Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Papers

No. 4 (2025)

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

  • John Chrisman
  • Giuseppe Calignano
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/rgioa4-2025oa21685
Submitted
dicembre 15, 2025
Published
2026-01-12

Abstract

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

References

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