzeretti, 2020), which works as a safeguard against opportunistic behaviour and, thus, facilitates communication and knowledge sharing. Notwithstanding the critical facilitative role of proximities in inter-organizational relationships, too much proximity can be detrimental to learning. Too much proximity may result in lock-in situations that can block the effectiveness of collaborations. If cognitive proximity is too high, the potential for learning becomes small. Excessive social proximity can be associated with nepotism, if actors choose to collaborate only with their personal friends. Too much organizational proximity can mean a highly bureaucratic framework with little room for maneouvre. Institutional proximity can work conservatively if established values and norms are not challenged. Hence, in innovation networks, the actors should be neither too close nor too far, but located at the right distance from each other to maximize the benefits from collaboration (Broekel & Boschma, 2012; Fitjar et al., 2016). While some distance is thus required for effective collaboration, several studies have shown that proximity increases the likelihood that a relationship is formed (Boschma & Frenken, 2010; Broekel & Boschma, 2012). University-industry collaborations represent a puzzle from the proximity perspective. Following divergent institutional logics, academia and businesses are said to represent “two worlds” (Hall, 2003; Hewitt-Dundas, Gkypali, & Roper, 2019), suggesting irreconcilable distances between them. Universities and firms differ in their orientations—due to dissimilarities in worldviews and motivations—and encounter transactional difficulties, arising from the inflexibility of university administrations and conflicts regarding intellectual property (Bruneel et al., 2010). In this regard, UICs involve proximity structures that are characterized by distance rather than proximity. Despite the distances, UICs are being formed between academic and industrial actors. This suggests that the distances can be bridged and barriers can be overcome in UICs. In order to achieve this, the social and relational characteristics of actors are of crucial importance in UICs (Al-Tabbaa & Ankrah, 2016, 2019). The proximity of the interacting partners presents pre-conditions that either hinder or facilitate the collaboration process in UICs (Rajalo & Vadi, 2017; Slavtchev, 2013; Steinmo & Rasmussen, 2018). Against this backdrop, various studies have shown that individual dimensions of proximity affect the formation of UICs and the interaction process (Cao, Derudder, & Peng, 2019; Crescenzi, Filippetti, & Iammarino, 2017; D'Este et al., 2013). One strongly held argument in the literature is the prominence of geographical proximity in easing the collaborations, and thus the more prevalent realization of UICs between universities and firms located in close geographical proximity. Knowledge generated at universities spills over to geographically proximate industrial actors more easily than to distant firms (Jaffe, Trajtenberg, & Henderson, 1993) and tends to remain in the localities where the universities are established (D'Este et al., 2013). Firms, especially in science-based sectors such as biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, tend to locate their R&D establishments in close vicinity of research universities. University spin-off firms primarily concentrate around universities and research institutes (Ponds, Oort, & Frenken, 2010). The firms around universities also benefit from access to graduates staying in the local area after their studies. Firms tend to initially approach nearby universities when looking for collaboration partners. The majority of UICs hence takes place in close geographic proximity (Fitjar & Gjelsvik, 2018). Non-geographical dimensions of proximity further facilitate the formation and management of UICs. Cognitive proximity can make communication between universities and firms easier by building a shared understanding based on the similarities of knowledge bases of universities and firms. Organizational proximity in UICs can be achieved through common membership of the same organizational structures, such as research centres (Kuttim, 2016). Villani, Rasmussen, and Grimaldi (2017) argue that “intermediary organizations” such as technology transfer offices (TTOs) and collaborative research centres (CRCs) facilitate UICs by creating organizational proximity. Institutional proximity, conceptualized as the similarity of institutional arrangements (such as intellectual property rights regimes and common language) at the national level (Hoekman et al., 2009) or as the subordination of firms and universities to the same overarching institutional authorities (Hong & Su, 2013), has been found to facilitate UICs. Finally, social proximity in the form of having graduates from a specific university increases the likelihood of firms collaborating with that university in Denmark (Drejer & Østergaard, 2017), presumably in part due to their social connections to faculty. Crescenzi, Nathan, and Rodríguez-Pose (2016) show that social proximity plays a significant role in the co-patenting behaviour of researchers with firms in the UK. Previous collaborative experiences also positively influence the success of R&D-related UICs in Spain (Mora-Valentin, Montoro-Sanchez, & Guerras-Martin, 2004). Even though the role of proximity dimensions in UICs has been examined, prior research lacks several perspectives that we attempt to address in this paper. First, existing studies often focus on a single proximity dimension, typically geographical proximity (D'Este & Iammarino, 2010; D'Este & Perkmann, 2011; Johnston & Huggins, 2017; Laursen, Reichstein, & Salter, 2011; Ponds et al., 2010; Tijssen, Klippe, & Yegros, 2020). Second, studies that include a broad proximity perspective typically use indirect measures of proximity, and rarely take the perspective of the firm. Finally, no previous studies have examined how important proximity is for different types of collaboration. Therefore, this paper asks: how important are the various dimensions of proximity in the emergence of UICs of different types? 