University-Industry Collaborations (UICs): A Matter of Proximity Dimensions?

Authors

Keywords: University-Industry Collaborations, UIC, proximity, proximity dimensions, multinational enterprises, MNE

Synopsis

Firms and universities interact with each other despite several barriers hindering their collaboration, such as distances in their worldviews, organizational structures and cognitive capabilities. This suggests that these distances can be bridged in some instances and proximity between the actors may help in the formation of university-industry collaborations (UICs). Proximity, being a multidimensional concept – including geographical and a variety of non-geographical dimensions such as cognitive, organizational, institutional and social – plays a bridging role between the two worlds of academia and industry and facilitates the formation of university-industry linkages. UIC, as well, represents an umbrella term that covers many different types of channels and refers to a broad range of activities as well as outputs of the interactions. Moreover, firms are driven by a variety of different motivations that influence their decision to engage in UICs, which adds to the comprehensiveness of UIC concept.

This thesis, thus, examines UICs from the proximity perspective and aims to increase the understanding of proximity in UICs. It analyses the role, importance and influence of proximities with regards to UICs, which differ greatly in terms of their contents, outputs and motivations. Proximity, through its geographical and non-geographical dimensions, helps in the formation of collaborations between firms and universities. Yet, the influence and importance of different forms of proximity depend heavily on the UIC channels in question and the initial motivation of the firm to interact with universities. Additionally, while proximity dimensions influence UIC outputs generated, the collaboration process might also have an impact on changing the proximity between actors.

Despite the overall acknowledgement of the multidimensional character of the proximity concept, it is generally assumed that geographical proximity is a strong facilitator of interactions between academia and industry. However, several UIC activities, such as co-publishing, can be geographically dispersed since the collaboration of actors over large distances is possible. In addition, multinational enterprises (MNEs) present a rather unique configuration for the analysis of the importance of geographical proximity in UICs owing to their distributed organizational structures across different geographical locations. This dissertation, hence, examines the importance of geographical proximity for MNE’s collaboration with universities. Through a case study of copublication partnerships in the MNE-university setting, the findings demonstrate that the propensity to collaborate with regional vs. nonregional universities varies by the location of subsidiaries. While this may be caused by the differences in the influence of geographical proximity for different subunits within an MNE, it may well be due to some other factors which lead to different outcomes for the geography of UICs. This suggests a need for the inclusion of non-geographical dimensions of proximity in order to explain better the influence of proximity dimensions in UICs alongside the geographical dimension.

Previous studies have seldom taken into consideration the multidimensionality of the proximity concept of and UICs. They rather limited their scope of analysis by covering a limited number of proximity dimensions and UIC channels. This implies that most of the prior studies falls short of providing a thorough analysis of proximity dimensions in UICs. Therefore, following the proximity framework suggested by Boschma (2005), this dissertation presents a novel and comprehensive model that examines the significance of different proximity dimensions across UIC processes. With a quantitative methodology applied via the econometric examination of a survey conducted with 1201 firms, the empirical results highlight the variation in the significance of proximities by UIC channels and outputs. The findings indicate that cognitive proximity and institutional proximity have greater importance for knowledge exploration UICs, while geographical proximity matters less for this type of collaborations. For UICs oriented towards knowledge exploitation, social proximity is more important, whereas organizational proximity matters less for advice-seeking collaborations. There is a growing interest in the dynamic aspect of proximity, implying that interaction processes increase the proximity levels between the actors and proximities co-evolve during interaction processes since they are interrelated and interdependent (Balland et al., 2015; Broekel, 2015). However, the dynamics of proximity have not been examined extensively in UIC context. In this dissertation, this aspect has been addressed by looking at the outputs of UIC processes from the perspective of learning effects represented by non-geographical dimensions of proximity as intangible outputs. Drawing on the use of survey data, the results indicate a close relationship between the formalization of interactions and tangible outputs – such as patents – as well as the contribution of interaction processes in the development of non-geographical proximity regardless of the UIC types.

Additionally, the motivations of firms in engaging in UICs vary across firms, and this has implications for who they choose to collaborate with. Different motivations may affect whether the firms collaborate with the university partners located either in proximity or at a distance. Similarly, the existence of non-geographical proximities may affect the spatiality of UICs, suggesting an interplay between geographical and nongeographical aspects of proximity. Yet, these two factors – motivations and non-geographical proximities – have not been examined within the scope of a single study. This dissertation, however, investigates whether and how firm motivations and non-geographical dimensions of proximity affect the geographical aspect of interactions between firms and universities. The results illustrate that UICs motivated by the need for capacity development and relying on cognitive proximity are less sensitive to distance, while geographical proximity matter more for firms intending to create societal impact and building their collaboration on institutional and social proximity.

Author Biography

Utku Ali Riza Alpaydin

Counsellor
University of Stavanger
UiS Business School
utku.alpaydin@uis.no

References

Abramovsky, L., & Simpson, H. (2011). Geographic proximity and firm- university innovation linkages: Evidence from Great Britain. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(6), 949-977.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq052

Abramovsky, L., Harrison, R., & Simpson, H. (2007). University research and the location of business R&D. The Economic Journal, 117(519), C114-C141.
https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.ifs.2007.0702
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2007.02038.x

Ankrah, S., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities-industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003

Arundel, A., & Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(6), 559-580.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1043859092000234311

Asheim, B. (2007). Differentiated knowledge bases and varieties of regional innovation systems. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 20(3), 223-241.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610701722846

Balland, P.-A., Boschma, R., & Frenken, K. (2015). Proximity and Innovation: From Statics to Dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6), 907- 920.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.883598

Bathelt, H., & Henn, S. (2014). The Geographies of Knowledge Transfers over Distance: Toward a Typology. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(6), 1403-1424.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a46115

Benneworth, P., de Boer, H., & Jongbloed, B. (2015). Between good intentions and urgent stakeholder pressures: Institutionalizing the universities' third mission in the Swedish context. European Journal of Higher Education, 5(3), 280-296.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2015.1044549

Bodas Freitas, I. M., Rossi, F., & Geuna, A. (2014). Collaboration objectives and the location of the university partner: Evidence from the Piedmont region in Italy: Collaboration objectives and location of university partner. Papers in Regional Science, 93, S203-S226.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12054

Bonaccorsi, A., & Piccaluga, A. (1994). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university-industry relationships. R&D Management, 24(3), 229-247.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1994.tb00876.x

Boschma, R. A., & ter Wal, A. L. J. (2007). Knowledge Networks and Innovative Performance in an Industrial District: The Case of a Footwear District in the South of Italy. Industry and Innovation, 14(2), 177-199.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13662710701253441

Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887

Bouba-Olga, O., Carrincazeaux, C., Coris, M., & Ferru, M. (2015). Proximity Dynamics, Social Networks and Innovation. Regional Studies, 49(6), 901-906.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1028222

Boutilier S., & McNaughton R. B. (2006). Collaboration, Proximity, and Innovation. In Michael M. Beyerlein, Susan T. Beyerlein, & Frances A. Kennedy (Eds.), Innovation through Collaboration (Vol. 12, pp. 175- 202). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1572-0977(06)12007-5

Broekel, T. (2015). The Co-evolution of Proximities - A Network Level Study. Regional Studies, 49(6), 921-935.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.1001732

Broekel, T., & Boschma, R. (2012). Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: The proximity paradox. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(2), 409-433.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbr010

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.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.006

Cao, Z., Derudder, B., & Peng, Z. (2019). Interaction between different forms of proximity in inter‐organizational scientific collaboration: The case of medical sciences research network in the Yangtze River Delta region. Papers in Regional Science, 98(5), 1903-1924.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12438

Capello, R. (2014). Proximity and regional innovation processes: is there space for new reflections?. In: Torre, A. & Wallet, F. (eds.), Regional Development and Proximity Relations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.163-194.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781002896.00012

Cassi, L., & Plunket, A. (2015). Research Collaboration in Co-inventor Networks: Combining Closure, Bridging and Proximities. Regional Studies, 49(6), 936-954.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.816412

Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.

Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1-23.
https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273

Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553

Crescenzi, R., Filippetti, A., & Iammarino, S. (2017). Academic inventors: Collaboration and proximity with industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 730-762.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9550-z

Crevoisier, O., & Jeannerat, H. (2009). Territorial Knowledge Dynamics: From the Proximity Paradigm to Multi-location Milieus. European Planning Studies, 17(8), 1223-1241.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310902978231

Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B.-S. (2003). Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20(1-2), 39-68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0923-4748(03)00004-3

Davey, T., Galan Muros, V., Meerman, A., Orazbayeva, B., Baaken, T., European Commission, & Directorate-General for Education, Y., Sport and Culture. (2018). The state of university-business cooperation in Europe final report.

De Fuentes, C., & Dutrénit, G. (2016). Geographic proximity and university-industry interaction: The case of Mexico. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(2), 329-348.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9364-9

Dell'Anno, D., & del Giudice, M. (2015). Absorptive and desorptive capacity of actors within university-industry relations: Does technology transfer matter? Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 4(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-015-0028-2

D'Este, P., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. (2013). Shaping the formation of university-industry research collaborations: What type of proximity does really matter? Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), 537-558.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbs010

D'Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 316-339.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9153-z

D'Este, P., & Iammarino, S. (2010). The spatial profile of university- business research partnerships: The spatial profile of u-b research partnerships. Papers in Regional Science, 89(2), 335-350.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2010.00292.x

Drejer, I., & Østergaard, C. R. (2017). Exploring determinants of firms' collaboration with specific universities: Employee-driven relations and geographical proximity. Regional Studies, 51(8), 1192-1205.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1281389

Ferru M., & Rallet, A. (2016). Proximity dynamics and the geography of innovation: diminishing returns or renewal?, In Shearmur R., Carrincazeaux C. & Doloreux D. (eds), Handbook on the Geographies of Innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 100-122.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784710774.00013

Fitjar, R. D., & Gjelsvik, M. (2018). Why do firms collaborate with local universities? Regional Studies, 52(11), 1525-1536.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1413237

Fitjar, R. D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2017). Nothing is in the Air: Nothing is in the Air. Growth and Change, 48(1), 22-39.
https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12161

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

Foray, D., & Lissoni, F. (2010). University research and public-private interaction. In B. H. Hall, & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 275-314). North Holland: Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01006-3

Galán-Muros, V., & Plewa, C. (2016). What drives and inhibits university-business cooperation in Europe? A comprehensive assessement: What drives and inhibits university-business cooperation? R&D Management, 46(2), 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12180
https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12180

Gallaud, D., & Torre, A. (2004). Geographical Proximity and Circulation of Knowledge through Inter-Firm Cooperation. In R. Wink (Ed.), Academia-Business Links (pp. 137-158). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230554856_8

Gallego, J., Rubalcaba, L., & Suárez, C. (2013). Knowledge for innovation in Europe: The role of external knowledge on firms' cooperation strategies. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2034- 2041.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.02.029

Garcia, R., Araujo, V., Mascarini, S., Gomes Dos Santos, E., & Costa, A. (2018). Is cognitive proximity a driver of geographical distance of university-industry collaboration? Area Development and Policy, 3(3), 349-367.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23792949.2018.1484669

Gertler, M. S. (2003). Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1), 75-99.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/3.1.75

Gertner, D., Roberts, J., & Charles, D. (2011). University‐industry collaboration: A CoPs approach to KTPs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 625-647.
https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111151992

Hall, B. H. (2003). On Copyright and Patent Protection for Software and Databases: A Tale of Two Worlds. In O. Granstrand (Ed.), Economics, Law and Intellectual Property (pp. 259-277). Springer US.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3750-9_12

Hansen, T. (2015). Substitution or Overlap? The Relations between Geographical and Non-spatial Proximity Dimensions in Collaborative Innovation Projects. Regional Studies, 49(10), 1672-1684.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.873120

Hansen, T. (2014). Juggling with Proximity and Distance: Collaborative Innovation Projects in the Danish Cleantech Industry: Juggling With Proximity And Distance. Economic Geography, 90(4), 375-402.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ecge.12057

Heringa, P. W., Horlings, E., van der Zouwen, M., van den Besselaar, P., & van Vierssen, W. (2014). How do dimensions of proximity relate to the outcomes of collaboration? A survey of knowledge-intensive networks in the Dutch water sector. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 23(7), 689-716.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10438599.2014.882139

Hewitt-Dundas, N., Gkypali, A., & Roper, S. (2019). Does learning from prior collaboration help firms to overcome the 'two-worlds' paradox in university-business collaboration? Research Policy, 48(5), 1310-1322.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.016

Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2013). The role of proximity in university-business cooperation for innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(2), 93-115.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9229-4

Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., & van Oort, F. (2009). The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe. The Annals of Regional Science, 43(3), 721-738.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00168-008-0252-9

Hong, W., & Su, Y.-S. (2013). The effect of institutional proximity in non-local university-industry collaborations: An analysis based on Chinese patent data. Research Policy, 42(2), 454-464.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.012

Huber, F. (2012). On the Role and Interrelationship of Spatial, Social and Cognitive Proximity: Personal Knowledge Relationships of R&D Workers in the Cambridge Information Technology Cluster. Regional Studies, 46(9), 1169-1182.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.569539

Innocenti, N., Capone, F., & Lazzeretti, L. (2020). Knowledge networks and industrial structure for regional innovation: An analysis of patents collaborations in Italy. Papers in Regional Science, 99(1), 55-72.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12478

Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577-598.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2118401

Johnston, A. (2020). University-Industry Collaboration: Are SMEs Different?. SOTA Review, No 41. Enterprise Research Centre. https://www.enterpriseresearch.ac.uk/wp- content/uploads/2020/06/No41-University-Industry-Collaboration-Are- SMEs-Different-Johnston-FINAL-1.pdf

Johnston, A., & Huggins, R. (2018). Partner selection and university- industry linkages: Assessing small firms' initial perceptions of the credibility of their partners. Technovation, 78, 15-26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.005

Johnston, A., & Huggins, R. (2017). University-industry links and the determinants of their spatial scope: A study of the knowledge intensive business services sector: Spatial scope of KIBS university engagement. Papers in Regional Science, 96(2), 247-260.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12185

Kaloudis, A., Aspelund, A., Koch, P. M., Lauvås, T. A., Mathisen, M. T., Strand, Ø., Sørheim, R., & Aadland, T. (2019). How Universities Contribute to Innovation: A Literature Review-based Analysis. NTNU.

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.x

Kuttim, M. (2016). The role of spatial and non-spatial forms of proximity in knowledge transfer: A case of technical university. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(4), 468-491.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2015-0126

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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903401618

Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2004). Searching high and low: What types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy, 33(8), 1201-1215.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.07.004

Leamer, E. E., & Storper, M. (2014). The Economic Geography of the Internet Age. In J. Cantwell (Ed.), Location of International Business Activities: Integrating Ideas from Research in International Business, Strategic Management and Economic Geography (pp. 63-93). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137472311_4

le Duc, N., & Lindeque, J. (2018). Proximity and multinational enterprise co-location in clusters: A multiple case study of Dutch science parks. Industry and Innovation, 25(3), 282-307.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2017.1355230

Marek, P., Titze, M., Fuhrmeister, C., & Blum, U. (2017). R&D collaborations and the role of proximity. Regional Studies, 51(12), 1761- 1773.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1242718

Mattes, J. (2012). Dimensions of Proximity and Knowledge Bases: Innovation between Spatial and Non-spatial Factors. Regional Studies, 46(8), 1085-1099.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.552493

Menzel, M.-P. (2015). Interrelating Dynamic Proximities by Bridging, Reducing and Producing Distances. Regional Studies, 49(11), 1892- 1907.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.848978

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-z

Mora-Valentin, E. M., Montoro-Sanchez, A., & Guerras-Martin, L. A. (2004). Determining factors in the success of R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations. Research Policy, 33(1), 17-40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00087-8

Muscio, A. (2013). University-industry linkages: What are the determinants of distance in collaborations?*: University-industry linkages. Papers in Regional Science, 92(4), 715-739.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00442.x

Nilsson, M. (2019). Proximity and the trust formation process. European Planning Studies, 27(5), 841-861.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1575338

Norn, M. T. (2016). What lies beneath the surface? A review of academic and policy studies on collaboration between public research and private firms. Unpublished. https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.10919.96164

OECD. (2019). University-Industry Collaboration: New Evidence and Policy Options. OECD.
https://doi.org/10.1787/e9c1e648-en

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D'Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007

Perkmann, M., & Salter A. (2012). How to create productive partnerships with universities. MIT Sloan Management Review 53(4), 79-88.

Perkmann, M., Neely, A., & Walsh, K. (2011). How should firms evaluate success in university-industry alliances? A performance measurement system: How should firms evaluate success in university- industry alliances? R&D Management, 41(2), 202-216.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2011.00637.x

Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2007.00225.x

Ponds, R., Oort, F. v., & Frenken, K. (2010). 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

Ponds, R., van Oort, F., & Frenken, K. (2007). The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Papers in Regional Science, 86(3), 423-443.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2007.00126.x

Ramos-Vielba, I., & Fernández-Esquinas, M. (2012). Beneath the tip of the iceberg: Exploring the multiple forms of university-industry linkages. Higher Education, 64(2), 237-265.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9491-2

Schamp, E. W., Rentmeister, B., & Lo, V. (2004). Dimensions of proximity in knowledge-based networks: The cases of investment banking and automobile design. European Planning Studies, 12(5), 607- 624.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431042000219978

Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M. M., & Fröhlich, J. (2002). Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants. Research Policy, 31, 303-328.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00111-1

Shearmur, R., Carrincazeaux, C., & Doloreux, D. (2016). Handbook on the Geographies of Innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784710774

Slavtchev, V. (2013). Proximity and the Transfer of Academic Knowledge: Evidence from the Spatial Pattern of Industry Collaborations of East German Professors. Regional Studies, 47(5), 686- 702.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2010.487058

Steinmo, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2018). The interplay of cognitive and relational social capital dimensions in university-industry collaboration: Overcoming the experience barrier. Research Policy, 47(10), 1964- 1974.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.004

Steinmo, M., & Rasmussen, E. (2016). How firms collaborate with public research organizations: The evolution of proximity dimensions in successful innovation projects. Journal of Business Research, 69(3), 1250-1259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.09.006

Teixeira, A. A. C., Santos, P., & Oliveira Brochado, A. (2008). International R&D Cooperation between Low-tech SMEs: The Role of Cultural and Geographical Proximity. European Planning Studies, 16(6), 785-810.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802079411

Thune, T. (2011). Success Factors in Higher Education-Industry Collaboration: A case study of collaboration in the engineering field. Tertiary Education and Management, 17(1), 31-50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.552627

Thursby, J., & Thursby, M. (2011). University-industry linkages in nanotechnology and biotechnology: Evidence on collaborative patterns for new methods of inventing. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(6), 605-623.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-011-9213-z

Tijssen, R. J. W., Yegros-Yegros, A., & Winnink, J. J. (2016). University-industry R&D linkage metrics: Validity and applicability in world university rankings. Scientometrics, 109(2), 677-696.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2098-8

Torre, A. (2019). Territorial development and proximity relationships. In Capello, R., & Nijkamp, P., (Eds), Handbook of Regional and Development Theories. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, pp. 326-343.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788970020.00024

Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and Localization. Regional Studies, 39(1), 47-59.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320842

Torre A., (2014). Proximity relations at the heart of territorial development processes. From clusters, spatial conflicts and temporary geographical proximity to territorial governance. In Torre A., & Wallet F. (eds), Regional development and proximity relations, Edward Elgar, London, pp. 94-134.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781002896.00009

Uyarra, E. (2010). Conceptualizing the Regional Roles of Universities, Implications and Contradictions. European Planning Studies, 18(8), 1227-1246.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09654311003791275

Villani, E., Rasmussen, E., & Grimaldi, R. (2017). How intermediary organizations facilitate university-industry technology transfer: A proximity approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 86-102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.004

Werker, C., Ooms, W., & Caniëls, M. C. J. (2016). Personal and related kinds of proximity driving collaborations: A multi-case study of Dutch nanotechnology researchers. SpringerPlus, 5(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-3445-1

Wicken, O. (2007). The layers of national innovation systems: The historical evolution of a national innovation system in Norway. TIK Working Papers on Innovation Studies. Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture: Oslo.

Zomer, A., & Benneworth, P. (2011). The Rise of the University's Third Mission. In J. Enders, H. F. de Boer, & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Reform of Higher Education in Europe (pp. 81-101). SensePublishers.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-555-0_6
Cover for University-Industry Collaborations (UICs): A Matter of Proximity Dimensions?
Published
October 18, 2021