Proximity across the distant worlds of university–industry collaborations

This paper examines the extent to which firms perceive different dimensions of proximity to be important for the formation of their interactions with universities. Furthermore, it investigates whether the importance of the different types of proximities varies depending on the type of interaction—be it about knowledge exploration, knowledge exploitation, competence enhancement, advice-seeking or marketing. Using data from a survey of 1,200 Norwegian firms, we find that most managers believe cognitive, institutional, social and geographical proximity were important for their decision to collaborate with university partners and that the importance of proximity types varies depending on the contents of the interaction. Este artículo estudia en qué medida las empresas perciben la importancia de las diferentes dimensiones de la proximidad para la formación de interacciones con universidades. Además, se investiga si la importancia de los distintos tipos de proximidades varía en función del tipo de interacción, ya sea de exploración de conocimientos, de explotación de conocimientos, de mejora de la competencia, de búsqueda de asesoramiento o de comercialización. A partir de los datos de una encuesta realizada a 1.200 empresas noruegas, se pudo descubrir que la mayoría del personal gerente cree que la proximidad cognitiva, institucional, social y geográfica fueron importantes para su decisión de colaborar con sus socios de universidades y que la importancia de los tipos de proximidad varía en función del contenido de la interacción. 本稿では、企業が、大学とのインタラクションを形成するのに異なる近接性の次元が重要であると認める程度を検討する。さらに、タイプが異なる近接性の重要度は、知識探索、知識の搾取、能力強化、アドバイスの希求、またはマーケティングなど、インタラクションのタイプによって変わるのかどうかも検討する。ノルウェーの1,200の企業の調査から得たデータから、経営者のほとんどが認知的、制度的、社会的および地理的近接性が大学との共同活動を実施する意思決定に重要であると考えていること、および近接性の重要性はインタラクションの内容によって異なることが示された。 Universities and firms interact for multiple purposes, and their interactions therefore take many different forms. Firms collaborate with universities to explore new knowledge, for example, through contract research or joint research projects, and to exploit new knowledge through commercialization in the form of patents, licences or new spinoff firms. Firms also collaborate with universities to enhance their competence, for example, contributing to the education of university students or participating in training for firm staff. They may consult academics to solve their technical problems or seek advice on their activities, often in informal ways. And they may simply want to brand or market themselves by, for example, sponsoring the university or organizing events. However, university-industry interactions can be hard to realize. Universities and firms have been described as occupying different worlds (Bruneel, D'Este, & Salter, 2010), with differences in worldviews, organizational structures, values and cultures, goals and motivations acting as barriers to interaction. These distances are not the same across all university-firm relationships. Not all firms or all universities share the same values; have the same cognitive capacities; or operate under the same organizational principles (Sauermann & Stephan, 2013). They also do not matter equally for all types of collaboration but their importance will vary depending on the content and purpose of collaboration. Hence, university-industry interactions can play out differently in different cases, suggesting that different university–industry collaboration (UIC) types need to be tackled separately. Proximity (in a geographical as well as non-geographical sense) is important for the formation of networks (Boschma, 2005). If firms and universities occupy different worlds, a pertinent question is which dimensions of proximity can enable UIC of different types. Nonetheless, the number of studies looking at the importance of proximity dimensions in UICs has been limited (Ponds, van Oort, & Frenken, 2007; Steinmo & Rasmussen, 2018) and these works have largely focused on specific UIC mechanisms, such as joint research, co-patenting and spin-offs (Hoekman, Frenken, & van Oort, 2009; Marek, Titze, Fuhrmeister, & Blum, 2017). More importantly, existing studies have seldom examined the relative importance of various proximity dimensions in facilitating different forms of UICs (D'Este, Guy, & Iammarino, 2013). However, the different characteristics of UICs depending on the purpose of interactions require a closer examination of the interplay between various proximity dimensions and various UIC channels. Furthermore, prior research has employed crude measures for proximity dimensions instead of collecting primary data on actors' perceptions of the importance of proximity for the formation of the relationships. This paper fills these gaps in the literature and provides a more comprehensive understanding of the significance of proximity dimensions for a wide set of UIC channels. With the empirical analysis drawing on a customized survey of firms in Norway, conducted in 2018, this paper represents the first endeavour to analyze the of various dimensions of proximity across different UIC channels. that the of interactions with and universities for all types of also the importance of non-geographical proximity for However, the importance of proximity dimensions varies depending on the UIC a analysis to the relative significance of proximity for different UIC types. to competence cognitive and proximity matter more for knowledge geographical proximity is proximity is as more important firms in knowledge advice-seeking organizational proximity is of the paper is as we literature on in UICs and the of proximity in the different dimensions of proximity matter for different UIC types we the data and in we the of the A of the the paper proximity provides a on for knowledge & as to on a & in problems facilitating and and to in knowledge between the partners (Boschma, 2005). studies that geographical or the of the the that knowledge & knowledge, knowledge, to & However, not the of the knowledge as it not in partners to interact & are not in proximity can knowledge, in many on non-geographical dimensions of cognitive, institutional, and social proximity (Boschma, 2005). in knowledge need to be to in the proximity they have cognitive proximity on the of the knowledge of the (Boschma, 2005). knowledge the be to and the new knowledge from the This is their knowledge is proximity to the or and on the of the between the & the for of the partners in the knowledge a in the form of the is proximity knowledge that the are and (Boschma, 2005). proximity the social from prior or between the in the collaboration (Boschma, 2005). proximity provides a for & which works as a and knowledge the of proximities in proximity can be to proximity may in that can the of If cognitive proximity is the for social proximity can be with to collaborate with their personal organizational proximity can a with for proximity can values and are not Hence, in the be but at the from to the from collaboration & is for studies have that proximity the that a is & Frenken, & a from the proximity and are to & suggesting distances between Universities and firms in their to in and from the of university and this UICs proximity that are the UICs are between and This that the distances can be and barriers can be in to the social and characteristics of are of importance in UICs & proximity of the partners that or the collaboration in UICs & Steinmo & Rasmussen, this various studies have that dimensions of proximity the formation of UICs and the & & Iammarino, 2013). in the literature is the of geographical proximity in the and the more of UICs between universities and firms in geographical at universities to more to firms & and to in the the universities are 2013). in such as and to their in of research universities. firms universities and research (Ponds, Oort, & Frenken, firms universities also from to in the their Firms to universities looking for collaboration of UICs in proximity & dimensions of proximity the formation and of proximity can between universities and firms a understanding on the of knowledge of universities and firms. proximity in UICs can be through of the same organizational structures, such as research Rasmussen, and that such as and research UICs organizational as the of as and at the or as the of firms and universities to the same & has been to social proximity in the form of from a specific university the of firms with that university in & in to their social to and that social proximity a in the co-patenting of with firms in the also the of UICs in & the of proximity dimensions in UICs has been prior research that we to in this existing studies often on a proximity geographical proximity & Iammarino, & & & Salter, & studies that a proximity measures of and take the of the studies have examined important proximity is for different types of collaboration. this paper important are the various dimensions of proximity in the of UICs of different Firms with universities in various from collaboration to from joint to informal & 2013). organizational of the the of of the the and of and the of knowledge vary across UIC types. literature on UICs has different for UIC channels. and for organizational forms of and activities, activities, commercialization and which academics and A for the UIC in different research, and & of these UICs from the of universities. this we instead various on the and of from the of the between of are with the of new knowledge that This can take the form of contract research or joint research research may to such as new or the of new which we to as These interactions seek to the to the of firms, such as training or the of and Firms often seek out academics for advice on they in UICs in the form of informal which we firms may collaborate with universities to and their and for example, through or the of events. these UICs various of between universities and firms have different characteristics & of actors' the type of knowledge or the and of & and the of the vary the type of the of these we not and UIC to the same & various types of collaboration between universities and firms under the of the require different types of This a closer examination of proximities the UIC types this paper the research the importance of proximity on the type of on the of type of we the various proximity dimensions to be more or important for the different types. example, research can take between from in to the of the knowledge need for the of joint research may be through for knowledge geographical proximity is important for types of interactions & geographical proximity may be important for advice-seeking these interactions often on through or between academics and firm & 2017). This has been as of the firms in often to universities & types of geographical proximity also UICs at knowledge have been to in geographical or from university research to to the university & & also represents a interactions on between the such as and geographical proximity is as and types of are often the & & proximity can play a in research the partners for the to & Rasmussen, cognitive proximity more for UICs type of proximity is important for interactions as knowledge is not the of such types of cognitive proximity is also knowledge interactions can be to of of which are cognitive proximity is between partners in these the knowledge of firms and universities be to the competence of A of cognitive proximity is also for advice-seeking a understanding of the matter is organizational knowledge interactions are hard to realize. organizational proximity is important for the of UICs at knowledge 2017). advice-seeking interactions are organizational proximity is for this type of proximity is also not for the formation of type of but such as may the for proximity may also in the of knowledge interactions new are often to in a organizational proximity is also important for competence interactions joint organizational will play the of of the university is important for knowledge interactions it the of such as proximity is important for interactions as these interactions can also take at proximity is important for knowledge as universities need to be for the of firms in research for such interactions to proximity is with to the of a universities that can the of in through competence proximity can also be in the barriers for the of advice-seeking interactions between firms and as they require a academics to their advice to firms. proximity in the form of prior is for knowledge interactions research to explore new will often new the a of social proximity may knowledge this type of interactions a of the personal and collaboration a in the formation of such proximity can also play a in interactions with universities for competence they often as a of between and firm staff. and social networks also it to out to academics for advice 2017). proximity is also important for it be to this type of prior knowledge on the prior studies on to universities have that personal are important for this type of & the UIC for which we of proximity to be more and important for the to the of proximity in we conducted a survey of in survey firms in that and These are all university that the of a Furthermore, the distances between the in their and university are which between and Norwegian firms more importance to collaboration and interact more with partners firms in many & However, most of these interactions with and & 2013). A share of Norwegian firms universities as the most to knowledge for & 2017). a that the share of and with for is in which is the of the interactions between universities and has been a for Norwegian and various have been in the & These have been the of Norwegian universities to and with in activities, through commercialization of and a more in the & Firms also for in collaboration with universities and research from as well as such as survey to the interactions of Norwegian firms with universities. of firms from the Norwegian of which and about all in firms with more in and in the were and the which to a of A market research firm out the survey through with firm in the share of firms that were and number of Firms were whether they been in interactions with universities in the firms that they been in UICs This share is to studies from & with a share of and such as the & Salter, and of the survey for firms with and firms firms which not with universities a of the about the and content of these of the at of UICs from the with a on the dimensions of with UICs were to types of interactions with the of types the not they were in with universities. UIC types in the were from and literature on on the most types. this the that of and These UIC types to the purpose of from the of the knowledge knowledge competence and This of university-industry from the of the of new knowledge through research the of knowledge from universities to of students and university and the of training and the and of knowledge in through and spin-offs we of which are often but which are important and of the more informal advice-seeking as well as interactions firms want to their and in the of the survey various to interactions with the university with which they the most collaboration. They were about the type of UIC with that Furthermore, they were important various were in their decision to interact with that These dimensions of proximity institutional, social and the of proximity dimensions on more measures of proximity studies the about the importance of various proximity dimensions in their of collaboration studies of proximity in UICs have on of proximity as the of and for cognitive proximity & This it to the of proximity which are to Furthermore, they are often to across universities and across firms. existing studies have various dimensions of proximity looking at and to out proximities between the However, they do not for proximities were the and proximity to the university the decision to interact in the first we the of proximity dimensions on the of firms. This is the first of UICs that proximities such a on of were to the importance of on a with as as as and as at all the of cognitive we on the the of cognitive it is that the same knowledge and may from we firms about the importance of a knowledge and with this in their decision to organizational proximity as extent to which are in organizational or between we organizational proximity in of of organizational structures, such as research or proximity and values at a (Boschma, this to the of we it in of the of a and universities. This the firms of whether or not the values and of the university are to of the proximity is as with that the that proximity to the extent to which share prior & geographical we that of for the importance of the university to the of proximity dimensions in the of proximity on the of the with may have differently in the of the Furthermore, we are not to between whether proximity is or whether it is but the it for the decision to firms may not have organizational proximity they are not of joint organizational with universities. they be of such structures, but organizational proximity we this to be a as studies on measures about the of proximity whether the partners these to be important or to this we the extent to which partners that are also proximity to be important for the formation of the in the on which data are share of and firms that proximity to be cognitive we between firms with and of with proximity as the of Firms have with universities have been to have social more have social we between and interactions in to for geographical and organizational data to the proximity between partners that of partners geographical proximity to be important for the decision to to of of partners social proximity to be to of These differences are cognitive of partners proximity to be to of This is not the number of interactions and the share of firms UIC interactions are the most More of firms that interact with universities at type of competence interaction. are the most type in this of firms have with universities through informal are the most between Norwegian firms and universities. out of that interact with universities informal the on and spin-offs in UIC research and these are the with and of firms If we at the most important the competence interactions the most They are knowledge interactions However, we at joint research the They of the interactions most interactions are the most important type of firms have that of knowledge represents the of their with universities. of the interactions in this the of university of the universities with which firms Norwegian of and the most university for Norwegian firms. of firms have as their most university of is not in the Norwegian university is university has a of with & in & of interactions with in the form of joint or contract research projects, are to competence Norwegian firms collaborate with for knowledge exploration, which that as a that the of Norwegian firms for research collaboration. More of knowledge interactions of Norwegian firms with Norwegian of in and the of in of the number of universities in and with and all with universities are the most partners for Norwegian firms. firms have their most university as in to the of UICs in of the of university the firms were to all the types of UICs they have across geographical and firms collaboration with universities we these with the and as at the analysis the university for all of the of the UIC with universities in the the firm is the of for all of the across different geographical more or the same for many of the is knowledge which have a different share of for knowledge is for UIC interactions with universities for more of the interactions in this the share is for all UIC types. firms were which university they to be their most important and the most important type of with this interactions with universities have the share all UIC the represents the out of interactions between universities and firms in the same at the are in this of the that were in knowledge and interactions that their most university is the most of the interactions between universities and firms in geographical important do firms different dimensions of proximity to be interactions with This question is in which the for proximity the UIC also the share of firms which that these dimensions were or important in their decision to interact with their most university proximity is to be important for UICs from the of firms. of the more of the firms find proximity to be important for their decision to is organizational of the firms that organizational proximity important in their of the most important university This that a of firms were with universities through organizational the share of firms that cognitive proximity important for their decision to interact with their most important university out of firms that proximity in their proximity and geographical proximity also play a in the UICs for of the firms and the to proximities can be across the different UIC to proximity dimensions firms varies UIC types. proximity is most important for knowledge interactions of and important for interactions in with the in proximity is most important for knowledge and important for advice-seeking interactions also in with However, for knowledge exploitation, the share of firms that organizational proximity is important is proximity is most important firms in knowledge interactions and important for advice-seeking proximity is most important for knowledge and important for advice-seeking proximity is also most important for knowledge and important for interactions of are the dimensions of that cognitive, institutional, social and geographical for values and in to from a we have also the multiple and with and with also a of These the number of and the share of a university the for the the of the is are differences in the importance of proximities across UIC types. Firms that in knowledge interactions more importance to cognitive proximity firms for competence or for knowledge This is the with a for cognitive the is also but not for advice-seeking Firms for informal advice from universities on organizational proximity to firms with competence or knowledge proximity is more important for knowledge interactions for types of UIC for the is not proximity is more important for knowledge for competence