This paper addresses the question of whether proximity is always necessary for interactive learning, as proposed by recent European innovation theory. Recent research has provided a refined conceptualization of proximity, but there is little empirically-based knowledge about the actual role that proximity plays in relationships intended to foster interactive learning. The paper investigates how proximity actually impacts on interactive learning processes by examining collaborative research projects between firms and universities.
AlmeidaP.KogutB. (1999), ‘Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks’, Management Science, Vol 45, No 7, pp 905–917.
2.
AsheimB.T.GertlerM. (2005), ‘The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems’, in FagerbergJ.MowreyD.C.NelsonR.R., eds, Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press.
3.
AudretschD.B.LehmannE.E. (2006), ‘Do locational spillovers pay? Empirical evidence from German IPO data’, Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, Vol 15, No 1, pp 71–81.
4.
AudretschD.B.LehmannE.E.WarningS. (2004), ‘University spillovers: Does the kind of knowledge matter?’, Industry and Innovation, Vol 11, No 3, pp 193–205.
5.
BaptistaR. (2001), ‘Geographical clusters and innovation diffusion’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol 66, pp 31–46.
6.
BarnesT.PashbyI.GibbonsA. (2002), ‘Effective university–industry interaction: A multi-case evaluation of collaborative R&D projects’, European Management Journal, Vol 20, N0 3, pp 272–285.
7.
BayonaC.Garcia-MarcoT.HuertaE. (2001), ‘Firms' motivations for cooperative R&D: An empirical analysis of Spanish firms’, Research Policy, Vol 30, 2001, pp 1289–1307.
8.
BeugelsdijkS.CornetM. (2002), ‘A far friend is worth more than a good neighbour: Proximity and innovation in a small country’, Journal of Management and Governance, Vol 6, pp 169–188.
9.
BlindK.GruppH. (1999), ‘Interdependencies between the science and technology infrastructure and innovation activities in German regions: Empirical findings and policy consequences’, Research Policy, Vol 28, No 5, pp 451–468.
10.
BonaccorsiA.PiccalugaA. (1994), ‘A theoretical framework for the evaluation of university–industry relationships’, R&D Management, Vol 24, No 3, pp 229–247.
11.
BoschmaR.A. (2005), ‘Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment’, Regional Studies, Vol 39, No 1, pp 61–74.
12.
BrehenyM.J.McQuaidR. (1988), The Development of High Technology Industries: An International Survey, Routledge, London.
13.
BreschiS.LissoniF. (2001), ‘Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey’, Liuc Paper No 84, Serie Economia e Impresa 27, Cattaneo University, Castellanza.
14.
BreschiS.LissoniF. (2003), ‘Mobility and social networks: Localized knowledge spillovers revisited’, CESPRI Working Paper No 142, Centre of Research on Innovation and Internationalization, Milan.
15.
CohenW.M.LevinthalD.A. (1990), ‘Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 35, pp 128–152.
16.
CohenW.M.NelsonR.WalshJ.P. (2003), ‘Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D’, in GeunaA.SalterA.SteinmuellerW.E., Science and Innovation: Rethinking the Rationales for Funding and Governance, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
17.
DoloreauxD. (2004), ‘Regional networks of small and medium sized enterprises: Evidence from the metropolitan area of Ottawa in Canada’, European Planning Studies, Vol 12, No 2.
18.
FontanaR.GeunaA.MattM. (2006), ‘Factors affecting university–industry R&D projects: The importance of searching, screening and signalling’, Research Policy, Vol 25, pp 309–323.
19.
GallaudD.TorreA. (2005), ‘Geographical proximity and the diffusion of knowledge: The case of SMEs in biotechnology’, in FuchsG.ShapiraP. (2005), Rethinking Regional Innovation and Change, Springer, Berlin.
20.
GertlerM.S. (1995), ‘Being there: Proximity, organization and culture in the development and adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies’, Economic Geography, Vol 71, No 1, pp 1–26.
21.
GertlerM.S. (2005), ‘Tacit knowledge, path dependency and local trajectories of growth’, in FuchsG.ShapiraP. (2005), Rethinking Regional Innovation and Change, Springer, Berlin.
22.
GranovetterM. (1992), ‘Problems of explanations in economic sociology’, in NohriaN.EcclesR., eds, Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action, Harvard Business School Press, Harvard Business School Press.
23.
GulbrandsenM. (2003), ‘Forskning, kunnskap og økonomisk vekst: Universitetet som aktør i innovasjonssystemet’, in LarsenI.M.StensakerB., eds, Tradisjon og tilpasning. Organisering og styring av universitetene, Cappelen, Cappelen.
24.
GulbrandsenM.LarsenI.M. (2000), Forholdet mellom næringslivet og UoH sektoren – et krevende mangfold, Rapport 7/2000, NIFU, Oslo.
25.
