Modes of innovation and proximity in practice: Insights from university-small and medium sized enterprise collaboration in biotechnology

Journal title RIVISTA GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA
Author/s John Chrisman, Giuseppe Calignano
Publishing Year 2026 Issue 2025/4
Language English Pages 20 P. 88-107 File size 0 KB
DOI 10.3280/rgioa4-2025oa21685
DOI is like a bar code for intellectual property: to have more infomation click here

View article Download Open Access article

FrancoAngeli is member of Publishers International Linking Association, Inc (PILA), a not-for-profit association which run the CrossRef service enabling links to and from online scholarly content.

<p>This article explores factors driving collaboration between biotechnology firms and higher education institutions, emphasizing various proximity dimensions (geographic, cognitive, social, organizational, institutional). Through interviews within Norway’s Heidner Biocluster, we found geographic proximity matters more for larger, established firms collaborating with local higher education institutions, compared to smaller, internationally oriented firms. Our findings highlight differences in firms’ innovation modes (doing, using, and interacting vs. science, technology and innovation) and underscore the roles of informal institutions, embeddedness, and alternative proximities beyond geography.</p>

Keywords: university-industry collaboration, peripheral regions, cluster dynamics, innovation, proximity.

  1. Alpaydin U.A.R., Fitjar R.D. (2021). Proximity across the distant worlds of universityindustry collaborations. Papers in Regional Science, 100(3): 689-711. DOI: 10.1111/pirs.12586
  2. Asheim B.T., Boschma R., Cooke P. (2011). Constructing regional advantage: Platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Regional Studies, 45(7): 893-904. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2010.543126
  3. Asheim B., Gertler M.S. (2005). The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In: Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R., Eds., The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 291-317). Oxford University Press.
  4. Aslesen H.W., Pettersen I.B. (2017). Entrepreneurial firms in STI and DUI mode clusters: Do they need differentiated cluster facilitation? European Planning Studies, 25(6): 904-922. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1300238
  5. Benneworth P., Fitjar R.D. (2019). Contextualizing the role of universities to regional development: Introduction to the special issue. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 6(1): 331-338. DOI: 10.1080/21681376.2019.1601593
  6. 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): 779-802. DOI: 10.1068/c0620
  7. Boschma R. (2005). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1): 61-74. DOI: 1 0.1080/0034340052000320887
  8. Boschma R., Balland P.A., de Vaan M. (2014). The formation of economic networks: A need indent proximity approach. In: Torre A., Wallet F., Eds., Regional development and proximity relations (pp. 243-266). Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: 10.4337/9781781002896.00016
  9. Boucher G., Conway C., Van Der Meer E. (2003). Tiers of engagement by universities in their region’s development. Regional Studies, 37(9): 887-897. DOI: 10.1080/0034340032000143896
  10. Calignano G., De Siena L. (2018). “I want to shake your hand before…”: The role of clients, knowledge exchange and market dynamics in southern Italian software firms. Cogent Social Sciences, 4(1): 1435604. DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2018.1435604
  11. Calignano G., Fitjar R.D. (2017). Strengthening relationships in clusters: How effective is an indirect policy measure carried out in a eripheral technology district? The Annals of Regional Science, 59(1): 139-169. DOI: 10.1007/s00168-017-0821-x
  12. Calignano G., Jøsendal K. (2018). Does the nature of interactions with higher education institutions influence the innovative capabilities of creative firms? The case of a south-western Norwegian county. Quaestiones Geographicae, 37(4): 67-79. DOI: 10.2478/quageo-2018-0040
  13. Calignano G., Quarta C.A. (2014). University of Salento’s transactional relations: Assessing the knowledge transfer of a public university in Italy. Erdkunde, 68(2): 109-123. www.jstor.org/stable/24365197.
  14. Cash P., Snider C. (2014). Investigating design: A comparison of manifest and latent approaches. Design Studies, 35(5): 441-472. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2014.02.005
  15. Chesbrough H.W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press.
  16. Chrisman J.E. (2024). More frequent and stronger ties? Using QCA to assess the effects of policy in a Norwegian biotech cluster. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 11(1): 645-659. DOI: 10.1080/21681376.2024.2402934
