LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
The aim of this paper is to explore the inter-organisational knowledge networks that universities in the UK engage in through their knowledge transfer activities. In particular, it analyses the extent to which organisational and locational factors are associated with the nature of these networks. Based on a UK-wide survey of universities, it is shown that the nature and formation of inter-organisational knowledge networks is related principally to the organisational characteristics of network actors, and secondarily to their spatial location. The characteristics of a network actor, in this case a university, are likely to influence the type, diversity and location of other actors with which it networks. Nevertheless, spatial location is an important secondary factor influencing network formation, especially the geographic reach of a university's network. It is further found that the value generated by universities from their knowledge networks is associated with the type of organisations within which they interact as well as their spatial location. It is concluded that such networks impact both regional innovation capability and regional competitiveness. The results have implications for policymakers, especially in terms of the spatial scale at which the demand and supply for university knowledge can be best mediated. © 2012 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Abreu, M., Grinevich, V., Hughes, A., Kitson, M., & Ternouth, P. (2008). Universities, business and knowledge exchange. London: The Council for Industry and Higher Education.
    • Acs, Z., Auderetsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1994). R&D spillovers and recipient firm size. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(2), 336-340.
    • Agrawal, A., & Cockburn, I. (2003). The anchor tenant hypothesis: Exploring the role of large, local, R&D-intensive firms in regional innovation systems. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1227-1253.
    • Azagra-Caro, J., Archontakis, F., Gutierrez-Gracia, A., & Fernandez-de-Lucio, I. (2006). Faculty support for the objectives of university-industry relations versus degree of R&D cooperation: The importance of regional absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 35(1), 37-55.
    • Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1), 31-56.
    • Benneworth, P., & Charles, D. (2005). University spin-off policies and economic development in less successful regions: Learning from two decades of policy practice. European Planning Studies, 13(4), 537-557.
    • Benneworth, P., & Hospers, G.-J. (2007). The new economic geography of old industrial regions: universities as global-local pipelines. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(6).
    • Boschma, R. A. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.
    • Braunerhjelm, P. (2005). New Universities, New Industries and Regional Performance, Conference. Copenhagen, Denmark.
    • Breschi, S., & Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(4), 975-1005.
    • Bresnahan, T., & Gambardella, A. (Eds.). (2004). Building high-tech clusters: Silicon Valley and beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Bristow, G. (2005). Eve competitiveness. Journal of Economic Geography, 5(3), 285-304.
    • Carlsson, B., & Fridh, A. C. (2002). Technology transfer in United States universities: A survey and statistical analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 12(1-2), 199-232.
    • Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the world: The making of the twentyfirst century industrial complexes. London: Routledge.
    • Chapple, W., Lockett, A., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Assessing the relative performance of U.K. technology transfer offices: Parametric and nonparametric evidence. Research Policy, 34(3), 369-384.
    • Charles, D. (2003). Universities and territorial development: Reshaping the regional role of UK universites. Local Economy, 18(1), 7-20.
    • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
    • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152.
    • Cooke, P. (2002). Regional innovation systems: General findings and some new evidence from biotechnology clusters. Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(1), 133-145.
    • Cooke, P., Heidenreich, M., & Braczyk, H. (Eds.). (2004). Regional innovation systems: The role of governance in a globalised world. London: Routledge.
    • Cooke, P., & Huggins, R. (2003). High-technology clustering in Cambridge. In Sforzi (Ed.), The Institutions of Local Development (pp. 51-74). Aldershot: Ashgate.
    • Cowan, R., David, P., & Foray, D. (2000). The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9(2), 211-253. ial profile of university-business research partnerships. Papers in Regional Science, 89(2), 335-350. -industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295-1313.
    • Davenport, S. (2005). Exploring the role of proximity in SME knowledge-acquisition. Research Policy, 34(5), 683-701.
    • Di Gregorio, D., & Shane, S. (2003). Why do some universities generate more startups than others? Research Policy, 32(2).
    • Dill, D. D. (1995). University-Industry Entrepreneurship The Organization and Management of American-University Technology Transfer Units. Higher Education, 29(4), 369-384.
    • Doloreux, D., & Dionne, S. (2008). Is regional innovation system development possible in peripheral regions? Some evidence from the case of La Pocati√®re, Canada Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20(3), 259-283.
    • Drejer, I., & Lund Vinding, A. (2005). Searching Near and Far: Determinants of Paper presented at the DRUID Tenth Anniversary Summer Conference 2005 on the Dynamics of Industry and Innovation: Organizations, Networks and Systems. Copenhagen: June 27-29.
    • Drucker, J., & Goldstein, H. (2007). Assessing the regional economic development impacts of universites: A review of current approaches. International Regional Science Review, 30(1), 20-46.
    • Dunning, J. H. (2000). Regions, Globalization, and the Knowledge Economy: The Issues Stated. In Dunning (Ed.), Regions, Globalization, and the KnowledgeBased Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of universityindustry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293-337.
    • Etzkowitz, H., Websterb, A., Gebhardt, C., Regina, B., & Terra, C. (2000). The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330.
    • Feldman, M. P. (1999). The economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration: A review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 8, 5-25.
    • Feldman, M. P., & Desrochers, P. (2003). Research universities and local economic development: Lessons from the history of the John Hopkins University. Industry and Innovation, 10(1), 5-24.
    • Huggins, R., & Johnston, A. (2007). The Knowledge Networks of SMEs: Findings from an Uncompetitive Region. Growth and Change, 40(2), 227-259.
    • Huggins, R., Johnston, A., & Steffenson, R. (2008). Universities, knowledge networks and regional policy. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2(1), 321-340.
    • Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2010). UK Competitiveness Index 2010. Centre for International Competitiveness: University of Wales Institute, Cardiff.
    • Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 957-970.
    • Johnson, D. K. N., Siripong, A., & Brown, A. S. (2006). The Demise of Distance? The Declining Role of Physical Proximity for Knowledge Transmission. Growth and Change. Growth and Change, 37(1), 19-33.
    • Kingsley, G., & Malecki, E. J. (2004). Networking for Competitiveness Small Business Economics, 23(1), 71-84.
    • Kitagawa, F. (2004). Universities and Regional Advantage: Higher Education and Innovation Policies in English Regions. European Planning Studies, 12(6).
    • Kitson, M., Howells, J., Braham, R., & Westlake, S. (2009). The connected university: Driving recovery and growth in the UK economy. London: NESTA.
    • Kitson, M., Martin, R., & Tyler, P. (2004). Regional Competitiveness: An Elusive yet Key Concept? Regional Studies, 38(9), 991-999.
    • Knobben, J., & Oerlemans, L. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 71-89.
    • Lambert, R. (2003). Lambert review of business university collaboration. Norwich: HMSO.
    • Lane, P., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganisational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 461-477.
    • Lawson, C., & Lorenz, E. (1999). Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies, 33(4), 305-317.
    • Lawton Smith, H. (2007). Universities, innovation, and territorial development: a review of the evidence. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 25(1).
    • Lawton Smith, H., & Bagchi-Sen, S. (2006). University-industry interactions: The case of the UK biotech industry. Industry and Innovation, 13(4), 371-392.
    • Lechner, C., & Dowling, M. (2003). Firm networks: external relationships as sources for the growth and competitiveness of entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 15(1), 1-26.
    • Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. (2001). Internal Capabilities, External Networks, and performance: A study on Technology-Based Ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6-7), 615-640.
    • Lester, R. K. (2005). Universities, innovation, and the competitiveness of local economies: Summary report from the local innovation systems project - phase I. WP 05-010, Industrial Performance Center, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MA: http://web.mit.edu/ipc/publications/pdf/05-010.pdf.
    • Lissoni, F. (2001). Knowledge codification and the geography of innovation: The case of Brescia mechanical cluster. Research Policy, 30(9), 1481-1500.
    • Lockett, A., Murray, G., & Wright, M. (2002). Do UK Venture Capitalists Still Have a Bias Against Investment in New Technology Firms. Research Policy, 31(6).
    • Porter, M. (1998). Clusters and competition: New agendas for companies, governments and institutions. In Porter (Ed.), On Competition. Boston: HBS Press.
    • Powers, J. B. (2004). R&D Funding Sources and University Technology Transfer: What is Stimulating Universities to be more Entrepreneurial? Research in Higher Education, 45(1), 1-23.
    • Rutten, R., & Boekema, F. (2007). The Learning Region: Foundations, State of the Art, Future. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
    • Sainsbury, D. (2007). innovation policies. London: HMSO.
    • Santoro, M. D., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (2002). Firm size and technology centrality in industry-university interactions. Research Policy, 31, 1163-1180.
    • Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional advantage: culture and competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
    • Shane, S. (2004). Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar.
    • Shane, S., & Cable, D. (2002). Network ties, reputation, and the financing of new ventures. Management Science, 48(3), 364-381.
    • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    • Smilor, R. W., Dietrich, G. B., & Gibson, D. V. (1993). The Entrepreneurial University: The Role of Higher Education in the United States in Technology Commercialization and Economic Development. International Social Science Journal, 135(1), 1-11.
    • Sorenson, O., Rivkin, J. W., & Fleming, L. (2006). Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Research Policy, 35(994-1017).
    • Sotarauta, M., & Kautonen, M. (2007). Co-evolution of the Finnish national and local innovation and science arenas: Towards a dynamic understanding of multilevel governance. Regional Studies, 41(8), 1085-1098.
    • Storper, M. (1995). The resurgence of regional economics, ten years later. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2(2), 191-221.
    • Storper, M. (1997). The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York: Guildford Press.
    • Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8), 791-811.
    • SURF, IPP, CURDS, PREST, & CRIC. (2006). The Embedded University in the A Research Agenda, A Report to the ESRC. Swindon: ESRC.
    • Teixeira, A., Santos, P., & Oliveira Brochado, A. (2006). Does proximity really matter in international R&D cooperative projects?, Paper presented at European Network on Industrial Policy (EUNIP) 9th International Conference. Limerick, Ireland.
    • Thanki, R. (1999). How do we know the value of higher education to regional development? Regional Studies, 33(1), 84-89.
    • Todtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all? Towards a differential regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203-1219. Innovation U: New University Roles in a Knowledge Economy, Research Triangle Park, N.C Southern Technology Council : Southern Growth Policies Board.
    • Tracey, P., & Clark, G. L. (2003). Alliances, networks and competitive strategy: Rethinking clusters of innovation. Growth and Change, 34(1), 1-16.
    • Uyarra, E. (2010). Conceptualizing the regional roles of universities, implications and contradictions. European Planning Studies, 18(8), 1227-1246.
    • Wellings, P. (2008). Intellectual property and research benefits. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
    • Wolfe, D. (2004). The Role of Universities in Regional Development and Cluster Formation. Toronto: Centre for International Studies, University of Toronto.
    • Wong, P.-K., Ho, Y.- -based economic development: The case of the National University of Singapore. World Development, 35(6).
    • Wood, G. A., & Parr, J. B. (2005). Transaction Costs, Agglomeration Economies, and Industrial Location. Growth and Change, 36(1), 1-15.
    • Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University Spin-Out Companies and Venture Capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481-501.
    • Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy, 37(8), 1188-1204.
    • Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. (2005). Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Mana gement Journal 26(9), 809 825.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article