Content uploaded by Herman Van den Bosch
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Herman Van den Bosch on Jan 19, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 1 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 7AB06ED8
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
The role of higher education institutions in building regional
innovation systems
Marjolein C.J. Caniëls1, Herman van den Bosch1
1Faculty of Management Sciences, Open University of the Netherlands (OU), P.O. Box 2960, NL-6401 DL
Heerlen, The Netherlands (e-mail: marjolein.caniels@ou.nl, herman.vandenbosch@ou.nl)
Received: 6 July 2010 / Accepted: 30 November 2010
Abstract. Many studies focus on applying scientific technologies in manufacturing, or inves-
tigating the regional impact of contract and co-operative research of higher education institu-
tions (HEIs). However, HEIs’ role as builders of the regional innovation system (RIS) has
generally been under-researched. We review literature on the role of HEIs in fuelling the RIS and
offer suggestions for deliberate actions that stimulate regional development. For further research
we suggest to perform a network analysis addressing factors that relate to characteristics of: (1)
HEIs; (2) regional firms; (3) the collaborative relationship; and (4) the environmental context in
which HEIs and firms are embedded.
JEL classification: I23, O18, O33, R11
Key words: Higher education institutions, regional development, learning, regional innovation
system
1 Introduction
The literature on the role of higher education institutions (HEIs) in regional development has
become quite extensive (see e.g., Benneworth and Hospers 2007; Huggins and Johnston 2009).
A broad spectrum of studies has been undertaken, among which studies that focus on the
application of scientific technologies in manufacturing studies (e.g., Goldfarb and Henrekson
2002; Lockett et al. 2003), that investigate the impact of contract and co-operative research
(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000; Huggins and Johnston 2009), and studies about the ‘learning
region’ (Strauf and Scherer 2008), and ‘knowledge communities’ (Henry and Pinch 2000). It is
clear that the focus on forces that enable knowledge development and sharing between HEIs and
regional networks of firms and other organizations continues to be an emerging and developing
field of study.
Despite the progress made over the last decade, there is still much that we do not know yet.
This paper is not trying to discuss these gaps in the literature or to review, once more, what we
know about the role of HEIs on regional development with respect to generating patents and
doi:10.1111/j.1435-5957.2010.00344.x
© 2010 the author(s). Papers in Regional Science © 2010 RSAI. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road,
Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA.
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 2 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 6236E122
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
commercializing scientific output, generating productive capacity and competitiveness (for an
overview see McGregor et al. 2006), attracting high quality undergraduate human capital
(Faggian and McCann 2006, 2009a, 2009b), or creating output and employment (Armstrong
1993; Harris 1997; Felsenstein 1996; Glasson 2003; Hermannsson et al. 2009), and backward
linkages (see Warren et al. 2008; Bergman 2010 for reviews). Instead, our focus is on one
particular aspect of this role that we believe has generally been under-researched (Boucher et al.
2003; D’Este and Patel, 2007; Ramos-Vielba et al. 2010). Specifically, we focus on the study of
the way in which the regional innovation system is stimulated by HEIs, namely, to what extent
and in what ways can HEIs fuel interorganizational learning within the region? This is what
Boucher et al. (2003) refer to as “the non-economic contribution of HEIs to the region”, and
what Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000), among others, have referred to as focusing on the
“triple helix of innovation”. Through our review, we have found this to be a topic that is
frequently discussed but seldom empirically studied. Yet it is an important area of research.
Only by examining the impact of HEIs on the regional innovation system can we understand
such issues as to how participation of HEIs in interorganizational learning evolves, how incen-
tives can be created for HEIs to contribute to the regional innovation system and ultimately how
collective outcomes of regional development and growth might be generated. This last point is
especially relevant to policy-makers and those having a regional perspective that goes beyond
the performance of individual organizations. Both, among policy-makers and among scientists,
consensus exists that currently the regional embeddedness of higher educational institutions in
the region is far from optimal (Morgan 2007). In this respect, Morgan (2007) refers to “cathe-
drals in the desert”. There is a mismatch between academic knowledge and knowledge that
directly contributes to economic development, which causes an innovation paradox (Lagendijk
and Rutten 2003; Dankbaar 2004; Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid 2008),
namely, investments in university R&D contribute only to a limited extent to social and
economic innovation, development and growth of a region or country. Many writers stress the
desirability to improve the contribution of HEIs in innovation systems and in (inter)organiza-
tional learning in particular, in order to alleviate the innovation paradox (Power and Malmberg
2008).
We review the limited theoretical and empirical literature on the role of HEIs in fuelling the
regional innovation system and offer our suggestions regarding what we have learned from the
modest number of studies that have been conducted and what directions are open for further
research.
2 Literature review
2.1 Analytical approaches to HEIs’ impact on regional development
Research into the explicit contribution of HEIs to the development of the region in which they
are located has been limited, but is growing (Huijts 2003; Nieuwenhuis et al. 2003). Many
studies about the role of HEIs in regional development viewed HEIs purely as sources of
academic knowledge (first role), and providers of academic education (second role), rather than
as regional system builders (third role) (Benneworth et al. 2009). This view has its origins in the
nineteenth century, when European universities deliberately chose to be ‘elitist’, without any
influence from societal actors who wanted to use science for their own purposes and interests.
This attitude lives on in contemporary research universities that guarantee the academic freedom
and independence of professors, and that focus on the creation of new knowledge in order to
advance the current state of the art in the international scientific community and its journals. Von
Humboldt’s vision that “universities underpin at a distance the development of the state” has
2 M.C.J. Caniëls, H. van den Bosch
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49 1
1
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 3 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 6A543476
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
been dominant and influential until today. In contrast, as regional system builders HEIs could
undertake direct interaction with societal partners. This could range from creating spin off firms
that focus on new high-technologies, consulting for local industry, delivering advice to politi-
cians and policy-makers, informing general public debates and shaping the national spatial
distribution of social opportunities and services (Benneworth et al. 2009). However, initiatives
like these are still rarely explored and investigated in research studies.
Likewise, much of the current focus of innovation policy remains rooted in supporting
initiatives that stimulate scientific research excellence and the application of technological
science in manufacturing (Christopherson et al. 2008). Consequently, studies of the regional
impact of universities tend to focus on ‘key economic performance indicators’, like the genera-
tion of patents, employment and backward linkages and the identification of the amount of
successful commercialization of scientific output. However, this line of thinking reflects a linear
perspective on the innovation process, in which innovation begins with research, followed by
development, which in turn leads to production and commercialisation. There are no feedback
loops in the system, and there is a clear division of labour between the different stages,
particularly between activities geared towards ‘knowledge seeking’ and ‘knowledge use’(Clark
1995, p. 250). This ‘pipeline’notion has proved to be of limited validity in a world characterized
by imperfect information. Innovation is inevitably an iterative process full of trial and error and
incremental adaptation at every stage. In particular, a central claim of later innovation theories,
widely corroborated by practice, is that making users active partners in innovation leads to
higher uptake of new products and services because continuous feedback leads to innovations
that better fulfil user needs (e.g., Gardiner and Rothwell 1985; Lundvall 1988; Rothwell and
Gardiner 1989). This evolutionary, non-linear view of innovation has gained widespread accep-
tance (some key contributions are: Von Hippel 1976; Rothwell and Zegveld 1985; Kline and
Rosenberg 1986; Clark 1995; Douthwaite 2002; Douthwaite et al. 2002).
Hence, innovation involves interaction between different actors. Innovation is much too
dynamic to be understood in terms of linear flows and processes (Power and Malmberg, 2008).
Research (patents, commercialization), is only one element of the whole process of innovation.
Much of the current policy discussion about the impact of HEIs on national and regional
development fails to fully embrace the complexity of the innovation process and the variety of
impact HEIs can have (Christopherson et al. 2008). Thus, we need an alternative framework to
analyse the innovation processes that are induced by HEIs in society.
An obvious analytical approach with which to explore the way in which HEIs fuel inter-
organizational learning within the region, is the regional innovation systems (RIS) body of
research. The regional innovation systems approach came forth from the national innovation
system (NIS) literature, that in turn has its origins in the studies of Freeman (1987), Lundvall
(1988, 1992), and Nelson (1993). This literature conceives of nations as composed of actors
including companies, universities and research institutes, whose activities are governed by
institutions (routines, habits and practices), of various kinds. The central idea is that interac-
tive processes between varied and diverse actors, networks, continuous learning processes and
innovation-conducive institutions such as policy incentives and trust will give rise to eco-
nomic growth, technological dynamism and competitiveness. Conventional national innova-
tion systems frameworks tend to focus predominantly on national processes and actors,
whereas the phenomenon to be studied in this paper has to encompass dynamics of
regional connections along with local processes. We therefore adopt the regional innovation
systems approach, which is capable of explicitly addressing issues deriving from regional
development.
The regional innovation systems approach laid the ground for two dominant approaches
that theorize the role of HEIs in regional innovation systems, namely, the triple helix model
(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000), and the university engagement approach (Goddard and
3The role of HEIs in building regional innovation systems
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 4 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 795A4C10
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
Chatterton 1999; Chatterton and Goddard 2000; Holland 2001). The triple helix model of
university, industry and government relations (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000), conceptual-
izes a non-linear interactive approach to innovation in which interactions between universities,
industry and government lead to innovation processes that involve benefits for all actors. A key
notion in this line of research is that the relationships between the three stakeholder groups are
hybrid, recursive and cross-institutional (Gunasekara 2006). The focus is on “the network
overlay of communications and expectations that reshape the institutional arrangements among
universities, industries, and governmental agencies” (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000, p. 109).
Each actor should take the role of another, for example, HEIs play a role as source of firm
formation, and industry plays a role as developer of training and research, while government
supports these developments by adapting the regulatory system (Etzkowitz and Klofsten 2005)
The literature on the engaged university (Goddard and Chatterton 1999; Chatterton and
Goddard 2000; Holland 2001), takes a slightly broader view, in that it explicitly embeds a
stronger regional focus in the teaching and research missions. Writers in this line of research
advocate the active and initiating role of universities in regional development. Academic entre-
preneurialism is thought to be essential. Furthermore, this approach includes a range of mecha-
nisms by which universities engage with their regions. In his large-scale research of the
impact of universities, Goddard (1997) explicitly focuses on the impact of universities on the
region by the deliberate creation of social capital, social, political and cultural life, lifelong
learning, community development, development of local artefacts and culture (architecture) and
integration of the region in the international society.
Table 1 gives an overview of the analytical approaches to HEI involvement in the
literature.
Tab le 1 . Analytical approaches to HEI involvement
Traditional (linear) approach Regional innovation system (non-linear, evolutionary)
approach
Central idea Efforts in R&D generate
innovation and
commercialization and
subsequently lead to better
economic performance.
Interactive processes between varied and diverse
actors, networks, continuous learning processes and
innovation-conducive institutions such as policy
incentives and trust give rise to economic growth,
technological dynamism and competitiveness.
View on
innovation
Clear division of labour
between stages in the
production process
Linear flow of processes:
no feedback loops in
innovation process
Innovation is iterative process characterized by trial
and error and incremental adaptation at every stage
Continuous interaction between different actors is
crucial
Actively include users in innovation process
Continuous feedback loops from users to manufacturer
View on the role
of HEI
HEI as sources of academic
knowledge and providers
of academic education
Focus on key economic
performance indicators:
research excellence
(papers) and application of
science in manufacturing
(patents)
HEI as regional system builders in direct interaction
with societal partners
Focus on system emergence
Innovation as inter-stakeholder learning
Emphasis on the role of institutions as being conducive
to regional innovativeness
Interactions
between actors
The triple helix model The engaged university
Relationships between universities,
industry and government are hybrid,
recursive and cross-institutional
Active and initiating role
of universities in
regional development
4 M.C.J. Caniëls, H. van den Bosch
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
2
2
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 5 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 724CCD7B
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
2.2 Empirical studies
Empirical studies that have paid attention to the third role of HEIs in Europe and in the US show
that in general HEIs demonstrate a growing willingness to participate in regional development
instead of maintaining an ‘ivory tower’ position (Colyvas and Powell 2006). The continuous
growth of the number of students within their own region, combined with the need for additional
financial resources, have fuelled this process (Charles 2003). In addition, a number of new HEIs
were created in lagging regions that considered themselves as active participants in the process
of regional development, welcoming the available public funds for this goal (Ruivo 1994;
Glasson 2003). Table 2 presents an overview of the literature on the system building role of
universities.
During 2004–2007 the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) undertook a large scale comparative study of how issues related to HEIs and their
regional engagement were addressed in the OECD area (OECD 2007). This extensive study
investigated the regional impact of HEIs in 14 regions in seven European countries. On the
basis of the results from this study Puuka (2008) concluded that national systems structure
might hamper the capacity of HEIs to engage in regional development. Current incentive
Tab l e 2 . The system building role of universities: An overview
Studies Countries/regions Focus of the study Conclusions with respect to system
building capacity
Puuka (2008) OECD 14 regions in 7
countries
Regional system building
capacity
Current national incentive structures
hamper regional engagement
Boucher et al.
(2003)
OECD 14 regions in 7
countries
Regional system building
capacity
Level of competition and hierarchy
between regional actors determines
degree of system building capacity
Warren et al.
(2008)
US Regional system building
capacity
A well functioning, supportive innovation
systems can be very stimulating to
entrepreneurial efforts of HEIs
Goddard
(1997)
Finland, Jyväskylä region;
Mexico, Nuevo Léon;
Sweden, Värmland;
UK, North East
England; Denmark/
Sweden, Öresund
region; Australia,
Sunshine Coast
Embeddedness of HEIs in
the region, deliberate
involvement
Growing bonds between universities and
regional actors became visible, but many
possibilities for collaboration remained
underutilized.