  17. Crescenzi R., Filippetti A., Iammarino S. (2017). Academic inventors: Collaboration and proximity with industry. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 730-762. DOI: 10.1007/s10961-016-9550-z
  18. Crescenzi R., Gagliardi L., Percoco M. (2013). The “bright” side of social capital: How “bridging” makes Italian provinces more innovative. In: Crescenzi R., Percoco M., Eds., Geography, institutions and regional economic performance (pp. 143-164). Berlin: Springer.
  19. D’Este P., Guy F., Iammarino S. (2013). Shaping the formation of university-industry research collaborations: What type of proximity really matters? Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4): 537-558. DOI: 10.1093/jeg/lbs010
  20. Edquist C. (1997). Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations. London: Pinter.
  21. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2): 109-123. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
  22. Evers G. (2019). The impact of the establishment of a university in a peripheral region on the local labour market for graduates. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 6(1): 319-330. DOI: 10.1080/21681376.2019.1584051
  23. Feldman M.P., Kogler D.F. (2010). Stylized facts in the geography of innovation. In: Hall B.H., Rosenberg N., Eds., Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 381-410). North-Holland. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01008-7
  24. Fitjar R.D., Rodríguez-Pose A. (2011). Innovating in the periphery: Firms, values and innovation in Southwest Norway. European Planning Studies, 19(4): 555-574. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2011.548467
  25. Fitjar R.D., Rodríguez-Pose A. (2013). Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway. Research Policy, 42(1): 128-138. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.009
  26. Fonseca L., Nieth L. (2021). The role of universities in regional development strategies: A comparison across actors and policy stages. European Urban and Regional Studies, 28(3): 298-315. DOI: 10.1177/0969776421999743
  27. Foray D., Lissoni F. (2010). University research and public-private interaction. In: Hall B.H., Rosenberg N., Eds., Handbook of the Economics of Innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 275-314). North-Holland. DOI: 10.1016/S0169-7218(10)01006-3
  28. González-Pernía J.L., Parrilli M.D., Peña-Legazkue I. (2015). STI-DUI learning modes, firm-university collaboration and innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(3): 475-492. DOI: 10.1007/s10961-014-9352-0
  29. Grzegorczyk M. (2019). The role of culture-moderated social capital in technology transfer – Insights from Asia and America. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 143: 132-141. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.01.021
  30. Gunasekara C. (2006). Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1): 101-113. DOI: 10.1007/s10961-005-5016-4
  31. Hansen T., Coenen L. (2015). The geography of sustainability transitions: Review, synthesis and reflections on an emergent research field. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 17: 92-109. DOI: 10.1016/j.eist.2014.11.001
  32. Harrington C., Maysami R. (2015). Entrepreneurship education and the role of the regional university. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 18(2): 29-39.
  33. Hefferon K.L. (2016). Food security of genetically modified foods. Reference Module in Food Science. Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.03532-0
  34. Isaksen A., Karlsen J. (2010). Different modes of innovation and the challenge of connecting universities and industry: Case studies of two regional industries in Norway.
  35. European Planning Studies, 18(12): 1993-2008. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2010.516523
  36. Jensen M.B., Johnson B., Lorenz E., Lundvall B.Å. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36(5): 680-693. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006
  37. Lazzarotti V., Puliga G., Manzini R., Tallarico S., Pellegrini L., Eslami M.H., Boer H. (2025). Collaboration with universities and innovation efficiency: Do relationship depth and organizational routines matter? European Journal of Innovation Management, 28(2): 608-630. DOI: 10.1108/EJIM-03-2023-0241
  38. Lindbeck A., Snower D.J. (2001). Insiders versus outsiders. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(1): 165-188. DOI: 10.1257/jep.15.1.165
  39. Marijan D., Sen S. (2022). Industry-academia research collaboration and knowledge co-creation: Patterns and anti-patterns. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, 31(3), Article 45: 1-52. DOI: 10.1145/3494519
  40. Martin R., Moodysson J. (2013). Comparing knowledge bases: On the geography and organization of knowledge sourcing in the regional innovation system of Scania, Sweden. European Urban and Regional Studies, 20(2): 170-187. DOI: 10.1177/0969776411427326
