How Do Firms Perceive Interactions with Researchers in Small Innovation Projects? Advantages and Barriers for Satisfactory Collaborations

  • Ann Camilla Schulze-Krogh
  • Giuseppe CalignanoEmail author


The level of interaction between academics and firms seems to be higher than ever, and policymakers adopt a variety of policies to foster an effective integration between research establishments (REs) and regional industries. This article explores the role of researchers and the interaction between private companies and REs in small innovation projects funded under the Norwegian Programme for Regional R&D and Innovation (VRI). VRI aims to stimulate research-based innovation in regional firms by funding collaboration projects between firms and external researchers. A drawback of innovation policies attempting to stimulate RE–industry collaborations is that they often neglect firms’ perspectives and motivations. Some academic studies argue that systemic approaches focusing on regional development and new path development tend to overlook in-depth analyses at the firm level. This paper aims to combine both approaches by exploring how firms perceive the role of the researchers in the projects, the quality of interactions and, in the end, the outcome of collaborations. Our analysis reveals that the role and motivations of researchers influence the outcome of projects and, from a systemic perspective, that the characteristics of regional innovation systems in which firms operate may represent an advantage or a barrier for satisfactory collaborations.


University-industry linkages Regional innovation systems R&D policy Knowledge exchange Norway 



This Research is part of the project titled ‘Exploring the role of VRI in regional innovation system formation and new path development’. Colleagues at UiS and Alta Norut in part conducted the interviews. All the usual caveats apply.


This research is in part funded by the Research Council of Norway, in the Programme for Regional R&D and Innovation (VRI).


