Interaction between different forms of proximity in inter‐organizational scientific collaboration: The case of medical sciences research network in the Yangtze River Delta region

Abstract

The combined importance of geographical and non‐geographical proximity has been extensively examined, but the interactions between both—substitution/complementarity—are less well understood. This paper therefore explores the impact of, and interaction between different forms of proximity (geographical, institutional, social, cognitive and cultural/linguistic proximity) on knowledge collaboration in the medical sciences sector in the Yangtze River Delta. The results show that most dimensions of proximity have a positive impact on scientific collaboration. We find that institutional proximity can compensate for the lack of geographical proximity, which in turn reinforces social and cognitive proximity in facilitating inter‐organizational scientific collaboration.

The role of proximity in stakeholder networks for Smart Specialisation: a Sparsely Populated Area case study

“…Our findings corroborate the idea that it is important to consider different types of relationships between stakeholders to assess the effect of the interaction between multiple dimensions of proximity. As illustrated by Cao, Derudder, and Peng (2019), when the coefficients are positive and statistically significant it means that there is likely a substitution effect between the proximity dimensions, while when they are negative and statistically significant it means that there is a complementarity effect. The combination of geographical and institutional proximity ('GeogXInstit') is positive and significant only in relation to informal networking, i.e.…”

“…However, to the best of our knowledge, not only have few studies empirically tested the combined effect of geographical proximity and other dimensions of proximity on networking, but there is also an absence of studies in the context of SPAs. With regard to the combination of geographical and institutional proximity, Cao, Derudder, and Peng (2019) suggest that the negative effect of a long spatial distance between actors is mitigated by the presence of institutional proximity; hence, these dimensions of proximity are considered substitutes in supporting collaboration. Moreover, Ponds, van Oort, and Frenken (2007, 442) highlight that geographical proximity 'seems to matter for collaboration in the case of institutional differences, thereby facilitating successful collaboration', confirming the substitutionary effect between geographical and institutional proximity.…”

“…With regard to the combination of geographical and cognitive proximity, Malmberg and Maskell (2006, 9) argue that spatial proximity strengthens cognitive proximity by developing a common institutional, social, and cultural setting; being physically close reinforces the learning processes underlying the acquisition of cognitive skills, which supports a 'knowledge alignment' between actors, that in turn enables innovative activities. In this vein, the work of Cao, Derudder, and Peng (2019) shows that geographical and cognitive proximity have a complementary relation, i.e. collaboration between organizations with a similar knowledge background is reinforced by geographical proximity.…”

“…The ERGMs also include an 'Edge' term, which is a network structural effect representing the tendency for developing relationships (ties) (Lusher,Koskinen,and Robins 10 S. Ghinoi et al 2013), an organizational 'Size' term, a continuous variable expressed in terms of number of employees (data on the number of employees for each stakeholder/organization have been collected through web pages and reports), and a 'Balance' term, which is a network structural effect that accounts for the number of balanced triads in networks (Morris, Handcock, and Hunter 2008). 'Size' is used to control for possible spillover effects, assuming a greater absorptive capacity of knowledge from bigger organizations (Cao, Derudder, and Peng 2019). 'Balance' allows to consider the presence of balanced sub-structures, a relevant influencing factor in networking (Davis and Leinhardt 1972).…”

Characterizing functionally integrated regions in the Central Yangtze River Megaregion from a city‐network perspective

“…Megaregions are composed of a remarkably heterogeneous variety of social and economic entities and contexts (Scott, 2019). Multidimensional proximity as a substitute of preexisting contexts is an insightful theoretical framework for explaining the formation of cross-border intercity functional connections , which is gradually used to explain global (Martinus & Sigler, 2018) and regional (Cao, Derudder, & Peng, 2019) urban networks. Although proximity covers several dimensions (Boschma, 2005), it can be broadly divided into geographical and non-geographical proximity; the former notion involves geography or spatial distance, whereas the latter notion is associated with socio-economic relations.…”