  41. Mercuri E., Birbeck J. (2020). Fostering Australian R&D activity through industryuniversity collaboration. Australasian Tax Forum, 35: 171.
  42. NCE Heidner Biocluster (2020). Value chain. NCE Heidner Biocluster. <a href="https://heidner.no/">https://heidner.no/</a>.
  43. Nilsen T., Lauvås T.A. (2018). The role of proximity dimensions in facilitating universityindustry collaboration in peripheral regions. Arctic Review on Law and Politics, 9: 312-331. DOI: 10.23865/arctic.v9.1378
  44. Nishimura J., Okamuro H. (2011). Subsidy and networking: The effects of direct and indirect support programs of the cluster policy. Research Policy, 40(5): 714-727. DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.01.011
  45. OpenStreetMap contributors (2024). Map of Innlandet [Database; ODbL 1.0].
  46. OpenStreetMap. Retrieved September 23, 2024, from www.openstreetmap.org/.
  47. Parrilli M.D., Radicic D. (2020). STI and DUI innovation modes in micro-, small-, medium- and large-sized firms: Distinctive patterns across Europe and the U.S. European Planning Studies, 29(2): 346-368. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2020.1754343
  48. Perri S. (2020, June 26). European funds and southern Italian regions: A critical view. Telos-EU. www.telos‐eu.com/en/european‐economy/european‐funds‐andsouthern-italian-regions-a-crit.html.
  49. Pinto H., Fernandez-Esquinas M., Uyarra E. (2015). Universities and knowledge-intensive business services (KIBS) as sources of knowledge for innovative firms in peripheral regions. Regional Studies, 49(11): 1873-1891. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2013.857396
  50. Plum O., Hassink R. (2011). Comparing knowledge networking in different knowledge bases in Germany. Papers in Regional Science, 90(2): 355-371. DOI: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2011.00362.x
  51. Roth P., Mattes J. (2023). Distance creates proximity: Unraveling the influence of geographical distance on social proximity in interorganizational collaborations. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 55(6): 1372-1391. DOI: 10.1177/0308518X221143115
  52. Schulze-Krogh A.C., Calignano G. (2020). How do firms perceive interactions with researchers in small innovation projects? Advantages and barriers for satisfactory collaborations. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11(3): 908-930. DOI: 10.1007/s13132-019-0581-1
  53. Sheydayi A., Dadashpoor H. (2023). Conducting qualitative content analysis in urban planning research and urban studies. Habitat International, 139: 102878. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2023.102878
  54. Shi L., Wang L. (2023). Understanding university-industry collaboration from the perspective of proximity: Insights from a case study in China. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(12): 4380-4392. DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2023.2251606
  55. Sormani E., Rossano-Rivero S. (2023). Facilitating academic engagement with society: A bonding social capital approach to self-determination. Triple Helix, 9(3): 296-324. DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10036
  56. Sánchez-Barrioluengo M., Benneworth P. (2019). Is the entrepreneurial university also regionally engaged? Analysing the influence of university’s structural configuration on third mission performance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141: 206-218. DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.017
  57. Torre A., Wallet F. (2014). Introduction:. The role of proximity relations in regional and territorial development processes. In Regional development and proximity relations (pp. 1-44). Edward Elgar Publishing. <a href="https://hdl.handle.net/10419/124376">https://hdl.handle.net/10419/124376</a>.
  58. Trippl M., Sinozic T., Lawton Smith H. (2015). The role of universities in regional development: Conceptual models and policy institutions in the UK, Sweden and Austria.
  59. European Planning Studies, 23(9): 1722-1740. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2015.1052782
  60. Wilke U., Pyka A. (2024). Sustainable innovations, knowledge and the role of proximity: A systematic literature review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 39: 326-351. DOI: 10.1111/joes.12617
  61. Zhang B., Wang X. (2017). Empirical study on influence of university-industry collaboration on research performance and moderating effect of social capital: Evidence from engineering academics in China. Scientometrics, 113: 257-277. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2464-1

John Chrisman, Giuseppe Calignano, Modes of innovation and proximity in practice: Insights from university-small and medium sized enterprise collaboration in biotechnology in "RIVISTA GEOGRAFICA ITALIANA" 4/2025, pp 88-107, DOI: 10.3280/rgioa4-2025oa21685