  1. Agrawal, A., & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transfer from MIT. Management Science, 48(1), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arundel, A., & Geuna, A. (2004). Proximity and the use of public science by innovative European firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(6), 559–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asheim, B., & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: comparing Nordic clusters. Research Policy, 34(8), 1173–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asheim, B., & Gertler, M. (2005). The geography of innovation. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 291–317). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barbolla, A. M. B., & Corredera, J. R. C. (2009). Critical factors for success in university–industry research projects. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(5), 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barents, P. (2017). Finnmark the biggest territory of all Norwegian counties. Accessed 25 Oct 2019.
  7. Bengtsson, B., & Hertting, N. (2014). Generalization by mechanism: thin rationality and ideal-type analysis in case study research. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 44(6), 707–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calignano, G., & Quarta, C. A. (2014). University of Salento’s transactional relations: assessing the knowledge transfer of a public university in Italy. Erdkunde, 68, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Capaldo, G., Costantino, N., & Pellegrino, R. (2016). Factors affecting the diffusion and success of collaborative interactions between university and industry: the case of research services. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 7(3), 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charles, D. (2003). Universities and territorial development: reshaping the regional role of UK universities. Local Economy, 18(1), 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44, 35–41.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, B. R. (1993). The research foundations of graduate education. Germany: Univ of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coenen, L., Asheim, B., Bugge, M. M., & Herstad, S. J. (2016). Advancing regional innovation systems: what does evolutionary economic geography bring to the policy table? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 0263774X16646583.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooke, P. (2001). Biotechnology clusters in the UK: lessons from localisation in the commercialisation of science. Small Business Economics, 17(1), 43–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooke, P., Uranga, M. G., & Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional innovation systems: institutional and organisational dimensions. Research Policy, 26(4–5), 475–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Crescenzi, R., Filippetti, A., & Iammarino, S. (2017). Academic inventors: collaboration and proximity with industry. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(4), 730–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Czarnitzki, D., Grimpe, C., & Toole, A. A. (2014). Delay and secrecy: does industry sponsorship jeopardize disclosure of academic research? Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(1), 251–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. D’Este, P., & Patel, P. (2007). University–industry linkages in the UK: what are the factors underlying the variety of interactions with industry? Research Policy, 36(9), 1295–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. D’Este, P., Guy, F., & Iammarino, S. (2012a). Shaping the formation of university–industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter? Journal of Economic Geography, 13(4), 537–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. D’Este, P., Iammarino, S., Savona, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2012b). What hampers innovation? Revealed barriers versus deterring barriers. Research Policy, 41(2), 482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. De Fuentes, C., & Dutrénit, G. (2016). Geographic proximity and university-industry interaction: the case of Mexico. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(2), 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Drucker, J., & Goldstein, H. (2007). Assessing the regional economic development impacts of universities: a review of current approaches. International Regional Science Review, 30(1), 20–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dutrénit, G., De Fuentes, C., & Torres, A. (2010). Channels of interaction between public research organisations and industry and their benefits: evidence from Mexico. Science and Public Policy, 37(7), 513–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities in the global economy: a triple Helix of academic-industry-government relations. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Etzkowitz, H., Dzisah, J., Ranga, M., & Zhou, C. (2007). The triple helix model of innovation: university-industry-government interaction. Asia Pacific Tech Monitor, 24(1), 14–23.Google Scholar
  32. Fagerberg, J. (2016). Innovation policy: rationales, lessons and challenges. Journal of Economic Surveys, 31(2), 497–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Faulkner, W., & Senker, J. (1994). Making sense of diversity: public-private sector research linkage in three technologies. Research Policy, 23(6), 673–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Filippetti, A., & Savona, M. (2017). University–industry linkages and academic engagements: individual behaviours and firms’ barriers. Introduction to the special section. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 719–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fitjar, R. D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2011a). Innovating in the periphery: firms, values and innovation in Southwest Norway. European Planning Studies, 19(4), 555–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fitjar, R. D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2011b). When local interaction does not suffice: sources of firm innovation in urban Norway. Environment and Planning A, 43(6), 1248–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Foray, D., & Lissoni, F. (2010). University research and public–private interaction. In B. H. Hall & N. Rosenberg (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of innovation (Vol. 1, pp. 275–314). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Giuliani, E., & Arza, V. (2009). What drives the formation of ‘valuable’ university–industry linkages?: insights from the wine industry. Research Policy, 38(6), 906–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Giuliani, E., Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2010). Who are the researchers that are collaborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy. Research Policy, 39(6), 748–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Goddard, J., & Vallance, P. (2011). Universities and regional development. In A. Rodriguez-Pose, & J. Tomaney (Eds.), Handbook of local and regional development. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Gulbrandsen, M., & Thune, T. (2017). The effects of non-academic work experience on external interaction and research performance. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(4), 795–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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. European Planning Studies, 18(12), 1993–2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Isaksen, A., & Trippl, M. (2014). Regional industrial path development in different regional innovation systems: a conceptual analysis. Lund University, CIRCLE-Center for Innovation, Research and Competences in the Learning Economy.Google Scholar
  44. Isaksen, A., & Trippl, M. (2016). Path development in different regional innovation systems. In M. Parrilli, R. Fitjar, & A. Rodriguez-Pose (Eds.), Innovation drivers and regional innovation strategies (pp. 66–84). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Isaksen, A., Tödtling, F., & Trippl, M. (2018a). Innovation policies for regional structural change: combining actor-based and system-based strategies. In A. Isaksen, R. Martin, & M. Trippl (Eds.), New Avenues for Regional Innovation Systems - Theoretical Advances, Empirical Cases and Policy Lessons (pp. 221–228) Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Isaksen, A., Kyllingstad, N., Rypestøl, J. O., & Schulze-Krogh, A. C. (2018b). Differentiated regional entrepreneurial discovery processes. A conceptual discussion and analysis of three emergent clusters in Norway. European Planning Studies, 26(11), 2200–2215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jakobsen, S.-E., Byrkjeland, M., Båtevik, F. O., Pettersen, I. B., Skogseid, I., & Yttredal, E. R. (2012). Continuity and change in path-dependent regional policy development: the regional implementation of the Norwegian VRI programme. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift-Norwegian Journal of Geography, 66(3), 133–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Karlsen, J., & Larrea, M. (2016). Territorial development and action research: innovation through dialogue. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kodama, T. (2008). The role of intermediation and absorptive capacity in facilitating university–industry linkages—AN empirical study of TAMA in Japan. Research Policy, 37(8), 1224–1240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kühne, B., Lefebvre, V., Cochez, C., & Gellynck, X. (2013). The importance of networks for knowledge exchange and innovation in the food industry. In M. G. Martinez (Ed.), Open innovation in the food and beverage industry (pp. 189–211). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2014). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Aalborg: Studentlitteratur.Google Scholar
  52. Lundvall, B.-Å. e. (1992). National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  53. Lundvall, B., Johnson, B., Andersen, E., & Dalum, B. (2002). National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31(2), 213–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Martin, B. R. (2016). R&D policy instruments—a critical review of what we do and don’t know. Industry and Innovation, 23(2), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mathieu, A. (2011). University-industry interactions and knowledge transfer mechanisms: a critical survey. Working Papers CEB, 11(15).Google Scholar
  56. Moodysson, J., Coenen, L., & Asheim, B. (2008). Explaining spatial patterns of innovation: analytical and synthetic modes of knowledge creation in the Medicon Valley life-science cluster. Environment and Planning A, 40(5), 1040–1056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Narula, R. (2002). Innovation systems and ‘inertia’ in R&D location: Norwegian firms and the role of systemic lock-in. Research Policy, 31, 795–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy, 33(3), 455–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Plum, O., & Hassink, R. (2014). Knowledge bases, innovativeness and competitiveness in creative industries: the case of Hamburg’s video game developers. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 1(1), 248–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: The Free Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Schulze-Krogh, A. C. (2017). Firms’ absorptive capacity for research-based collaboration—an analysis of a Norwegian R&D brokering policy program. Science and Public Policy, 45(4), 533–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 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. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1722–1740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. VRI (2017). VRI—programme for regional R&D and innovation. Accessed 25 Feb 2019.
  65. Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business and Law, Department of Work life and InnovationUniversity of AgderGrimstadNorway
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Regional ResearchUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria
  3. 3.UiS Business SchoolUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations