Industry–University Interactions in a Peripheral European Region: An Empirical Study of Valencian Firms

García‐Aracil, Adela; Lucio, Ignacio Fernández de

doi:10.1080/00343400601142704

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our dichotomous measure of business/university engagement is consistent with previous studies (e.g. García-Aracil and Fernández De Lucio, 2008;Laursen et al, 2011). The confidence interval for the correlations between the constructs OL and business/university engagement does not include 1, empirically indicating the discriminant validity of the constructs (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988;De Clercq et al, 2010).…”

Section: Moderating Variablesupporting

confidence: 86%

Organizational learning, entrepreneurial orientation, and the role of university engagement in SMEs

Dada

Fogg

2014

International Small Business Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses the effect of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) on organizational learning (OL) in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and the role of business/university engagement on the relationship between these two constructs. A cross-sectional research design, drawing upon a postal questionnaire survey, was employed to collect data from a sample of 206 UK SMEs. The results obtained from both the regression and moderated regression analyses revealed that EO positively impacts the level of OL in SMEs. In addition, business/university engagement was found to be a significant moderator in this relationship. These findings provide important academic, practitioner, and policy implications.

show abstract

Section: Moderating Variablesupporting

confidence: 86%

Organizational learning, entrepreneurial orientation, and the role of university engagement in SMEs

Dada

Fogg

2014

International Small Business Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results are consistent with other accounts of university-industry links, in particular regarding the importance of contract research and joint R&D projects (Boucher et al, 2003;García Aracil and Fernández De Lucio, 2008) and personal interactions. Other studies indicate that dissemination and use of IPR play a more important role, reflecting the presence of different industrial structures (Alegre and Chiva, 2008;Azagra-Caro et al, 2010).…”

Section: Descriptive Resultssupporting

confidence: 90%

Tracing the flows of knowledge transfer: Latent dimensions and determinants of university–industry interactions in peripheral innovation systems

Fernández-Esquinas

Pinto

Yruela

et al. 2016

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Firms interact with universities through a variety of channels, ranging from collaborative research projects, patents, spin-off creation, consultancy and specialized training, to informal relationships. This article explores the combination of mechanisms used by firms in Andalusia, a peripheral region in Spain and Europe, when interacting with universities. Using information from a survey of 737 innovative firms, the empirical study found evidence that university-industry links can be grouped into five latent dimensions (knowledge generation and adaptation, involvement in new organisations, training and exchange of human resources, intellectual property rights, and facilities and equipment) which are mainly based on exploitation or exploration activities. A typology of firms was created, highlighting the large number of firms with no interactions, and six clusters that specialize in specific mechanisms (IPR exploiters, Institutionalized interactors, University facility users, Training and education beneficiaries, Tacit knowledge users, and R&D interactors). The study also presents the determinants for engaging in each type of channel, concluding that whilst firms developing exploitation activities also develop parallel exploration activities, the reverse is not significant. The absorptive capacity of firms is important in determining the type of interaction, but is not fully conclusive about the range of exploration and exploitation activities. The article ends by discussing the policy implications associated with incentives to adapt knowledge transfer mechanisms to the industrial fabric of peripheral innovation systems.

show abstract

“…Piergiovanni et al, 1997;Santoro and Chakrabarti, 1999;Ojewale et al, 2001;Cohen et al, 2002;Rodriguez-Pose and Refolo, 2003;Simonin, 2004;Fukugawa, 2005;Godfrey, 2005;Fontana et al, 2006;Segarra-Blasco and Arauzo-Carod, 2008), industry or technology characteristics (e.g. Jaffe, 1989;Anselin, Varga, and Acs, 2000;Leydesdorff et al, 2006;Segarra-Blasco and Arauzo-Carod, 2008;Garcia-Aracil and de Lucio, 2008), network related characteristics (e.g. Fontes, 2001;MacPherson, 2002;Pittaway et al, 2004;van Rijnsoever et al, 2008), public policy promotion (e.g.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Firms’ linkages with universities and public research institutes in Argentina: factors driving the selection of different channels

Arza

Vázquez

2012

Prometheus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge flows between public research organisations (PROs) and firms may occur through various channels. Channel selection may have different drivers and effects. Although much research has been carried out on the drivers of firms and researchers to connect with each other, less attention has been paid to the determinants of the selection of different channels of interaction. This research analysis factors driving firms’ selection of different channels of interactions with public research organisations (PROs), both public research institutes (PRIs) and universities (UNIs). The paper estimates bi-variate probit models with sample selection using micro data for 2007 from a representative survey of Argentinean firms. The classification of channels is based on previous research for Latin America and includes four types according to the main goals that firms and public research organisations seek when interacting: traditional, service, commercial and bi-directional channels. We find that factors driving the selection of the bi-directional channel are different from those driving selection of the others. In particular, firms choosing this channel employ a more skilled workforce and generally interact with PRIs and UNIs in order to benefit their own innovative activities. Thus, this commitment to knowledge capabilities and innovation when firms use the bi-directional channel may enhance the potential of PRO–firm interactions to upgrade the national innovation system (NIS).

show abstract

Industry–University Interactions in a Peripheral European Region: An Empirical Study of Valencian Firms

Cited by 25 publications

References 61 publications

Organizational learning, entrepreneurial orientation, and the role of university engagement in SMEs

Organizational learning, entrepreneurial orientation, and the role of university engagement in SMEs

Tracing the flows of knowledge transfer: Latent dimensions and determinants of university–industry interactions in peripheral innovation systems

Firms’ linkages with universities and public research institutes in Argentina: factors driving the selection of different channels

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About