or advice-seeking for geographical proximity is for knowledge Firms in joint knowledge importance to geographical proximity firms in for the firm has a and for knowledge that firms in this of UICs to be firms with competence share of with a education a and for that in to firms with competence these firms to have a share of university in their These that proximity dimensions matter differently for various types of we these to from we the importance of proximity dimensions for UIC the importance of geographical proximity and the importance of cognitive proximity for knowledge proximity is also more important for knowledge also that organizational proximity is important for advice-seeking interactions to knowledge the that social proximity is more important for knowledge interactions for competence important More important More important important This paper has examined the geographical of the interactions between firms and universities and the of proximity dimensions in the of firms to collaborate with universities in different types of empirical data through a survey of with universities with a on their of the importance of proximity for the decision to interact with their most important university examines the importance of different types of proximity varies across UIC of the are first is to empirical on the of a of UIC types. that of the Norwegian firms interact with universities across different UIC types. enhancement, knowledge and advice-seeking interactions the most of UICs in knowledge UICs are not Norwegian firms and universities. paper also the of different types of interactions interactions at geographical for all their share UIC Hence, geographical proximity is important for UIC However, non-geographical dimensions of proximity also of the paper is therefore to the importance of proximity for UICs from the of important proximity to their university partners for the decision to studies have to for proximity dimensions this that proximity is and the themselves is important for the With this we the importance of proximity dimensions for the decision to interact with the most important university from the the importance of proximity dimensions for A share of firms cognitive, institutional, social and geographical proximity as important for their to interact with a However, organizational that is of the same organizational with is This not that the of proximity is and the studies have to that the may more in various dimensions in the of interactions suggesting that proximities and characteristics & Frenken, the collaboration can in the of proximity UICs may to social proximity between partners This between proximity dimensions and or that need to be in and most important of the is to the understanding of proximity dimensions for UICs their importance for different types of studies have out that proximity interactions between firms and universities 2010), they have UICs as a of activities, largely their different and characteristics This that the importance of proximity dimensions varies across different UIC channels. proximity UICs in the of proximity dimensions the type of interaction. to with universities at cognitive and proximity are more important in these types of is interactions with a important knowledge This the of between partners and which is important for the of firms organizational proximity important they seek informal advice from universities. and can be from this we that UICs a of of interactions in the form of competence knowledge is to the of between firms and universities and that take the of UIC channels. the the of this university managers and be of the of in which they can to the and of firms in their and to their with the of the we that distances between firms and universities. for the of these distances be that can knowledge in example, firms need to and knowledge from which cognitive This can be more that between proximity may be measures that in the and that the of universities and firms. proximity can be and for that the and the for the of interactions between firms and universities. the that various dimensions of proximity UICs differently depending on the purpose of the universities need to the of proximities that are important for the type of UICs that they want to firms that to in UICs need to specific with to proximity firms that are to collaborate with universities for knowledge can in their cognitive need for social for knowledge UICs that firms need to be to in their and have this type of relationships. firms that seek informal advice from universities do not need to in their organizational proximity to universities joint organizational structures, but can their such as at the personal that need to be we have data on proximity for we do not whether that the collaboration partners or whether this a for which proximity is not as studies measures for proximity with measures to of the is the for the analysis data of firms with we do not have data on a that the of firms that do not have with universities can about the importance of proximity in barriers in various dimensions of proximity are and geographical and non-geographical dimensions of proximity may or Hence, studies may want to at the between different types of we the of proximity for the formation of UICs for the of However, proximity not the of between in the first but also to research on the significance of proximity dimensions in problems in UICs the on this This research paper is the research and under of Universities in and and the for at the of of this paper were at the in and the in to to the of the paper at these for the and the