Geuna et al.
(2004)
France, Strasbourg Deliberate involvement of
HEI in region
Long tradition of contract research by
universities, thereby indirectly impacting
or the region
Dahlstrand and
Jacobsson
(2003)
Sweden, Gothenburg
region
Contribution of HEIs to
regional development
The contribution of HEIs to regional
development resides in the first place in
the creation of ‘configuring clusters of
capabilities’
Kjearsdam and
Enemark
(1994)
Denmark, Aalborg region Contribution of HEIs to
regional development
University functions as a ‘catalyst’ in
regional development. In project-based
educational system students execute
projects together with local firms,
institutions and organizations.
Doutriaux
(2003)
Canada, 11 high-tech
clusters
Contribution of HEIs to
regional development
Universities are not drivers, instead they are
catalysts for entrepreneurial behaviour of
students.
5The role of HEIs in building regional innovation systems
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 6 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 5F89B6AC
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
structures do not promote regional engagement. Based on the results from the same OECD
study Boucher et al. (2003) indicated that the role of HEIs as an institutional actor that has
linkages with other regional actors depends on a number of factors. These ‘tiers of engage-
ment’ are found to depend on the level of competition and hierarchy in the relationship
between HEIs and other regional actors. In core regions with traditional as well as new
technologically oriented HEIs, the level of competition between HEIs with respect to scien-
tific rigour and excellence is high and this severely limits their regional engagement. Newly
set-up HEIs in economically lagging peripheral regions are found to be most engaged in
regional development. This is not surprising, because usually these HEIs were created by the
national government with the specific intention to increase economic growth of the region. In
addition, Arbo and Benneworth (2007) note that HEIs can have different capacities with
respect to the degree in which they influence the strategic organization of an educated labour
force within the region. In extreme cases HEIs co-ordinate the regional human capital system,
identify knowledge and skills gaps, and tailor their courses to improve the regional employ-
ability of students.
In contrast with the findings of Boucher et al. (2003), Warren et al. (2008) find that periph-
eral HEIs in the US have to undertake much more effort to exploit their regional consultancy
services than core region HEIs. Warren et al. (2008) ascribe this result to the lack of “entrepre-
neurial transaction environment”, namely, the lack of a regional innovation system that gener-
ates and promotes linkages and networking between regional firms and HEIs. This makes it
more difficult for peripheral HEIs to achieve equivalent results to HEIs that are located within
well established regional innovation systems. Hence, the focus of Warren et al. (2008) is less on
how HEIs themselves can improve the regional innovation system, but the study shows that well
functioning, supportive innovation systems can be very stimulating to entrepreneurial efforts of
HEIs.
Goddard (1997) studied the embeddedness of HEIs in the region by investigating the
deliberate contribution of universities to regional innovative processes, the degree of partici-
pation of scientists in collaborative projects with industry and the broader involvement of the
university in the development of social capital. In nearly all cases studied, growing regional
bonds became visible, but at the same time, many possibilities for collaboration remained
underutilized. As best practices Goddard mentions that in the Jyväskylä region in Finland, the
university has considerable impact at regional development. Monterey Tech University in
Nuevo Léon (Mexico) contributes in an impressive way on regional development, among
others by its 700 community centres of learning. Another example of good practice is the
delivery of professional services by Karlstad University in Värmland (Sweden). The four
universities in North East of England work together in an organization named Universities for
North East (Unis4NE), the London Higher Education Consortium, Alborg University, the
Öresund Region in Denmark and Sweden and the University of the Sunshine Coast (Austra-
lia) (Goddard 1999).
A deliberate strategy of undertaking applied research by HEIs is not of recent origin. Some
universities have a long tradition of contract research, like for instance, the Université Louis
Pasteur in Strasbourg. The number of contracts in the medical, biological and chemical field is
still growing. Universities like Louis Pasteur value the relation with the business world, espe-
cially its effect on the innovation of the curriculum, although the number of scientific publica-
tions lags behind (Geuna et al. 2004).
In the United Kingdom, the Labour government explicitly invited universities to contribute
to the development of their own region as from 1997 onwards (Lawton Smith 2003). In a series
of White Papers, co-operation in the field of research between universities and regional bodies
was encouraged (DTI 2001; DTI DfEE 2001). Universities that choose to be involved are
eligible for financial support by HEFCE. In particular, the ‘Cluster policy steering group’,
6 M.C.J. Caniëls, H. van den Bosch
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 3
3
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 7 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 5CD3C046
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
directed by Lord Sainsbury has contributed to this goal by bringing together groups of industries
and universities. Regional development agencies have a mandate to involve universities in
regional plans. These agencies co-operate with the ‘modern universities’(former polytechnics)
in the first place, primarily because of their receptiveness. In the United States, regional bonds
traditionally have been stronger because of the system of ‘endowments’ and the ‘land grant’-
tradition, reinforced by the Bayh-Dole Act in 1980.
In other countries, governments have established universities with an explicit regional
mission, for instance the Hautes Ecoles Spécialisées in Switzerland. During the period 2004–
2008, the South Korean government invested 14 billion dollars in the enforcement of the
regional impact of HEIs. More than 100 institutes participated in the New University for
Regional Innovation. The Centre of Expertise programme in Finland (turnover 500 million euro)
and the poles of competitiveness in France are also worth mentioning. Elsewhere, universities
and local institutions have created specialized institutions; for instance the ‘knowledge houses’
in the North East of England are supporting the small and middle firms in the first place. The
Georgia Tech’s Economic Development Institute offers the most influential programme in the
US. Monterrey International Centre of knowledge (Nuevo Léon) is associated with Monterrey
Tech University and has many regional bonds.
The growing number of explicit university-business bonds raises the question of the poten-
tial impact of this policy, in addition to the already existing regional impact of a more implicit
nature. According to Dahlstrand and Jacobsson (2003), who have studied the Gothenburg
region, the contribution of higher education institutions to regional development resides in the
first place in the creation of ‘configuring clusters of capabilities’ (Dahlstrand and Jacobsson
2003). Research in Canada in order to reveal the impact of 11 ‘high-tech clusters’ demonstrates
that in no single case the university acted as a ‘driver’. Instead, universities acted as ‘catalyst’.
The large impact of the universities of Calgary and Waterloo cannot be attributed to this
universities’ policy, but to the entrepreneurial behaviour of the students (Doutriaux 2003). The
University of Alborg is also a substantial ‘catalyst’ related to its project-based educational
system. During the past 35 years, students have executed more than 100.000 projects together
with local firms, institutions and organizations (Kjearsdam and Enemark 1994; Goddard 1997).
