Main Article Content
Research and development (R&D) collaboration is recognized as the important mechanism in creating innovation that leads to the competitiveness of the country. However, a large number of R&D collaboration, especially between universities and private establishments, still do has not been achieved as expected by the relevant authorities. With the reason that proximity has been recognized as having a significant relationship with collaboration, this paper therefore reviews literatures published in international journals during the years 2010-2018, in order to study how proximity is related to R&D collaboration process. Study focus 5 types of proximity, consisting of cognitive proximity, organizational proximity, social proximity, institutional proximity, and geographical proximity. The results of the study show that proximity involves 3 steps of R&D collaboration process: 1) network formation 2) innovation creation, and 3) commercialization. Moreover, proximity play in a various role depend on the relevant elements, e.g., fundamental context of the partners, innovation type, the perspective of partners in development, and technology readiness level (TRL), etc. Results of the study leading to draw the conceptual framework about the role of proximity on collaboration between university and private establishment in Thailand, demonstrates the role of proximity which influence directly and indirectly covers all 3 steps of collaboration.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
I and co-author(s) certify that articles of this proposal had not yet been published and is not in the process of publication in journals or other published sources. I and co-author accept the rules of the manuscript consideration. Both agree that the editors have the right to consider and make recommendations to the appropriate source. With this rights offering articles that have been published to Panyapiwat Institute of Management. If there is a claim of copyright infringement on the part of the text or graphics that appear in the article. I and co-author(s) agree on sole responsibility.
Balland, P. A. (2012). Proximity and the evolution of collaboration networks: evidence from research and development projects within the Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) industry. Regional Studies, 46, 741-756.
Balland, P. A., Boschma, R. & Frenken, K. (2015). Proximity and Innovation: From Statics to Dynamics. Regional Studies, 49(6), 907-920.
Ben Letaifa, S. & Rabeau, Y. (2013). Too close to collaborate? How geographic proximity could impede entrepreneurship and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2071-2078.
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.
Broekel, T. & Boschma, R. (2012). Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: The proximity paradox. Journal of Economic Geography, 12(2), 409-433.
Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Chaiwanarom, P. & Lursinsap, C. (2015). Collaborator recommendation in interdisciplinary computer science using degrees of collaborative forces, temporal evolution of research interest, and comparative seniority status. Knowledge-Based Systems, 75, 161-172.
Crescenzi, R., Filippetti, A. & Iammarino, S. (2017). Academic inventors: collaboration and proximity with industry. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 730-762.
Dangelico, R. M., Garavelli, A. C. & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2010). A system dynamics model to analyze technology districts' evolution in a knowledge-based perspective. Technovation, 30(2), 142-153.
D'Este, P. & Iammarino, S. (2010). The spatial profile of university-business research partnerships. Papers in Regional Science, 89(2), 335-350.
DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
Festinger, L., Schachter, S. & Bach, K. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups. New York: Harper.
Geldes, C., Heredia, J., Felzensztein, C. & Mora, M. (2017). Proximity as determinant of business cooperation for technological and non-technological innovations: a study of an agribusiness cluster. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 32(1), 167-178.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
Huber, F. (2012). On the Role and Interrelationship of Spatial, Social and Cognitive Proximity: Personal Knowledge Relationships of R&D Workers in the Cambridge Information Technology Cluster. Regional Studies, 46(9), 1169-1182.
Intarakumnerd, P. & Schiller, D. (2009). University-industry linkages in Thailand: successes, failures, and lessons learned for other developing countries. Seoul Journal of Economics, 22(4), 551-589.
Intarakumnerd, P., Chairatana, P. & Tangchipiboon, T. (2002). National innovation system in less successful developing countries: The case study of Thailand. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1445-1457.
Knoben, J. & Oerlemans, L. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: a literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 71-89.
Knoben, J. & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2012). Configurations of Inter-organizational Knowledge Links: Does Spatial Embeddedness Still Matter? Regional Studies, 46(8), 1005-1021.
Laneh, P. J. & Lubatkin, M. H. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461-477.
Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of Economics. London: Macmillan.
Mattes, J. (2012). Dimensions of proximity and knowledge bases: Innovation between spatial and non-spatial factors. Regional Studies, 46(8), 1085-1099.
Murdoch, J. (1995). Actor-networks and the evolution of economic forms: combining description and explanation in theories of regulation, flexible specialization, and networks. Environment and Planning A, 27, 731-757.
Nelson, R. R. (1988). Institutions Supporting Technical Change in the United States, in G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, L. Soete (Eds.). Technical Change and Economic Theory. London and New York: Pinter Publisher.
Nelson, R. R. (1993). National Innovation Systems: a Comparative Study. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Newcomb, T. M. (1960). Varieties of interpersonal attraction. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.). Group dynamics: Research and theory. New York: Harper & Row.
Nooteboom, B. (2000). Learning by interaction, absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4(1-2), 69-92.
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
North, D. C. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.
Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13(6), 343-373.
Perkmann, M. & Walsh, K. (2007). University-Industry Relationships and Open Innovation: Towards a Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280.
Piore, M. J. & Sabel, C. F. (1986). The second industrial divide: possibilities for prosperity. New York: Basic books.
Porter, M. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Free Press.
Rallet, A. & Torre, A. (1999). Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy? Geo Journal, 49(4), 373-380.
Ratchukool, N. & Igel, B. (2018). The effect of proximity between universities and research institutes and firms on firm innovativeness. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 26(1), 69-89.
Schamp, E. W., Rentmeister, B. & Lo, V. (2004). Dimensions of proximity in knowledge-based networks: the cases of investment banking and automobile design. European Planning Studies, 12(5), 607-624.
Torre, A. & Gilly, J. P. (2000). On the analytical dimension of proximity dynamics. Regional Studies, 34, 169-180.
Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674-698.