Business · Competence (human resources · Economic geography · Geographical distance · Geography · Knowledge management · Norwegian · Sociology · Survey data collection · Computer Science · Innovation and Knowledge Management · Intellectual Capital and Performance Analysis · Management and Organizational Studies · Psychology · Social Psychology · Marketing

• Unlocking the power of proximity. Teaching “value proposition” in higher education to bridge the gap to industry

  Open Access•Laurent Antonczak•Industry and Higher Education•2026

  Add to list

• Mapping the landscape of university technology flows in China using patent assignment data

  Open Access•Liping Ye, Ting Zhang et al.•Humanities and Social Sciences…•2024

  Add to list

• The geographic proximity effect on domestic cross-sector vis-à-vis intra-sector research collaborations

  Open Access•Giovanni Abramo, Francesca Apponi et al.•Scientometrics•2022

  Add to list

• The moderating role of the territorial research infrastructure on the geographic proximity effect in research collaborations

  Open Access•Giovanni Abramo, Francesca Apponi et al.•Scientometrics•2024

  Add to list

• Proximity and impact of university-industry collaborations. A topic detection analysis of impact reports

  Open Access•Federica Rossi, Muthu De Silva et al.•Technological Forecasting and…•2024

  Add to list

• Traditional, virtual, and digital intermediaries in university-industry collaboration

  Open Access•Ekaterina Albats, Allen Alexander et al.•Technological Forecasting and…•2022

  Add to list

• Understanding collaboration patterns on funded research projects

  Open Access•Matthew Smith, Yasaman Sarabi et al.•Network Science•2022

  Add to list

• Direct and indirect effects of universities on European regional productivity

  Open Access•Emanuela Marrocu, Raffaele Paci et al.•Papers of the Regional Science…•2022

  Add to list

• Engaging for the love of place? The role of place attachment in academics’ regional engagement efforts

  Open Access•Kwadwo Atta-Owusu, Rune Dahl Fitjar•Regional Studies•2022

  Add to list

• Does technology transfer increase local cognitive proximity between university and industry? The case of Italy

  Open Access•Laura Ciucci, Marie-Antoinette Maupertuis et al.•Economia Politica•2023

  Add to list

• Productive interactions in a port city

  Open Access•Jorrit Smit, Hedi Westerduin et al.•Evidence & Policy•2023

  Add to list

• An analysis of the organisational factors that determine education-related university-business cooperation activities in manufacturing SMEs

  Maria Vivar-Simon, Nekane Errasti et al.•Studies in Higher Education•2022

  Add to list

• The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography

  Ron Boschma, Ron Martin•Handbook of Evolutionary Economic…•2010

  Add to list

• Proximity and inter‐organizational collaboration

  Open Access•Joris Knoben, L A G Oerlemans•International Journal of…•2006

  Add to list

• The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university–industry collaborations

  Open Access•Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli•Technovation•2011

  Add to list

• Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration

  Open Access•Johan Bruneel, Pablo D’Este et al.•Research Policy•2010

  Add to list

• Localised learning and industrial competitiveness

  Peter Maskell•Cambridge Journal of Economics•1999

  Add to list

• The Spatial Evolution of Innovation Networks

  Ron Boschma, Koen Frenken•Handbook of Evolutionary Economic…•2010

  Add to list

• Universities–industry collaboration

  Open Access•Samuel Ankrah, Omar Al‐Tabbaa•Scandinavian Journal of Management•2015

  Add to list

• Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway

  Open Access•Rune Dahl Fitjar, Andrés Rodríguez-Pose•Research Policy•2013

  Add to list

• Do inventors talk to strangers? On proximity and collaborative knowledge creation

  Open Access•Riccardo Crescenzi, Max Nathan et al.•Research Policy•2016

  Add to list

• Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations

  Open Access•Pablo D’Este, Markus Perkmann•The Journal of Technology Transfer•2011

  Add to list

• The geography of collaborative knowledge production in Europe

  Open Access•Jarno Hoekman, Koen Frenken et al.•The Annals of Regional Science•2009

  Add to list

• Searching high and low

  Open Access•K Laursen, Ammon Salter•Research Policy•2004

  Add to list

• Who co-operates for innovation, and why

  Open Access•Bruce Tether, Bruce S Tether•Research Policy•2002

  Add to list

• Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations

  Adam B Jaffe, Manuel Trajtenberg et al.•The Quarterly Journal of Economics•1993

  Add to list

• The Role of Proximity Dimensions in Facilitating University-Industry Collaboration in Peripheral Regions

  Open Access•Trond Nilsen, Thomas Lauvås•Arctic review on law and politics•2018

  Add to list

• Is cognitive proximity a driver of geographical distance of university–industry collaboration