2.3 Actions HEIs can undertake to stimulate RIS
From the above empirical studies we can distil several deliberate actions that can be undertaken
by HEIs to stimulate regional development. Essentially these actions pertain to the different
roles of the HEIs in the regional innovation system. Thus, each of the traditional roles of
research and education will have to be reinterpreted and expanded, in order for the HEIs to
become system builders. In Table 3 we review the roles of HEIs and see what deliberate actions
can be undertaken to contribute to regional development.
Note that next to the concrete actions that are classified in Table 3, intangible effects of the
presence of HEIs in the region can be identified as well. Intangible effects stem from the fact that
universities are powerful symbols of learning and expertise. Their presence can be important to
regional branding. Related to this is the idea that a region with a reputation for world class
research can have spillover and reputation effects, by attracting high tech firms to the region and
thereby stimulating the regional economy (Power and Malmberg 2008). The HEIs in the region
create social capital, attracts students who spend money in the regional economy, contribute to
social, political and cultural life, community development, architecture and integration in
international society (Felsenstein 1996; Goddard 1999; Thanki 1999).
The first domain in which HEIs can actively contribute to regional system building is
research. Research can be employed in several ways. The content of the research can be directed
7The role of HEIs in building regional innovation systems
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 8 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 69ABA611
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
to areas that underpin the region’s economic base, namely, part of the research undertaken by
HEI can be regionally-focused (Chatterton and Goddard 2000; Gunasekara 2006). Furthermore,
the form of research projects can be such that it involves regional actors. We can distinguish
between different forms of research agreements that vary in terms of the party that is undertak-
ing the research and whether the project generates new insights from an academic point of view,
or not.
On one side of the spectrum are contract research agreements that are commissioned by
industry or policy-makers and are undertaken by university researchers. Projects in this category
usually pertain to original academic research that creates new knowledge.Also the collaborative
development of innovative instruments and engineering design tools falls into this category of
research agreements (Keane and Allison 1999; Goddard 1999; Glasson 2003; Drucker and
Goldstein 2007). A middle group consists of joint research agreements that involve research
directed to generating academically new insights and that is undertaken collaboratively by
several parties. Collaborative centres where university staff and personnel from companies do
joint research in so-called third spaces or academic workplaces are a good example of projects
in this category (Harloe and Perry 2004; Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid
2008). At the other side of the spectrum are consultancy projects that are commissioned by
industry and do not involve original research. In the latter category HEIs are essentially
exploiting and capitalizing on existing knowledge (Goddard 1999; Keane and Allison 1999;
Etzkowitz et al. 2000; Glasson 2003; Gunasekara 2006; Drucker and Goldstein 2007). Com-
munication channels between HEIs and firms can be kept open by creating regional learning
centres or Lernladen (Gnahs et al. 2008), which are specialized knowledge institutes that are
easy accessible for firms.
The traditional role of education brings forward the second domain of activities that can be
adapted in the light of the new role of regional development. Training relationships between
HEIs and industry can be built. Professors may identify opportunities for students to serve as
interns in firms (Etzkowitz et al. 2000). ‘Placements’ within the region can be created for alumni
in order to prevent bright graduates from leaving (Goddard 1999; Keane and Allison 1999;
Glasson 2003). In this way HEIs act as attractor, educator and retainer of students, shaping them
Tab l e 3 . Ways in which HEIs can deliberately contribute to regional development
Domains HEI – industry collaboration mechanisms (adapted from Ramos-Vielba et al. 2010
and D’Este and Patel 2007)
Research • Content of research has a regional focus
• Research agreement between regional actors
– commissioned by industry/policy; undertaken by university researchers only; original
research
– undertaken by several parties jointly; original research
– commissioned by industry; undertaken by university researchers only; no original
research
Education • Build training relationships with firms
– Training of postgraduates and internships at firms (e.g., joint supervision of PhDs)
– Temporary exchange of personnel
– Training of firm employees provided by the university
• Adapt education programs to meet firm’s needs
• Strong regional focus on student recruitment and graduate retention
Active collaboration
with (regional) public
and private actors
• Industry sponsored meetings and conferences
• Setting up spin-off or start-up companies
• Creation of physical facilities with industry funding / use or renting of facilities or
equipment
8 M.C.J. Caniëls, H. van den Bosch
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 9 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 57987467
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
into knowledge-based graduates for firms in the region (Boucher et al. 2003), and providing the
region with a pool of skilled labour (Power and Malmberg 2008). Firm employees can enrol in
university courses, or specific in-house training programmes targeted to firm employees can be
set up by university personnel. Another type of interaction that is associated with a very
intensive flow of knowledge is the temporary appointment of university members to the business
sector (Schartinger et al. 2001). Existing education programs can be adapted to meet regional
skills needs (Goddard 1999; Gunasekara 2006). Furthermore, student recruitment could adopt a
strong regional focus (Gunasekara 2006).
Finally, several activities can be distinguished that enhance HEI-industry relationships and
that cannot be categorized under research or education and that mainly originate from formal
and informal participation as an institutional actor with other regional actors in linkages
networks of learning, innovation and governance (Goddard et al. 1994; Keane and Allison 1999;
Boucher et al. 2003). We label this type of activity as active collaboration with (regional) public
and private actors. Attendance of university researchers at industry sponsored meetings and
conferences is an example, as well as making the university premises available for local
activities (Goddard 1999; Keane and Allison 1999; Drucker and Goldstein 2007). Staff partici-
pation on external bodies can induce regional networking between HEIs, industry representa-
tives and policy-makers. It also supports decision-making and brokering networking between
national and international contacts and key regional actors (Gunasekara 2006; Benneworth and
Hospers 2007). Other collaborations between HEIs and industry can be in the form of academic
entrepreneurship or spin-off firms, that generate new economic activity, revenues and jobs in the
region (Etzkowitz et al. 2000; Lockett et al. 2003; Power and Malmberg 2008; Erdös and Varga
2010). Yet another type of collaboration that is associated with knowledge flows is creating or
renting university facilities or equipment to industry (Ramos-Vielba et al. 2010).
Whether a certain mechanism for deliberate action is suitable to adopt by a certain HEI
depends on a number of factors. These factors influence the ability of HEIs to engage in regional
system building in which regional stakeholders work together to develop the overall capacity of
human resources in the region (Boucher et al. 2003, p. 895). Studies on the contribution of HEIs
to the regional innovation system have revealed several conditions for the expansion of the
contribution of universities to regional development. These conditions are predominantly related
to a broad set of factors that relate to characteristics of HEIs, characteristics of the regional firms,
aspects of the collaborative relationship, and characteristics of environmental context in which
HEIs and firms are embedded. Figure 1 illustrates these factors. In the remainder of this paper
Environmental context
regional system characteristics, including regional educational level, governmental support,
nature of workplaces (H)
HEI
- internal motivation
(A) and ability (B) of
university researchers
to engage in industry
collaborations
- institutional
characteristics of the
university department
(C)
- scientific discipline
(D)
Regionally operating
firm
- the internal
motivation of firms
to engage in
university
collaborations (E)
- absorptive capacity
(F)
Collaborative interaction
- trust, familiarity,
relational norms, justice
aspects, commitment to
the relationship (G)
Fig. 1. Factors influencing HEI-industry collaborative interaction
9The role of HEIs in building regional innovation systems
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
4
4
5
5
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 10 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 6820F5C1
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
we will elaborate on each of these factors and suggest directions of further research and a
possible research design.
