The literature suggests that the success of innovation clusters is based on personal networks that connect members of scientific, educational, and business organizations, stimulating more formalized cross-boundary collaborations between the three sectors. But it is still unclear if such organizational collaborations actually correspond with these personal ties and which aspects of personal communication are most strongly associated with organizational collaborations. To investigate these issues, the authors applied network analysis to study an innovation cluster in Algarve, Portugal. They found that cross-boundary organizational collaborations corresponded with personal ties. Moreover, they found that collaborations appeared to correlate most strongly with emotional attachments between individuals.
AndersenP. H.KumarR. (2006). Emotions, trust and relationship development in business relationships: A conceptual model for buyer–seller dyads. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 522–535.
2.
AnselinL.VargaA.ÁcsZ. (1997). Local geographic spillovers between university research and high technology innovations. Journal of Urban Economics, 42, 422–448.
3.
ArundelA.GeunaA. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13, 559–580.
4.
BalconiM.LaborantiA. (2006). University–industry interactions in applied research: The case of microelectronics. Research Policy, 35, 1616–1630.
5.
BaniaN.CalkinsL.DalenbergR. (1992). The effects of regional science and technology policy on the geographic distribution of industrial R&D laboratories. Journal of Regional Science, 32, 209–228.
6.
BasovN.BrenneckeJ. (2017). Duality beyond Dyads: Multiplex patterning of socialties and cultural meanings. In GroenewegenP.FergusonJ.MoserC.MohrJ. W.BorgattiS. P. (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Vol. 53): Emerald.
7.
BasovN. (2018). Socio-Material Network Analysis: A Mixed Method Study of Five European Artistic Collectives. Social Networks.
8.
BellottiE. (2014). Qualitative networks: mixed methods in sociological research: Routledge.
9.
BonaccorsiA.PiccalugaA. (1994). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university–industry relationships. R&D Management, 24, 229–247.
10.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
BowlbyJ. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic Books.
12.
BrassD. J.GalaskiewiczJ.GreveH. R.TsaiW. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795–817.
13.
BreschiS.LissoniF. (2003). Mobility and social networks: Localised knowledge spillovers revisited (CESPRI Working Paper No 142). Milan, Italy: Bocconi University.
14.
BroekelT. (2015). The co-evolution of proximities: A network level study. Regional Studies, 49, 921–935.
15.
BrownJ. S.DuguidP. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12, 198–213.
16.
BruneelJ.d’EsteP.SalterA. (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy, 39, 858–868.
17.
BurtR. S. (1980). Cooptive corporate actor networks: A reconsideration of interlocking directorates involving American manufacturing. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 557–582.
18.
CassidyJ.ShaverP. R. (Eds). (1999). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
19.
CCDR Algarve. (2006). Estratégia de desenvolvimento do Algarve [Development strategy for the Algarve] 2007–2013. Faro, Portugal: Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Algarve.
20.
CCDR Algarve. (2007). Plano regional de ordenamento do território do Algarve [Regional plan for the Algarve]. Faro, Portugal: Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Algarve.
21.
CCDR Algarve. (2008). Socio-economic profile and potential of nautical tourism in the Algarve. Faro, Portugal:Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Algarve.
22.
CCDR Algarve. (2009). Regional marine agenda of the Algarve: Contributions to the action plan for the Algarve marine cluster. Faro, Portugal: Comissão de Coordenação e Desenvolvimento Regional do Algarve.
23.
CeciF.IubattiD. (2012). Personal relationships and innovation diffusion in SME networks: A content analysis approach. Research Policy, 41, 565–579.
24.
ChakrabartiA. K.SantoroM. D. (2004). Building social capital and learning environment in university–industry relationships. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital, 1, 19–36.
25.
ChangY. C. (2011). Maritime clusters: What can be learnt from the South West of England. Ocean & Coastal Management, 54, 488–494.
26.
CookeP.PorterJ.CruzA. R.PintoH. (2011). Maritime clusters: Institutions and innovation actors in the Atlantic area (KIMERAA Project Report). Faro, Portugal: University of Algarve.
27.
CovaB.SalleR. (2000). Rituals in managing extrabusiness relationships in international project marketing: A conceptual framework. International Business Review, 9, 669–685.
28.
CowanR.JonardN. (2004). Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28, 1557–1575.
29.
CruzA. R.GonçalvesA. I.PintoH.PintassilgoP.GuerreiroJ. (2011). Looking for the core of a knowledge-based sea cluster: A social network analysis in a maritime region. European Regional Science Association Conference Papers, 11, 510–529.
30.
D’EsteP.PatelP. (2007). University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry?Research Policy, 36, 1295–1313.
31.
Easterby-SmithM.LylesM. A.TsangE. W. (2008). Inter-organizational knowledge transfer: Current themes and future prospects. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 677–690.
32.
EisenhardtK. M.SchoonhovenC. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7, 136–150.
33.
GilsingV.NooteboomB.VanhaverbekeW.DuystersG.van den OordA. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality, and density. Research Policy, 37, 1717–1731.
34.
GiulianiE. (2013). Network dynamics in regional clusters: Evidence from Chile. Research Policy, 42, 1406–1419.
35.
GonçalvesA. I.CruzA. R.PintoH.PintassilgoP.GuerreiroJ. (2011). Coastal tourism and possibilities for consolidating a regional sea cluster: Insights from Algarve’s innovation actors. Tourism & Management Studies, 1, 70–79.
GranovetterM. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
38.
GranovetterM. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 481–510.
39.
GubbinsC.DooleyL. (2014). Exploring social network dynamics driving knowledge management for innovation. Journal of Management Inquiry, 23, 162–185.
40.
HallE. T. (1976). Beyond culture. New York, NY: Anchor Books.
41.
HannemanR. A.RiddleM. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California.
42.
HansenM. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.
43.
HargadonA. B.SuttonR. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 716–749.
44.
HicksD. M.IsardP. A.MartinB. R. (1996). A morphology of Japanese and European corporate research networks. Research Policy, 25, 359–378.
45.
HuberF. (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, 1169–1182.
46.
HubertL.SchultzJ. (1976). Quadratic assignment as a general data analysis strategy. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 29, 190–241.
47.
InkpenA. C.TsangE. W. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30, 146–165.
48.
JaffeA. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79, 957–970.
49.
JaffeA. M.TrajtenbergM.HendersonR. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108, 577–598.
50.
KaufmannA.TödtlingF. (2000). System of innovation in traditional industrial regions: The case of Styria in a comparative perspective. Regional Studies, 34, 29–40.
51.
KrätkeS. (2011). The creative capital of cities: Interactive knowledge creation and the urbanization economies of innovation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
52.
LorenzenM. (2001). Ties, trust, and trade: Elements of a theory of coordination in industrial clusters. International Studies of Management and Organization, 31, 14–34.
53.
MalerbaF. (Ed.). (2009). Innovation networks in industries. Cheltenham, England: Elgar.
54.
MatzlerK.RenzlB.MüllerJ.HertingS.MooradianT. A. (2008). Personality traits and knowledge sharing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 301–313.
55.
Meyer-KrahmerF.SchmochU. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27, 835–851.
56.
MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Personal Relationships, 12, 149–168.
57.
NewellS.SwanJ. (2000). Trust and inter-organizational networking. Human Relations, 53, 1287–1328.
58.
ØstergaardC. R. (2009). Knowledge flows through social networks in a cluster: Comparing university and industry links. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 20, 196–210.
59.
OuimetM.LandryR.AmaraN. (2004, 6). Network positions and radical innovation: A social network analysis of the Quebec optics and photonics cluster. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference 2004, Elsinore, Denmark.
60.
PadgettJ. F.PowellW. W. (2012). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
61.
ParkerD. D.ZilbermanD. (1993). University technology transfers: Impacts on local and US economies. Contemporary Economic Policy, 11, 87–99.
62.
PerkmanM.WalshK. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9, 259–280.
63.
PinchS.HenryN. (1999). Paul Krugman’s geographical economics, industrial clustering and the British motor sport industry. Regional Studies, 33, 815–827.
64.
ProvanK. G.FishA.SydowJ. (2007). Inter-organizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33, 479–516.
65.
RiceJ. (2009). Network exchanges, identity, writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23, 294–317.
66.
RobinsonD. K.RipA.MangematinV. (2007). Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology. Research Policy, 36, 871–879.
67.
SchaeferD. R.KornienkoO. (2009). Building cohesion in positively connected exchange networks. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 384–402.
68.
ShaverP. R.HazanC. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory and evidence. In PerlmanD.JonesW. (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (pp. 29–70). London, England: Kingsley.
69.
SiegelD. S.WaldmanD. A.AtwaterL. E.LinkA. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 111–133.
70.
SpinuzziC. (2007). Guest editor’s introduction: Technical communication in the age of distributed work mobility and composition. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16, 265–277.
71.
StorperM.VenablesA. J. (2004). Buzz: Face-to-face contact and the urban economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4, 351–370.
72.
TaylorA. (2005). An operations perspective on strategic alliance success factors: An exploratory study of alliance managers in the software industry. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 25, 469–490.
73.
WangP. (2013). Exponential random graph model extensions: Models for multiple networks and bipartite networks. In LusherD.KoskinenJ.RobinsG. L. (Eds.), Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 115–129). New York: Cambridge University Press.
74.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
75.
WitkowskiT. H.ThibodeauE. J. (1999). Personal bonding processes in international marketing relationships. Journal of Business Research, 46, 315–325.
76.
Zwijze-KoningK. H.de JongM. D. T. (2015). Network analysis as a communication audit instrument: Uncovering communicative strengths and weaknesses within organizations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 29, 36–60.
