Shu Yu
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to explore the relative influence of multidimensional proximity to explain the innovation performance of university–industry collaboration(UIC) by investigating UIC innovation activities from eight regions in China. Specifically, we focus on the influence of geographical, cognitive, and social network proximity on the innovation performance of enterprises and examine whether knowledge embeddedness affect these relationships. The findings show that both cognitive and social network proximity have a significant positive effect on cooperative innovation performance, whereas geographical proximity does not affect innovation. In addition, proximity drawing on knowledge embeddedness encourages efficient knowledge flow and improves innovation performance. The results clarify the relationships among multidimensional proximity and knowledge embeddedness and provide theoretical guidance for innovation by real-world university–industry collaborations.
- Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., & Tribó, J. A. (2009). Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 38(1), 96-105.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Malerba, F. (2006). Sectoral systems: How and why innovation differs across sectors. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 380-406). Oxford University Press.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2009). Opening platforms: How, when and why? Platforms, Markets and Innovation, 6, 131-162.Google Scholar
- Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2008). Introduction to special issue building the entrepreneurial university: A global perspective. Science & Public Policy, 35(9), 627-635.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wang, H. J., Cheng, J., & Zhou, R. S. (2018). Research on knowledge transfer and coordination mechanism of collaborative innovation in Industry, University and Research Institute. Scientific Research, 36(7), 1274-1283.Google Scholar
- Miles, R., & Snow, C. (2005). Collaborative entrepreneurship: How networked firms use continuous innovation to create economic wealth.Stanford University PressGoogle Scholar
- Bruneel, J., D'Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858-868.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10‐11), 1105-1121.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Molina-Morales, F. X., García-Villaverde, P. M., & Parra-Requena, G. (2014). Geographical and cognitive proximity effects on innovation performance in SMEs: A way through knowledge acquisition. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 10(2), 231-251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-011-0214-zGoogle ScholarCross Ref
- Anselin, L., Varga, A., & Acs, Z. (2000). Geographical spillovers and university research: A spatial econometric perspective. Growth and Change, 31(4), 501-515.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507-523.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Wuyts, S., Colombo, M. G., Dutta, S., & Nooteboom, B. (2005). Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58(2), 277-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2004.03.019Google ScholarCross Ref
- Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Callois, J. M. (2008). The two sides of proximity in industrial clusters: The trade-off between process and product innovation. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(1), 146-162.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Rivera, M. T., Soderstrom, S. B., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 91-115. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.34.040507.134743Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ahuja, G., Soda, G., & Zaheer, A. (2012). The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks. Organization Science, 23(2), 434-448.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Schweitzer, F., Fagiolo, G., Sornette, D., Vega-Redondo, F., Vespignani, A., & White, D. R. (2009). Economic networks: The new challenges. Science, 325(5939), 422-425.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lundvall, B. Ä., & Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Journal of Industry Studies, 1(2), 23-42.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Arts, S., & Cassiman, B. (2016). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers from R&D: A reassessment using text mining. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2016, No. 1, p. 13703). Academy of Management.Google Scholar
- Huggins, R., & Johnston, A. (2009). Knowledge networks in an uncompetitive region: SME innovation and growth. Growth and Change, 40(2), 227-259.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mortensen, M. H. (2012). Understanding attractiveness in business relationships: A complete literature review. Industrial Marketing Management, 41(8), 1206-1218.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nielsen, B. B. (2005). The role of knowledge embeddedness in the creation of synergies in strategic alliances. Journal of Business Research, 58(9), 1194-1204.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Granovetter, M. S. (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Basile, R., Capello, R., & Caragliu, A. (2012). Technological interdependence and regional growth in Europe: Proximity and synergy in knowledge spillovers. Papers in Regional Science, 91(4), 697-722.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Breschi, S., & Lenzi, C. (2016). Co-invention networks and inventive productivity in US cities. Journal of Urban Economics, 92, 66-75.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674-698.Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Multi-network embeddedness and innovation performance of R&D employees
AbstractTaking the perspective of multi-network embeddedness, this paper constructs the collaboration network of R&D organizations, the collaboration network and knowledge network of R&D employees based on the patent data of 879 R&D employees from 224 R&D ...
Knowledge Forms and Enterprise Innovation Performance: An Evidence from the Dimensions of Stock and Flow
Enterprises cannot innovate without knowledge, but the relationship between different knowledge forms and enterprise innovation performance remains unclear. Using data from hi-tech firms in Biolake of Optics Valley in China, this article explores the ...
Influence mechanism of multi-network embeddedness to enterprises innovation performance based on knowledge management perspective
Based on network embedding, enterprise technology innovation and knowledge management theories, the study has built theoretical conceptual model of multiple network embedding influencing enterprises' technological innovation performance from the ...
Comments