3 Directions open to further research
There are several important and promising areas open to further research. Most studies about the
role of HEIs on regional system building are case studies of the relations of a single university
within a region (Boucher et al. 2003; Drucker and Goldstein 2007). These studies reveal an
increasing involvement of HEIs in regional policy and development. Interestingly, Holland
(2001) shows that HEIs main motivations to engage in regional development stem from pres-
sures external to the HEI. For instance, political pressure or budget cuts force HEIs to pursue
business collaboration. These external motivations are not likely to be strong enough to generate
a change in behaviour. Research shows that HEIs perceive a tension between excellence in
teaching and research and regional engagement (Marmolejo and Puuka 2006), and there is an
internal motivation to let excellence in research prevail over excellence in education and
engagement in the region. Extensive research in the field of radical innovation management and
stimulation of creativity suggests that internal motivations generate more effects than external
motivations (Udwadia 1990; Colarelli et al.2004). Therefore, HEIs that are internally motivated
to contribute to regional development, for example, by seeing the opportunity to enhance and
strengthen the HEIs’ mission and their research performance, are likely to be more successful
in this role (item A in Figure 1). Further research is needed to explore whether internally
motivated HEIs generate more success in system building than externally motivated HEIs and in
what ways their internal motivation can be fuelled. A first step in this direction is the study of
D’Este and Patel (2007), that shows that individual characteristics of university researchers have
a strong impact on the variety and frequency of the interaction with firms. The reasons of
university researchers to interact with industry include access to additional research income,
applicability of research, access to industry skills and facilities, and keeping abreast of industry
problems. These reasons can be seen as motors of internal motivation of HEI researchers to
support regional development. In addition, Rosenfeld (1997) and Tomes and Phillips (2003)
point out that the ability of university researchers to co-operate with industry and participate in
local networks needs attention as well. The success of collaborative programmes puts heavy
demands upon project management qualities of university researchers (item B in Figure 1).
Several authors have suggested that institutional characteristics of the university department
(item C in Figure 1), play a role in determining the success of university firm interactions
(Schartinger et al. 2001; D’Este and Patel 2007). Among relevant institutional characteristics are
the size of a university department, which increases the resources available for collaborative
projects (Schartinger et al. 2001; D’Este and Patel 2007). Furthermore, a high share of senior
researchers signals the predominance of more experienced researchers with established aca-
demic careers and these are associated with decreased HEI-industry interaction (Schartinger
et al. 2001). University department policy and regulations can also create important incentives
or disencouragements of collaborative projects. Regional connectivity has to be a part of the
HEIs’ strategic policy to spur HEI-industry interactions (Rosenfeld 1997; Tomes and Phillips
2003). Most collaborative projects of HEIs and firms are small-scaled and depend on the
enthusiasm of individuals. Possibilities for increasing scale of operations that is implied by the
development of ‘socially engaged HEIs’ depends on a strong vision and support by the HEI’s
government and adequate funding policy (Goddard 1997).
The scientific discipline (item D in Figure 1), constitutes another characteristic of the HEI
that has an influence on involvement of HEIs in industry collaborations (Klevorick et al. 1995;
D’Este and Patel 2007). In general, researchers engaged in basic research are less involved in
10 M.C.J. Caniëls, H. van den Bosch
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 11 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 6D6C6C73
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
collaborative research projects than those engaged in applied fields (Estabrooks et al. 2008).
Further research should investigate the factors that determine possibilities for HEIs to be
engaged in regional development as well as factors that internally motivate HEIs to be active in
this field.
In addition to the first point about the importance of internal motivation, it can be said that
to a large degree, regional networks are self-governed by all stakeholders. Whether it is feasible
for a particular HEI to undertake substantial effort leading to the development of the regional
innovation system and support of regional development and growth depends on many condi-
tions. One of these conditions is whether joint research with a regional network partner is of
mutual interest and hence there is an internal motivation for both parties (items A and E in
Figure 1). When a mutual interest is present each partner will be involved in the problem
formulation, the generation of data and the implementation of the results. Innovative ideas and
products will then be available for all participants in the network (open innovation).
Table 3 shows that HEIs can implement their new role by deliberately adapting their current
roles of education and research in a way that regional development will be supported. Further-
more, HEIs should undertake an additional effort by defining collaborative projects with public
and private actors. However, the role of the specificities of recipient firms has only received
scant attention in the literature (Dosi et al. 2006; Meusburger 2008, 2009; Colombo et al. 2010).
The ‘absorptive capacity’literature (Cohen and Levinthal 1989, 1990; Zahra and George 2002),
shows the importance of capabilities of the receiving firms to detect, absorb, and utilize the
scientific knowledge generated by local universities (item F in Figure 1). Meusburger (2009)
states that the communication process between the producer of knowledge (e.g., a university),
and the receiver (e.g., a firm), fails in many cases or takes too much time to remain competitive,
because the receiver of information has not sufficient prior knowledge to understand and utilize
the information offered. This is particularly the case with respect to high grade knowledge that
requires prior knowledge, skills and experience to be understood by the recipient. The receiver
of the high grade knowledge has to be able to understand the information that is offered, evaluate
its importance and integrate it to its own knowledge base and transform it into action (Meus-
burger 2009, p. 36). In other words, when sources of knowledge are available for end-users, the
end-user has to be able to absorb the new scientific knowledge. Typically, internationally
competitive companies access the best research institutions and consultancies all over the world
and do not have a problem with detecting, absorbing and utilizing university generated knowl-
edge. It is the smaller regional firms that have room for improvement in this respect. We will
need to gain understanding about the processes at firm level that enhance this absorptive
capacity of regionally operating firms. Almost certainly intensive interaction between universi-
ties and firms is needed to ensure successful exchange of knowledge with this category of firms,
but there might be additional and alternative ways to increase their absorptive capacities.
Furthermore, research has paid little attention to the actual collaboration processes and we
have insufficient understanding of how HEI-industry interactions are formed (Thune 2007). It
might be the case that not only absorptive capacity of firms, but also social aspects in the
relationship between HEI and firms including trust, familiarity, relational norms, justice aspects
and a long term commitment to the relationship are of key importance in successful interaction
(item G in Figure 1). Hence, further research is needed to gain more understanding about the
micro-dynamics of HEI-industry relationships, in particular the learning processes at play
within firms as well as the nature of the collaborative processes within the relationship.