  Renato De Castro Garcia, Veneziano Araújo et al.•Area Development and Policy•2018

  Add to list

• Innovation, spillovers and university-industry collaboration

  RODERIK PONDS, Frank Van Oort et al.•Journal of Economic Geography•2009

  Add to list

• The dynamics of interfirm networks along the industry life cycle

  Pierre-Alexandre Balland, M De Vaan et al.•Journal of Economic Geography•2012

  Add to list

• Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry

  Tom Broekel, Ron Boschma•Journal of Economic Geography•2011

  Add to list

• Buzz

  Michael Storper, Anthony J Venables•Journal of Economic Geography•2004

  Add to list

• Geographic proximity and firm-university innovation linkages

  Laura Abramovsky, Helen Simpson•Journal of Economic Geography•2011

  Add to list

• Shaping the formation of university-industry research collaborations

  Pablo D’Este, Frederick Guy et al.•Journal of Economic Geography•2012

  Add to list

• The spatial profile of university‐business research partnerships

  Open Access•Pablo D’Este, Simona Iammarino•Papers of the Regional Science…•2010

  Add to list

• Interaction between different forms of proximity in inter‐organizational scientific collaboration

  Open Access•Zhan Cao, Ben Derudder et al.•Papers of the Regional Science…•2019

  Add to list

• The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration

  Open Access•RODERIK PONDS, Frank Van Oort et al.•Papers of the Regional Science…•2007

  Add to list

• University‐industry links and the determinants of their spatial scope

  Open Access•Andrew M Johnston, Andrew Johnston et al.•Papers of the Regional Science…•2017

  Add to list

• University‐industry linkages

  Open Access•Alessandro Muscio•Papers of the Regional Science…•2013

  Add to list

• Knowledge networks and industrial structure for regional innovation

  Open Access•Niccolò Innocenti, Francesco Capone et al.•Papers of the Regional Science…•2019

  Add to list

• Localization, regionalization and globalization of university‐business research co‐operation in the United Kingdom

  Open Access•Robert Tijssen, Wouter van de Klippe et al.•Papers of the Regional Science…•2020

  Add to list

• R&D collaborations and the role of proximity

  Philipp Marek, Mirko Titze et al.•Regional Studies•2016

  Add to list

• Why do firms collaborate with local universities

  Rune Dahl Fitjar, Martin Gjelsvik•Regional Studies•2018

  Add to list

• Interrelating Dynamic Proximities by Bridging, Reducing and Producing Distances

  Max-Peter Menzel•Regional Studies•2013

  Add to list

• The Co-evolution of Proximities – A Network Level Study

  Tom Broekel•Regional Studies•2015

  Add to list

• On the Role and Interrelationship of Spatial, Social and Cognitive Proximity

  Franz Huber•Regional Studies•2011

  Add to list

• Substitution or Overlap? The Relations between Geographical and Non-spatial Proximity Dimensions in Collaborative Innovation Projects

  Teis Hansen•Regional Studies•2014

  Add to list

• Proximity and the Transfer of Academic Knowledge

  Viktor Slavtchev•Regional Studies•2010

  Add to list

• Exploring the Effect of Geographical Proximity and University Quality on University–Industry Collaboration in the United Kingdom

  K Laursen, Toke Reichstein et al.•Regional Studies•2010

  Add to list

• Exploring determinants of firms’ collaboration with specific universities

  Ina Drejer, Christian Richter Østergaard•Regional Studies•2017

  Add to list

• In Search of ‘Mode 2’

  Open Access•M Gulbrandsen, Liv Langfeldt•Minerva•2004

  Add to list

• Tracing the flows of knowledge transfer

  Open Access•Manuel Fernández Esquinas, Manuel Fernández-Esquinas et al.•Technological Forecasting and…•2015

  Add to list

• Proximity and Innovation

  Pierre-Alexandre Balland, Ron Boschma et al.•Regional Studies•2014

  Add to list

• Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there)

  M S Gertler•Journal of Economic Geography•2002

  Add to list

• Proximity and Innovation

  Ron Boschma•Regional Studies•2005

  Add to list