HansenM.T. (1999):, ‘The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 44, pp 82–111.
26.
JaffeA.B.TrajtenbergM.HendersonR. (1993), ‘Geographic localisation of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol 108, pp 577–598.
27.
KaiserU. (2002), ‘Measuring knowledge spillovers in manufacturing and services: An empirical assessment of alternative approaches’, Research Policy, Vol 31, pp 125–144.
28.
KiratT.LungY. (1999), ‘Innovation and proximity: Territories as loci of collective learning processes’, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol 6, No 1, pp 27–38.
29.
KnobenJ.OerlemansL.A.G. (2006), ‘Proximity and inert-organizational collaboration: A literature review’, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol 8, No 2, pp 71–89.
30.
SmithLawton H.KeebleD.LawsonC.MooreB.WilkinsonF. (2001), ‘University–business interaction in the Oxford and Cambridge regions’, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Vol 92, No 1, pp 88–99.
31.
LöfstenH.LindelöfP. (2002), ‘Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms: Academic–industry links, innovations and markets’, Research Policy, Vol 31, pp 859–876.
32.
MaleckiE.J. (1984), ‘Technology and regional development: A survey’, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol 50, No 3, pp 262–266.
33.
MalmbergA.MaskellP. (2006), ‘Localized learning – what it is and what it isn't’, paper presented at the 5th Proximity Congress, Bordeaux, 28–30 June.
34.
MalmbergA.PowerD. (2005), ‘On the role of global demand in local innovation processes’, in FuchsG.ShapiraP. (2005), Rethinking Regional innovation and Change, Springer, Berlin.
35.
McKelveyM.AlmH.RiccaboniM. (2003), ‘Does co-location matter for formal knowledge collaboration in the Swedish biotechnology–pharmaceutical sector?’, Research Policy, Vol 32, pp 483–501.
36.
MenzelM.–P. (2006), ‘Dynamic proximities: Towards a concept of changing relations’, paper presented at the 5th Proximity Congress, Bordeaux, 28–30 June.
37.
MiottiL.SachwaldF. (2003), ‘Co-operative R&D: Why and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis’, Research Policy, Vol 32, pp 1481–1499.
38.
Mora-ValentinE.M.Montoro-SanchesA.Guerras-MartinL.A. (2004), ‘Determining factors in the success or R&D cooperative agreements between firms and research organizations’, Research Policy, Vol 33, pp 17–40.
39.
NahapietJ.GhosalS. (1998), ‘Social capital, intellectual capital and the organizational advantage’, Academy of Management Review, Vol 23, No 2, pp 242–266.
40.
NFR (2006), Det norske forsknings- og innovasjonssystemet – statistikk og indikatorer. 2005, Norges Forskningsråd, Oslo.
41.
NooteboomB. (2002), Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
42.
NooteboomB. (1999), ‘Innovation, learning and industrial organization’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol 23, pp 127–150.
43.
OerlemansL.MeeusM. (2005), ‘Do organizational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance?’, Regional Studies, Vol 39, No 1, pp 89–104.
44.
PioreM.J.SabelC.F. (1984), The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity, Basic Books, New York.
45.
RogersE.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edition, The Free Press, New York.
46.
RychenF.ZimmermannJ.-B. (2006), ‘Clusters in the global knowledge-based economy: Knowledge gatekeepers and temporary proximity, paper presented at the 5th Proximity Congress, Bordeaux, 28–30 June.
47.
SantoroM.D.ChakrabartiA.K. (2002), ‘Firm size and technology centrality in industry–university interactions’, Research Policy, Vol 31, pp 1–18.
48.
SaxenianA.L. (1994), Regional Advantage, Harvard University Press, Boston, MA.
49.
SchartingerD.RammerC.FischerM.M.FröhlichJ. (2002), ‘Knowledge interactions between universities and industry in Austria: Sectoral patterns and determinants’, Research Policy, Vol 31, pp 303–328.
50.
ScottW.R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
51.
ShrumW.ChompalovI.GenuthJ. (2001), ‘Trust, conflict and performance in scientific collaborations’, Social Studies of Science, Vol 31, No 5, pp 681–730.
52.
SorensonO.RivkinJ.W.FlemingL. (2006), ‘Complexity, networks and knowledge flow’, Research Policy, Vol 35, pp 994–1017.
53.
ThuneT. (2006), Formation of Research Collaborations Between Universities and Firms: Towards an Integrated Framework of Tie Formation Motives, Processes and Experiences, Series of Dissertations 8/2006, BI Norwegian School of Management, Oslo.
54.
TorreA.RalletA. (2005), ‘Proximity and localization’, Regional Studies, Vol 39, No 1, pp 47–59.
55.
VedovelloC. (1997), ‘Firms’ R&D activity and the intensity of the university–enterprise partnership’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol 58, pp 215–226.