Our paper explored the regional system building initiatives that can be undertaken by HEIs,
including activities that focus on increasing the prior knowledge and skills of the end-user.
However, the regional innovation system that is available at one point in time has to be taken into
account as an important factor determining whether knowledge interactions between HEIs and
firms will be successful or not (item H in Figure 1). Differences in absorptive capacity between
11The role of HEIs in building regional innovation systems
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 12 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 5F26EE38
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
regions originates from differences in the innovative capacity regions, levels of research inten-
sity, regional level of educational attainment, the qualification structures of work places and so
on (Maskell and Malmberg 1999; see Meusburger 2008 for a review). Hence, the regional
(innovation) system in which HEIs and firms are embedded differs between regions and has
large implications about how well (high grade) knowledge from universities is absorbed by firms
and how well system building activities from HEIs will be taken up and be successful. Further
research should be able to identify the degree in which general factors that determine the overall
regional innovation system, such as regional research intensity and regional qualification struc-
ture of work, moderate the extent to which HEIs can actively build the regional innovation
system. In the meantime, it is of critical importance that policy-makers still invest into activities
that upgrade the overall regional innovation system and do not leave this task completely to
HEIs.
Finally, it is critical to be able to measure the results of regional engagement work of HEIs.
With the exception of the study of Ramos-Vielba et al. (2010), there is a lack of sound indicators
that give information about the current status and that allow for monitoring the situation over
time. Developing measures of the effectiveness of institutional engagement in regional devel-
opment is essential to provide input for the improvement of HEIs (Marmolejo and Puuka 2006).
Further research should be undertaken in order to overcome current technical and political
difficulties.
4 Research design
A research design that addresses these issues will consist of two phases that employ different
methodologies. First, an explorative study needs to be carried out that is containing a limited
number of semi-structured, in-depth interviews with HEI researchers as well as with repre-
sentatives of regionally operating firms and of regional government agencies. The interviews
will promote a more comprehensive understanding about the internal motivation to interact of
all parties involved, in particular, the sending and the receiving end of knowledge interactions.
On the one hand we need to identify the motors of internal motivation of HEI researchers to
engage in regional developmental activities and industry interaction, as well as the mecha-
nisms by which interaction takes place. On the other hand we need to gain understanding
about processes at the level of regionally operating firms that enhance their internal motiva-
tion as well as the ability to interact with HEIs and absorb and implement the available
knowledge. Additionally to the focus on both sender and receiver, it is important to gain
understanding about the nature of the collaborative processes. What is the importance of
informal links between HEI researchers and representatives of regional firms – in terms of
trust, relational norms and justice aspects – for the formation of formal interactions. Thune
(2007) provides a good basis for a set up of a qualitative study. Based on the interviews and
the available literature about proxies of interaction activities (e.g., D’Este and Patel 2007;
Thune 2007; Ramos-Vielba et al. 2010), several sound indicators can be developed that
provide information about the current HEI-industry interaction mechanisms, the nature of the
collaboration and the motivating factors for each actor.
Second, we propose a more explanatory and confirmatory approach by means of a survey
among a large number of academic researchers as well as firm representatives. Schartinger et al.
(2001) and Ramos-Vielba et al (2010) administered two surveys targeted at research teams at
universities and R&D departments of firms. Although this being a good initiative the research
design of these studies does not provide dyadic information on whether joint research with
regional network partner is of mutual interest. We need to improve our understanding of who in
academia interacts with whom in industry, and how and why. Even dyad-focused research is too
12 M.C.J. Caniëls, H. van den Bosch
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 13 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 8B871563
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
limited for this goal, because it treats the network as a collection of two-party relationships,
rather than as a multiorganizational social system (Michel 1969). Consequently, a social
network analysis involving all regional actors is needed to assess the internal motivation of all
parties to engage in regional system building activities and the current status of HEI-industry
interaction. The survey should also generate data about the extent in which the involved actors
assess whether the results of certain interaction mechanisms are in line with the predetermined
reason for undertaking the interaction, namely, to what extent is the internal motivation fuelled
by a successful interaction and what are the characteristics of the collaborative relationship.
Furthermore, data about the general characteristics of the regional innovation system should be
gathered, including regional research intensity, regional educational attainment and regional
qualification structure of work, since these factors could moderate the extent to which HEIs’
interaction with industry is successful and the degree in which HEIs can actively contribute to
the regional innovation system. Data on factors such as scientific discipline and the institutional
characteristics of the university department is needed for constructing control variables.
Preferably, the research design should adopt a longitudinal perspective. Motivation of HEIs
and firms to engage in interaction, absorptive capacity of firms, mechanisms of interaction and
exchange, aspects of the collaborative relationship and characteristics of the regional innovation
system should be monitored over time. This approach can provide further insights into the
current status of, and the changes in, the regional innovation system and its actors as well as its
underlying collaborative processes.
5 Concluding remarks
This literature review and the emanating issues for further research are focused at coming to
grips with the regional innovation system building role of HEIs. The answers to the research
questions that we formulated contribute to better understanding of the ways in which deliberate
regional development activities of HEIs can be promoted and in which way we will be able to
monitor whether new initiatives actually do lead to further development of the regional inno-
vation system over time. At the same time, we will need to gain understanding about the
processes at firm level that enhance absorptive capacity of firms and about the role of informal
aspects in a collaborative relationship between HEIs and firms. In this way we might be able to
generate an optimal alignment of HEIs, firms and governmental institutes so that all regional
engagement activities of HEIs can be optimally absorbed by the region and its firms.
References
Arbo P, Benneworth P (2007) Understanding the regional contribution of higher education institutions: A literature
review, OECD Education Working Paper 9, OECD, Paris
Armstrong HW (1993) The local income and employment impact of Lancaster University. Urban Studies 30: 1653–
1669
Benneworth P, Coenen L, Moodysson J, Asheim B (2009) Exploring the multiple roles of Lund University in
strengthening Scania’s regional innovation system: towards institutional learning? European Planning Studies 17:
1645–1664
Benneworth P, Hospers G (2007) Urban competitiveness in the knowledge economy: universities as new planning
animateurs. Progress in Planning 67: 105–197
Bergman EM (2010) Knowledge links between European universities and firms: a review. Papers in Regional Science
89: 311–333
Boucher G, Conway C, Van der Meer E (2003) Tiers of engagement by universities in their region’s development.
Regional Studies 37: 887–897
13The role of HEIs in building regional innovation systems
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 14 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 64E5C344
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
Charles D (2003) Universities and territorial development: reshaping the regional role of UK universities. Local
Economy 18: 7–20
Chatterton P, Goddard J (2000) The response of higher education institutions to regional needs. European Journal of
Education 35: 475–496
Christopherson S, Kitson M, Michie J (2008) Innovation, networks and knowledge exchange. Cambridge Journal of
Regions, Economy and Society 1: 165–173
Clark N (1995) Knowledge systems – interactive nature of knowledge systems: some implications for the third world.