2.2 Which types of proximity for which types of interaction? Firms establish collaborations with universities in various forms, ranging from formal R&D collaboration to graduate recruitment, from joint patenting to informal consultations (Fernández-Esquinas, Pinto, Yruela, & Pereira, 2016; Muscio, 2013). The organizational involvement of the actors, the degree of formalization of the relationship, the intensity and frequency of contact, and the thickness of knowledge exchange vary greatly across UIC types. The literature on UICs has developed different typologies for UIC channels. For instance, Ankrah and Al-Tabbaa's (2015) systematic review presents six categories for organizational forms of UICs, covering 41 distinct activities. Hughes and Kitson (2012) report four “pathways”—people-based activities, community-based activities, commercialization activities and problem-solving activities—through which academics and businesses interact. A report prepared for the European Commission identified 14 UIC activities in four different areas: education, research, valorization and management (Davey, Galan Muros, Meerman, Orazbayeva, & Baaken, 2018). Many of these typologies classify UICs from the perspective of universities. In this study, we instead consider various rationales based on the needs and purposes of collaborations from the perspective of the firm. We distinguish between five broad categories of UICs: “knowledge exploration UICs” are mainly concerned with the generation of new knowledge that businesses lack internally. This can take the form of contract research or joint research activities. The research activities may lead to commercial outputs such as new patents or the establishment of new ventures, which we refer to as “knowledge exploitation interactions.” These interactions seek to commercially valorize the knowledge. “Competence enhancement interactions” address activities aiming to increase the internal capabilities of firms, such as education, training or the mobility of staff and students. Firms often seek out academics for advice on issues they face, resulting in UICs in the form of informal consultations, which we term “advice-seeking interactions.” Finally, firms may collaborate with universities to gain public visibility and increase their image and reputation, for example, through sponsorships or the organization of events. We call these UICs “‘marketing interactions.” The various channels of interaction between universities and firms have different characteristics (Gertner, Roberts, & Charles, 2011). The degree of actors' involvement, the type of knowledge concerned (tacit or codified) (Gertler, 2003), the intensity and frequency of contact (Storper & Venables, 2004), and the institutionalization of the interaction structure vary greatly by the type of UIC. In the light of these differences, we should not expect each and every UIC channel to follow the same interaction pattern (Ramos-Vielba, Fernández-Esquinas, & Espinosa-de-los-Monteros, 2010). Although various types of collaboration between universities and firms fall under the broad banner of UIC, the interaction channels require different types of proximity. This requires a closer examination of how proximities affect the UIC types individually. Therefore, this paper poses the following research question: does the importance of proximity depend on the type of UIC? Based on the needs of each type of interaction, we expect the various proximity dimensions to be more or less important for the different types. For example, collaborative research activities can take place between actors situated far from each other, especially in science-based industries, due to the codified nature of the exchanged knowledge (Ponds et al., 2010). The need for face-to-face communication during the implementation of joint research projects may be satisfied through regular meetings. Therefore, for knowledge exploration interactions, geographical proximity is less important than for other types of interactions (Abramovsky & Simpson, 2011; Thune, 2011). Conversely, geographical proximity may be especially important for advice-seeking interactions, since these interactions often rely on face-to-face contact through purposeful or serendipitous encounters between academics and firm representatives (Azagra-Caro, Barberá-Tomás, Edwards-Schachter, & Tur, 2017). This has been highlighted as one of the reasons why firms in R&D-intensive industries often locate close to universities (Abramovsky & Simpson, 2011). For other types of UICs, geographical proximity also matters: UICs aimed at knowledge exploitation have been shown to occur in smaller geographical distances. Spin-offs or start-ups established from university research tend to locate close to the mother university (Breznitz & Feldman, 2012; Goldstein & Drucker, 2006). Patenting also represents a highly localized phenomenon despite its codified nature (Jaffe et al., 1993). Competence enhancement interactions rely on direct communication between the actors involved, such as students, graduates and businesses (Thune, 2011). For marketing interactions, geographical proximity is important, as philanthropy and other types of community initiatives are often oriented towards the local community (Fitjar & Gjelsvik, 2018; Glückler & Ries, 2012). Cognitive proximity can play a decisive role particularly in research collaborations, since the partners must understand each other for the projects to succeed (Steinmo & Rasmussen, 2016). Therefore, cognitive proximity matters more for explorative UICs than any other type of interactions. Cognitive proximity is less important for marketing interactions as knowledge exchange is not the central aim of such collaborations. For other types of UICs, some cognitive proximity is also important: knowledge exploitation interactions can be claimed to represent later stages of innovation processes of which both sides are knowledgeable. Therefore, some cognitive proximity is required between partners in these interactions. In competence-enhancing interactions, the knowledge bases of firms and universities should be overlapping to meet the competence enhancement expectations of both sides properly. A certain level of cognitive proximity is also required for advice-seeking interactions, since a common understanding of the subject matter is necessary. Without strong organizational commitments, knowledge exploitation interactions are hard to realize. Therefore, high organizational proximity is particularly important for the establishment of UICs aimed at knowledge exploitation (Crescenzi et al., 2017). As advice-seeking interactions are mainly informal, organizational proximity is less relevant for this type of UICs. Organizational proximity is also typically not required for the formation of marketing type of links, but formal relationships such as strategic partnerships may provide the basis for marketing interactions. Organizational proximity may also help in the establishment of knowledge exploration interactions since new projects are often easier to generate in a shared organizational context. Organizational proximity is also fairly important for competence enhancement interactions since joint organizational structures will play the role of intermediaries. The institutional flexibility of the university administration is especially important for knowledge exploitation interactions since it reduces the risk of transaction-oriented barriers, such as conflicts over intellectual property (Bruneel et al., 2010). Conversely, institutional proximity is less important for marketing interactions as these interactions can also take place at arm's length. Institutional proximity is somewhat important for knowledge exploration interactions, as universities need to be open for the involvement of firms in research projects for such interactions to materialize. Institutional proximity is salient with regards to the adoption of a business-friendly attitude by universities that can support the development of human capital in enterprises through competence enhancement interactions. Institutional proximity can also be influential in removing the barriers for the establishment of advice-seeking interactions between firms and universities, as they require a positive attitude by academics to spend their time providing advice to firms. Social proximity in the form of prior linkages is less relevant for knowledge exploration interactions since research projects to explore new ground will often involve new partnerships. On the contrary, a high level of social proximity may facilitate knowledge exploitation activities. As this type of interactions requires a large element of trust given the intellectual property involved, personal contacts and previous collaboration experience plays a crucial role in the formation of such links. Social proximity can also play a role in initiating interactions with universities for competence enhancement purposes since they often emerge as a result of contacts between lecturers and firm staff. Personal and social networks also make it easier to reach out to academics for advice (Azagra-Caro et al., 2017). Social proximity is also important for marketing UICs, since it would be easier to establish this type of linkages when prior knowledge on the corresponding partner exists. For instance, prior studies on donations to universities have shown that personal contacts are important for this type of linkages (Glückler & Ries, 2012). Table 1 summarizes the UIC categories for which we expect each dimension of proximity to be more and less important than for the other dimensions. TABLE 1. Summary of the importance of proximity dimensions for UIC categories UIC Type Geographical proximity Cognitive proximity Organizational proximity Institutional proximity Social proximity Knowledge exploration interactions Less important More important Less important Knowledge exploitation interactions More important More important More important Competence enhancement interactions Advice-seeking interactions More important Less important Marketing interactions Less important Less important 3 DATA & METHODOLOGY 3.1 Description of data In order to examine the role of proximity in UICs, we conducted a survey of 1,201 businesses in Norway. The survey covers firms located in regions that host universities: Oslo/Akershus, Agder, Hordaland, Nordland, Rogaland, Troms, and Trøndelag. These are all university regions that include the headquarters of a university. Furthermore, the distances between the regions, in particular their main cities and university campuses, are relatively large, which helps distinguish between regional and extra-regional interactions. Norwegian firms attach more importance to innovation collaboration and interact more with external partners than firms in many other developed countries (Fagerberg, Mowery, & Verspagen, 2009). However, most of these interactions happen within supply-chain relationships, typically with suppliers and customers (Fitjar & Rodríguez-Pose, 2013). A small share of Norwegian firms (around 3%) value universities as the most critical source to obtain external knowledge for innovation (Fitjar & Rodríguez-Pose, 2017). Similarly, a report commissioned by OECD (2017) shows that the share of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) collaborating with HEIs for innovation purposes is relatively low in Norway (around 16.7%), which is slightly above the OECD average of 13%. Intensifying the interactions between universities and businesses has been a significant priority for Norwegian governments and various policies have been put into force, especially in the last 20 years (Gulbrandsen & Nerdrum, 2007). These policies have been geared towards increasing the contributions of Norwegian universities to regional development and national competitiveness by engaging with businesses in third mission activities, mainly through direct collaboration, commercialization of academic R&D results, and undertaking a more prominent role in the innovation system (Thune & Gulbrandsen, 2011). Firms also receive fina