Firms’ knowledge search and local knowledge externalities in innovation performance

Roper, Stephen; Love, James H.; Bonner, Karen

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.10.004

Cited by 216 publications

(183 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

172

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An initial attempt at employing this framework empirically is contained in Roper, Love, and Bonner (2017). However, our framework suggests a number of potential areas for future investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge context, learning and innovation: an integrating framework

Roper

Love

2017

Industry and Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this conceptual paper, we develop a framework which identifies those elements of firms' knowledge context which are important for innovation, and the mechanisms through which that knowledge impacts on firms' innovation performance. We make four main contributions to the existing literature. First, our characterisation of knowledge context provides the basis for a more specific identification of which elements of firms' knowledge environment are important for innovation, discriminating between spatial, sectoral and network influences. Second, we reflect the role of innovation ambition in shaping firms' knowledge search strategies. Third, we differentiate between firms' interactive and non-interactive knowledge search activities and recognise that these may be complemented by unanticipated and serendipitous knowledge spillovers. Finally, we employ the notion of encoding capacity to reflect firms' internal ability to assimilate and apply external knowledge, and clarify its distinctiveness from the more general concept of absorptive capacity. Our framework provides an integrating mechanism for existing empirical studies, and suggests a number of new research directions related to the determinants of innovation performance and the heterogeneity of innovation outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge context, learning and innovation: an integrating framework

Roper

Love

2017

Industry and Innovation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…KSTE explains how entrepreneurs use information and why the investment in firm's own knowledge should not undermine an entrepreneur's collaboration on knowledge with external partners (West and Bogers 2014;Roper et al 2017) and access knowledge spillovers (Audretsch and Keilbach 2007;Hall and Sena 2017). In the new digital economy (Obschonka and Audretsch 2019) with greater openness and speed of information accumulation and exchange, underinvestment in knowledge is particularly troublesome.…”

Section: Investigating the Knowledge Management -Entrepreneurship Linkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge management and entrepreneurship

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While research on knowledge management in entrepreneurial organizations has been the subject of much scholarly attention, it has mostly been considered independently rather than in institutional, geographical or industrial contexts. The purpose of this special issue is to integrate the role of context with knowledge management research, and to discuss the subsequent implications for entrepreneurship. This paper draws on the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship, open innovation theory and the institutional perspective to knowledge management in entrepreneurial organizations, It does so in order to measure returns to investment in knowledge and knowledge spillovers across various industries and levels of economic activity (individual, firm, industry, university, region). Future research suggestions from the papers included in the special journal issue are also discussed and explained.

show abstract

“…Thus, the following literature review needs to consider national and regional contexts as well. Maskell and Malmberg (1999), Rodríguez, Williams, and Hall (2014), