This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote]

On: 23 January 2014, At: 06:56

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Regional Studies
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cres20

Introduction: Structure and Dynamics of Innovation

Networks
a b c b
Thomas Brenner , Uwe Cantner & Holger Graf
a
Philipps University Marburg , Deutschhausstrae 10, D-35032 , Marburg , Germany
b
Friedrich Schiller University Jena , Carl-Zeiss-Str. 3, D-07743 , Jena , Germany
c
University of Southern Denmark , Campusveij 55, DK-5230 , Odense M , Denmark
Published online: 16 Apr 2013.

To cite this article: Thomas Brenner , Uwe Cantner & Holger Graf (2013) Introduction: Structure and Dynamics of
Innovation Networks, Regional Studies, 47:5, 647-650, DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2013.770302

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.770302

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Regional Studies, 2013
Vol. 47, No. 5, 647650, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.770302

Introduction: Structure and Dynamics of

Innovation Networks
THOMAS BRENNER*, UWE CANTNER and HOLGER GRAF
*Philipps University Marburg, Deutschhausstrae 10, D-35032 Marburg, Germany.
Email: thomas.brenner@staff.uni-marburg.de
Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Carl-Zeiss-Str. 3, D-07743 Jena, Germany.
Emails: uwe.cantner@uni-jena.de and holger.graf@uni-jena.de
University of Southern Denmark, Campusveij 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 06:56 23 January 2014

(Received September 2011: in revised form January 2013)

SOCIAL NETWORK ANALYSIS IN so-called innovation networks (for example, POWELL

INNOVATION SYSTEM RESEARCH
The innovation system approach places interaction
between heterogeneous actors at the core of a learning
economy (LUNDVALL , 1992). Studies on national inno-
vation systems strengthen the view that the functioning
of innovation systems is the basis for innovation-based
economic development (NELSON , 1993). Success
stories of regional innovation systems (COOKE and
MORGAN , 1994; BRACZYK et al., 1998; KEEBLE et al.,
1999) in particular the prominent example of Silicon
Valley (for example, SAXENIAN , 1994) highlight the
benecial effects of regional interaction and this argu-
ment has been supported by ndings on the geographic
dimension of knowledge ows (for example, JAFFE
et al., 1993).
However, recent attempts to identify channels of
knowledge spillovers challenge the argument by JAFFE
et al. (1993) that knowledge ows are geographically
bounded. THOMPSON and FOX- KEAN (2005), for
example, nd no intra-national localization effects
when using a ner level of technological aggregation
in their sample. BRESCHI and LISSONI (2009), by intro-
ducing a measure of social proximity between inventors
to the experiment by JAFFE et al. (1993), nd that social
proximity explains most of the identied spillovers.
Here geographical proximity merely facilitates face-to-
face contacts, but it is certainly not a sufcient condition
for knowledge transmission (PONDS et al., 2007; DESTE
et al., 2012). This nding is supported by other studies
stressing the importance of labour mobility for knowl-
edge ows (ZUCKER et al., 1998; ALMEIDA and
KOGUT , 1999; MEN , 2005). For a better understand-
ing of knowledge spillovers these ndings suggest to
complement and enrich the geographical dimension
by a closer look at social aspects when analysing how
actors establish relations to others and position them-
selves within social networks related to innovation,
2013 Regional Studies Association
http://www.regionalstudies.org
et al., 1996; CANTNER and GRAF , 2006).
Following this route, (social) networks are considered
a vital part of an innovation system and meanwhile an
increasing number of studies on networks in a regional
context are being observed. For example, networks of
co-invention help one understand the evolution of
local clusters (FLEMING et al., 2007; FLEMING and
FRENKEN , 2007) or are used to investigate university
industry relations (BALCONI et al., 2004). The structure
and characteristics of clusters and regional (inventor and
innovator) networks are explored in a number of recent
studies that focus on a diverse sets of cases, data and
empirical methods (for overviews, see TER WAL and
BOSCHMA , 2009; or CANTNER and GRAF , 2011).
Along with the valuable insights from these studies,
new questions opened up that are related to certain
characteristic structures of innovation networks and to
the dynamics driving them. For example, successful
regions are observed where actors frequently cooperate
on a formal or informal basis in knowledge exchange
and research and development (R&D) with co-located
but also with external actors, while it is yet not clear
how the network structures resulting from these inter-
actions evolve or why they differ between regions.
The factors responsible for the dynamics are until now
not satisfactorily identied.
This theme issue has collected three contributions
that focus on two issues. The rst regards the dynamics
of regional networks in terms of actor linkages; and the
second is concerned with the structural dimensions
related to the complementarities and balance of intra
versus extra-local linkages.
CONTRIBUTIONS
A large part of the literature on innovation networks is
concerned with the relationship between structure and
 648 Thomas Brenner et al.
performance in a static setting, taking the network struc-
ture as given or xed. In this context, an actors more
central position within the network is said to be ben-
ecial due to his superior access to many sources of
external knowledge (AHUJA , 2000); actors spanning
structural holes perform better in some contexts than
in others (ROWLEY et al., 2000); and dense networks
seem to perform better than fragmented ones (GRAF
and HENNING , 2009). However, the processes follow-
ing the decision to interact change a networks structure
and consequently the ways in which future decisions to
collaborate and interact are made. Cooperation in R&D
decreases the cognitive distance between partners (redu-
cing the learning potential between the partners)
(MOWERY et al., 1998) but also increases trust
between them (NOOTEBOOM , 2002). In contexts
where trust is of vital importance for the success of the
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 06:56 23 January 2014
partnership this might lead to persistent cooperation pat-
terns, while in situations that call for novel and unfore-
seen knowledge inputs a frequent change in partnerships
should be observed. Depending on the type of knowl-
edge to be exchanged, geographical proximity
between the partners might be necessary or unimpor-
tant, permanent or temporary.
The empirical analysis of the evolution of the cluster
of Sophia-Antipolis by Anne ter Wal (Imperial College,
London) shows how a regional innovation system
initially constructed by political will developed into a
system driven by self-organizing factors. Based on the
widespread view in the literature that clusters are charac-
terized by the presence of various local networks of col-
lective learning, ter Wal takes a longitudinal look at the
high-technology cluster of Sophia-Antipolis. Speci-
cally, he investigates how two networks emerged
throughout the development of the cluster since the
late 1970s: Information Technology and Life Sciences.
The analysis of their co-inventorship networks, recon-
structed on the basis of European Patent Ofce (EPO)
and US Patent and Trademark Ofce (USPTO)
patent data, shows that they are apparently on quite dis-
tinct development paths. Within Information Technol-
ogy, where growth is based on spin-offs and start-ups,
he observes a trend towards the emergence of local
collective learning in terms of an increasing localized
orientation of the network and more cohesive struc-
tures. By contrast, in Life Sciences, where growth was
slower and based on multinational enterprises, he
observes another trend: regional knowledge ows are
rare in this industry in Sophia-Antipolis and do not
provide a basis for a cohesive regional structure. These
outcomes suggest that the degree of local concentration
of rms over time strongly affects the evolution of local
knowledge networks.
The paper by ter Wal directly leads to the question
regarding the specic role of linkages within the
system compared with extra-local linkages. From the lit-
erature on clusters and historical examples of spatial
lock-in, we know that the ability to adapt to a changing
environment is crucial for sustainable regional develop-
ment (GRABHER , 1993; BATHELT et al., 2004). A pro-
minent role in this respect is ascribed to external
knowledge. The benets of inter-regional knowledge
ows for the performance of a regional innovation
system nd ample support in the literature (GERTLER ,
1997; BATHELT et al., 2004; BATHELT , 2005; GIULIANI ,
2005; GRAF , 2011). From the above results it follows
that gatekeepers are actors who connect the local
system to external knowledge sources but also support
the diffusion among the local actors, that is, they
(might) act as brokers of knowledge.
Martina Kauffeld-Monz (Institute for Urban
Research and Structural Policy, Berlin) and Michael
Fritsch (Friedrich Schiller University Jena) apply social
network analysis to identify and investigate the nature
of broker positions within regional innovation net-
works. On the basis of eighteen, publicly funded
regional innovation networks in Germany the authors
focus on public research organizations, especially uni-
versities, and their role in processes of knowledge
exchange. Contrary to previous ndings, which
suggest that large rms hold gatekeeper positions and
connect the local system to international knowledge
sources, Kauffeld-Monz and Fritsch observe public
research to full the gatekeeper function. They argue
that especially in lagging regions public research com-
pensates for the lack of external linkages by large,
capable rms. Externally acquired and then transferred
knowledge is shown to be absorbed by private rms
without inter-regional cooperation in R&D.
The paper by Viktor Slavtchev (Friedrich Schiller
University Jena) elaborates on the role and impact of
universities in regional innovation systems, assuming a
micro-perspective. Based on a survey conducted at
seven East German universities and collecting infor-
mation about the collaborations of professors with
private rms, he studies the effects of individual, rela-
tional, institutional and organizational characteristics,
and the type of exchanged knowledge on the spatial
pattern of universityindustry collaborations. His study
provides evidence that the spatial pattern of univer-
sityindustry linkages is a result of a complex process
of matching appropriate partners. Whereas geographical
proximity is benecial for collaboration leading to a
considerable number of local linkages, the author also
shows that the importance of distance varies with the
particular type of knowledge and actors individual
and institutional characteristics. Star researchers tend to
have a relatively large number of distant connections
whereas less excellent scholars cooperate on a more
local level. Collaborations between faculty and large
rms take place at a larger geographical scale than col-
laborations with small rms. Slavtchev adds a critical
perspective regarding the role of universities in regional
innovation systems in arguing that the availability of a
university in the region is by no means a guarantee for
local knowledge transfer.
 Introduction: Structure and Dynamics of Innovation Networks
CONCLUSIONS AND PROSPECTS FOR
FURTHER RESEARCH
Information ows and knowledge exchange are key to
innovation based economic growth and development
of regions. The concepts of clusters and regional inno-
vation systems have been successfully applied to
improve our understanding of such ows and
exchanges. The consideration of innovation networks
enriches the cluster and regional innovation system
approach by an explicit relational perspective which
analytically is captured by social network analysis.
At the core of the contributions in this theme issue
are the linkages between actors, the distances they
bridge, and the relevance of various proximities. The
types, intensities and dimensions of these linkages
characterize innovation systems and provide for their
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 06:56 23 January 2014
performance and dynamics. An interesting aspect is
hereby the balance between internal and extra-local lin-
kages. Many studies within this theme issue and else-
where have argued that both, internal and extra-local
linkages, are important. However, it remains unclear
what an adequate mixture of the two kinds of linkages
would look like. More research is needed to make state-
ments about such an adequate mixture and it might be
fruitful to consult the literature on the ambidextrous
organization (for example, TUSHMAN and OREILLY ,
1996; DATTA , 2011). The studies in this theme issue
make clear that there are strong differences between
industries and that different kind of actors are able to
bring external linkages into the internal networks.
Hence, very different structures of interactions are able
to lead to a successful development and a one-ts-all-
solution does not exist. If we intend to understand
better how the mixture of internal and extra-local lin-
kages inuences the development and success of the
regional economy, we have to focus more on two
things: rst, we should also look at unsuccessful cases
in order to compare them with the successful ones
and, second, we should consider in more detail indus-
trial differences.
The papers in this theme issue have built on the
linkage perspective to understand structural pattern
and features of geographically concentrated innovation
systems and their dynamics. They enrich the cluster
and innovation system approach by social network
analysis. Networks of innovating actors certainly show
interesting dynamics with implications for regional
REFERENCES
AHUJA G. (2000) Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study, Administrative Science Quarterly
45(3), 425455.
ALMEIDA P. and KOGUT B. (1999) Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks, Management
Science 45(7), 905917.
BALCONI M., BRESCHI S. and LISSONI F. (2004) Networks of inventors and the role of academia: an exploration of Italian patent
data, Research Policy 33, 127145.
BATHELT H. (2005) Cluster relations in the media industry: exploring the distanced neighbour paradox in Leipzig, Regional Studies
39(1), 105127.
649
innovation processes and regional growth and therefore
deserve even more attention in the future. To this end,
the actors linkages perspective needs to be expanded,
taking a closer look at their ways to collaborate, to
exchange knowledge and information, to liaise and reci-
procate, etc. The underlying decisions are inuenced by
search processes, trust, understanding, experience and
reward expectations and possibly contain a great deal
of trial and error. A deeper understanding of the mech-
anisms underlying such decisions and of their depen-
dence on actors characteristics and network
embeddedness will allow to analyse more general
network features, such as patterns of linkage persistency,
partner switches, internalexternal reorientation,
network clustering and fragmentation, and the like.
To understand the dynamics of networks comprehen-
sively, more studies are required that analyse the
decision processes of individual actors as well as the
underlying social processes.
Often networks do not only consist of dyadic inter-
actions but also contain in some way organized groups
of actors that collaborate to reach certain aims. Most
of the existing literature focuses on dyadic links.
However, many processes that are crucial for the devel-
opment of networks can be more easily established and
are usually established within groups with the help of
group meetings. For instance, actors join groups
because the have a trustful connection to a few group
members and then easily establish additional trustful
connections to other group members once they are a
group member themselves. Thus, the group structure
implies a multiplier effect for linkages. Furthermore, it
allows for the development of a common identity
which is, especially in the case of regions, often a deci-
sive factor for further development. Hence, our under-
standing of networks would benet from adding to the
so far dominant view of dyadic links a group view that
considers explicitly the often present group character
of regional networks, including their identity-generat-
ing gestalt.
Acknowledgements This theme issue was made
possible within the Dynamics of Institutions & Markets in
Europe (DIME) Network of Excellence (20062011) work-
package 2.3 Local Innovation Systems, Knowledge Flows
and the Interaction of Research Competences. Financial
support from DIME is greatfully acknowledged.
 650 Thomas Brenner et al.
BATHELT H., MALMBERG A. and MASKELL P. (2004) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowl-
edge creation, Progress in Human Geography 28(1), 3156.
BRACZYK H.-J., COOKE P. and HEIDENREICH M. (1998) Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governances in a Globalized World.
UCL Press, London.
BRESCHI S. and LISSONI F. (2009) Mobility of skilled workers and co-invention networks: an anatomy of localized knowledge
ows, Journal of Economic Geography 9(4), 439468.
CANTNER U. and GRAF H. (2006) The network of innovators in Jena: an application of social network analysis, Research Policy
35(4), 463480.
CANTNER U. and GRAF H. (2011) Innovation networks: formation, performance and dynamics, in ANTONELLI C. (Ed.) Handbook on
the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, pp. 366394. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
COOKE P. and MORGAN K. (1994) The regional innovation system in Baden-Wrttemberg, International Journal of Technology Man-
agement 9(3/4), 394429.
DESTE P., GUY F. and IAMMARINO S. (2012) Shaping the formation of universityindustry research collaborations: what type of
proximity does really matter?, Journal of Economic Geography doi:10.1093/jeg/lbs010.
DATTA A. (2011) Combining networks, ambidexterity and absorptive capacity to explain commercialization of innovations:
a theoretical model from review and extension, Journal of Management and Strategy 2(4), 225.
FLEMING L. and FRENKEN K. (2007) The evolution of inventor networks in the Silicon Valley and Boston regions, Advances in
Complex Systems 10(1), 5371.
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 06:56 23 January 2014

FLEMING L., KING C., CHARLES I. and JUDA A. I. (2007) Small worlds and regional innovation, Organization Science 18(6), 938954.
GERTLER M. S. (1997) The invention of regional culture, in LEE R. and WILLS J. (Eds) Geographies of Economies, pp. 4758. Edward
Arnold, London.
GIULIANI E. (2005) Cluster absorptive capacity: why do some clusters forge ahead and others lag behind?, European Urban and
Regional Studies 12(3), 269288.
GRABHER G. (1993) The Embedded Firm: On the Socioeconomics of Industrial Networks. Routledge, London.
GRAF H. (2011) Gatekeepers in regional networks of innovators, Cambridge Journal of Economics 35(1), 173198.
GRAF H. and HENNING T. (2009) Public research in regional networks of innovators: a comparative study of four East German
regions, Regional Studies 43(10), 13491368.
JAFFE A. B., TRAJTENBERG M. and HENDERSON R. (1993) Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent
citations, Quarterly Journal of Economics 108(3), 577598.
KEEBLE D., LAWSON C., MOORE B. and WILKINSON F. (1999) Collective learning processes, networking and institutional thickness
in the Cambridge region, Regional Studies 33(4), 319332.
LUNDVALL B.-A. (Ed.) (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter, London.
MEN J. (2005) Is mobility of technical personnel a source of R&D spillovers?, Journal of Labor Economics 23(1), 81114.
MOWERY D. C., OXLEY J. E. and SILVERMAN B. S. (1998) Technological overlap and interrm cooperation: implications for the
resource-based view of the rm, Research Policy 27(5), 507523.
NELSON R. R. (Ed.) (1993) National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
NOOTEBOOM B. (2002) Trust: Form, Foundations, Functions, Figures and Failures. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
PONDS R., VAN OORT F. and FRENKEN K. (2007) The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration, Papers in
Regional Science 86(3), 423443.
POWELL W. W., KOPUT K. W. and SMITH-DOERR L. (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: net-
works of learning in biotechnology, Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1), 116145.
ROWLEY T., BEHRENS D. and KRACKHARDT D. (2000) Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational
embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries, Strategic Management Journal 21(3), 369386.
SAXENIAN A. (1994) Regional Advantage. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
TER WAL A. L. J. and BOSCHMA R. (2009) Applying social network analysis in economic geography: framing some key analytic
issues, Annals of Regional Science 43(3), 739756.
THOMPSON P. and FOX-KEAN M. (2005) Patent citations and the geography of knowledge spillovers: a reassessment, American Econ-
omic Review 95(1), 450460.
TUSHMAN M. L. and OREILLY C. A. (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change, Cali-
fornia Management Review 38(4), 830.
ZUCKER L., DARBY M. and ARMSTRONG J. (1998) Geographically localised knowledge: spillovers or markets?, Economic Inquiry 36,
6586.