Science and Public Policy 22: 249–258
Cohen W, Levinthal DA (1989) Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal 99: 569–596
Cohen W, Levinthal D (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly 35: 128–152
Colarelli O’Connor G, McDermott CM (2004) The human side of radical innovation. Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management 21: 11–30
Colombo MG, D’Adda D, Piva E (2010) The contribution of university research to the growth of academic start-ups: an
empirical analysis. Journal of Technology Transfer 35: 113–140
Colyvas JA, Powell WW (2006) Roads to institutionalization: the remaking of boundaries between public and private
science. Research in Organizational Behavior 27: 305–353
D’Este P, Patel P (2007) University-industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of
interactions with industry? Research Policy 36: 1295–1482
Dahlstrand ÅSL, Jacobsson S (2003) Universities and technology-based entrepreneurship in the Gothenburg region.
Local Economy 18(1): 80–90
Dankbaar, B (2004) Innoveren met verstand van zaken. Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen
Dosi G, Llerena P, Labinia MS (2006) The relationships between science, technologies and their industrial exploitation:
an illustration through the myths and realities of the so-called ‘European Paradox’. Research Policy 35: 1450–1464
Douthwaite B (2002) Enabling innovation. A practical guide to understanding and fostering technological change.Zed
Books, London
Douthwaite B, Keatinge JDH, Park JR (2002) Learning selection: an evolutionary model for understanding, imple-
menting and evaluating participatory technology development. Agricultural Systems 72: 109–131
Doutriaux JRM (2003) University-industry linkages and the development of knowledge clusters in Canada. Local
Economy 18(1): 63–79
Drucker J, Goldstein HA (2007) Assessing the regional economic development impacts of universities: a review of
current approaches. International Regional Science Review 30: 20–46
DTI (2001) Business clusters in the UK – a first assessment. report for the department of trade and industry by a
consortium led by trends business research. Department of trade and Industry, London
DTI DfEE (2001) Opportunity for all in a world of change: a white paper on enterprise, skills and innovation.The
Stationery Office, London
Erdös K, Varga A (2009) The academic entrepreneur: myth or reality for increased regional growth in Europe? Working
Papers 2009/7, University of Pécs, Department of Economics and Regional Studies, revised Dec 2009
Estabrooks CA, Norton P, Birdsell JM, Newton MS, Adewale AJ, Thornley R (2008) Knowledge translation and
research careers: mode I and mode II activity among health researchers. Research Policy 37: 1066–1078
Etzkowitz H, Klofsten M (2005)The innovating region: toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R
& D Management 35: 243–255
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: 109–123
Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C, Terra BRC (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future:
evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy 29: 313–330
Faggian A, McCann P (2006) Human capital and regional knowledge assets: a simultaneous equation model. Oxford
Economic Papers 58: 475–500
Faggian A, McCann P (2009a) Human capital, graduate migration and innovation in British regions. Cambridge Journal
of Economics 33: 317–333
Faggian A, McCann P (2009b) Universities, agglomerations and graduate human capital mobility. Tijdschrift voor
Economische en Sociale Geografie 100: 210–223
Felsenstein, D (1996) The university in the metropolitan arena: impacts and public policy implications. Urban Studies
33: 1565–1580
Freeman C (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan. Pinter, London
Gardiner P, Rothwell R (1985) Tough customers: good designs. Design Studies 6: 7–17
Geuna A, Llerena P, Matt M, Savona M (2004) Collaboration between a research university and firms and other
institutions. In: Gambardella A, Garcia-Fontes W (eds) The European chemical industry: innovation, performance
and competitiveness. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht
14 M.C.J. Caniëls, H. van den Bosch
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 15 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 73FC6647
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
Glasson J (2003) The widening local and regional development impacts of the modern universities – a tale of two cities
(and north-south perspectives). Local Economy 18: 21–37
Gnahs D, Böttcher P, Barske H, Tippelt R, Emminghaus C (2008) Lernende regionen – förderung von netzwerken.
Programmdarstellung. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Berlin
Goddard JB (1997) Universities and regional development: an overview. URL: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/~ncurds/univ/
imhe-97.htm
Goddard JB (1999) Universities and regional development, an overview. In: Gray J (ed) Universities and the creation
of wealth. Open University Press, Milton Keynes
Goddard JB, Chatterton P (2003) The response of universities to regional needs. In: Boekema F, Kuypers E, Rutten R (eds)
Economic geography of higher education: knowledge, infrastructure and learning regions. Routledge, London
Goldfarb B, Henrekson M (2002) Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university
intellectual property. Research Policy 32: 639–658
Gunasekara C (2006) Reframing the role of universities in the development of regional innovation systems. Journal of
Technology Transfer 31: 101–113
Harloe M, Perry B (2004) Universities, localities and regional development: the emergence of the ‘mode 2’ university.
International Journal of Urban and regional Research 28: 212–223
Harris RID (1997) The impact of the University of Portsmouth on the local economy. Urban Studies 34: 605–626
Henry N, Pinch S (2000) Spatialising knowledge: placing the knowledge community of motor sports valley. Geoforum
31: 191–208
Hermannsson K, Lisenkova K, McGregor PG, JK Swales (2009) The impact of higher education institutions (HEIs) on
the Scottish economy: new evidence from an HEI disaggregated input-output approach. Fraser of Allander
Economic Ccommentary 33: 43–47
Holland BA (2001) Toward a definition and characterization of the engaged campus: six cases. Metropolitan Univer-
sities 12: 20–29
Huggins R, Johnston A (2009) The economic and innovation contribution of universities: a regional perspective.
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 27: 1088–1106
Huijts P (2003) The national approach concerning the learning regions paradigm. In: Rutten R, Boekema F, Kuijpers E
(eds) Economic geography of higher education: knowledge, infrastructure, and learning regions. Routledge, New
York
Keane J, Allison J (1999) The intersection of the learning region and local and regional economic development:
analysing the role of higher education. Regional Studies 33: 896–902
Kjearsdam F, Enemark S (1994). The Aalborg experiment. Project innovation in University Education. Aalborg
University Press, Aalborg
Klevorick AK, Levin RC, Nelson RR,Winter SG (1995) On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in
technological opportunities. Research Policy 24: 185–205
Kline SJ, Rosenberg N (1986) An overview of innovation. In: Landau R, Rosenberg N (eds) The positive sum strategy
harnessing technology for economic growth. National Academic Press, Washington DC
Lagendijk A, Rutten R (2003) Associational dilemmas in regional innovation strategy development. Regional innova-
tion support organisations and the RIS/RITTS programmes. In: Rutten R, Boekema F, Kuijpers E (eds) Economic
geography of higher education: knowledge, infrastructure, and learning regions. Routledge, New York
Lawton Smith H (2003) Universities and local economic development: an appraisal of the issues and practices. Local
Economy 18: 2–6
Lockett A, Wright M, Franklin S (2003) Technology transfer and universities’ spin-out strategies. Small Business
Economics 20: 185–200
Lundvall B-Å (1988) Innovation as an interactive process: From user-producer interaction to the national innovation
systems. In: Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson RR, Silverberg G, Soete L (eds) Technology and economic theory. Pinter,
London
Lundvall B-Å (1992) National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter,
London
Marmolejo F, Puuka J (2006) Supporting the contribution of higher education to regional development: lessons learned
from an OECD review of 14 regions throughout 12 countries. Paper presented at the Colloquium on Research and
Higher Education Policy, UNESCO, Paris, France 29 November–1 December
Maskell P, Malmberg A (1999) Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics 23:
167–185
McGregor P, Swales K, McLellan D (2006) The overall impact of higher education institutions on regions: a critical
review. In: Centre for Public Policy for the Regions Network on the Overall Impact of HEIs on Regional
Economies: Final Report Centre for Public Policy for Regions, Glasgow
Meusburger P (2008) The nexus between knowledge and space. In: Meusburger, P, Welker M and Wunder E (eds)
Clashes of knowledge. Orthodoxies and heterodoxies in science and religion. Springer, Dordrecht
15The role of HEIs in building regional innovation systems
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
6
6
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 16 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 005A06CC
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
Meusburger P (2009) Spatial mobility of knowledge: a proposal for a more realistic communication model. disP – The
Planning Review 177: 29–39
Michel JC (ed.) (1969) Social networks in urban settings. Manchester, Manchester University Press
Morgan, K (2007) The learning region: institutions, innovation and regional renewal. In: Rutten R, Boekema F (eds) The
learning region foundations, state of the art, future. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Nelson R 1993, National innovation systems: a comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, New York
Nieuwenhuis L, Verhaar K, Hoeve A (2003) Networking between economy and education. In: Rutten R, Boekema F,
Kuijpers E (eds) Economic geography of higher education: knowledge, infrastructure and learning regions.
Routledge, London
OECD (2007) Higher education and regions – globally competitive, locally engaged. Paris: OECD
Power D, Malmberg A (2008) The contribution of universities to innovation and economic development: in what sense
a regional problem? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 1: 233–245
Puuka, J (2008) Higher education institutions and regional mission: lessons learnt from the OECD review project.
Higher Education Policy 20: 1–28
Ramos-Vielba I, Fernández-Esquinas M, Espinosa-de-los-Monteros E (2010) Measuring university–industry collabo-
ration in a regional innovation system. Scientometrics 84: 649–667
Rosenfeld SA (1997) Bringing business clusters into the mainstream of economic development. European Planning
Studies 5: 3–23
Rothwell R, Gardiner P (1989) The strategic management of re-innovation. R&D Management 19: 147–160
Rothwell R, Zegveld W (1985) Reindustrialisation and technology. Longman, Harlow
Ruivo B (1994) Phases or paradigms of science policy? Science of Public Policy 21: 157–164
Schartinger D, Schibany A, Gassler H (2001) Interactive relations between university and firms: empirical evidence for
Austria. Journal of Technology Transfer 26: 255–268
Strauf S, Scherer R (2008) Universities and their contribution to regional development. Transformations in Business &
Economics 7: 137–151
Thanki R (1999) How do we know the value of higher education to regional development? Regional Studies 33: 84–95
Thune T (2007) University-industry collaboration: the network embeddedness approach. Science and Public Policy 34:
158–168
Tomes A, Phillips M (2003) Product development through university-SME collaboration: lessons from reactive and
proactive approaches. Local Economy 18(1): 91–95
Udwadia FE (1990) Creativity and Innovation in organizations: two models and managerial implications. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change 38: 65–80
Von Hippel E (1976) The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy 5:
212–239
Warren A, Hanke R, Trotzer D (2008) Models for university technology transfer: resolving conflicts between mission
and methods and the dependency on geographic location. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 1:
219–232
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (2008). Innovatie vernieuwd, opening in viervoud. Amsterdam
University Press, Amsterdam
Zahra SA, George G (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management
Review 27: 185–203
16 M.C.J. Caniëls, H. van den Bosch
Papers in Regional Science, Volume •• Number •• •• 2011.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 17 SESS: 41 OUTPUT: Tue Dec 21 17:35:12 2010 SUM: 2917FA26
/v2451/blackwell/journals/pirs_v0_i0/pirs_344
AUTHOR QUERY FORM
Dear Author,
During the preparation of your manuscript for publication, the questions listed below
have arisen. Please attend to these matters and return this form with your proof.
Many thanks for your assistance.
Query
References
Query Remark
1AUTHOR: please provide details for the
references and also a page number for this
citation.
2AUTHOR: please provide details for the
references or delete.
3AUTHOR: please spell out.
4AUTHOR: please provide details for the
references or delete.
5AUTHOR: To match the reference list, should
Erdös and Varga 2010 be changed to Erdös
and Varga 2009? Please advise
6AUTHOR: Goddard, Chatterton, 2003 has not
been cited in the text. Please indicate where it
should be cited; or delete from the Reference
List.
SNP Best-set Typesetter Ltd.
Journal Code: PIRS Proofreader: Elsie
Article No: 344 Delivery date: 21 December 2010
Page Extent: 16
MARKED PROOF
Please correct and return this set
Instruction to printer
Leave unchanged under matter to remain
through single character, rule or underline
New matter followed by
or
or
or
or
or
or
or
or
or
and/or
and/or
e.g.
e.g.
under character
over character
new character
new characters
through all characters to be deleted
through letter or
through characters
under matter to be changed
under matter to be changed
under matter to be changed
under matter to be changed
under matter to be changed
Encircle matter to be changed
(As above)
(As above)
(As above)
(As above)
(As above)
(As above)
(As above)
(As above)
linking characters
through character or
where required
between characters or
words affected
through character or
where required
or
indicated in the margin
Delete
Substitute character or
substitute part of one or
more word(s)
Change to italics
Change to capitals
Change to small capitals
Change to bold type
Change to bold italic
Change to lower case
Change italic to upright type
Change bold to non-bold type
Insert ‘superior’ character
Insert ‘inferior’ character
Insert full stop
Insert comma
Insert single quotation marks
Insert double quotation marks
Insert hyphen
Start new paragraph
No new paragraph
Transpose
Close up
Insert or substitute space
between characters or words
Reduce space between
characters or words
Insert in text the matter
Textual mark Marginal mark
Please use the proof correction marks shown below for all alterations and corrections. If you
in dark ink and are made well within the page margins.
wish to return your proof by fax you should ensure that all amendments are written clearly
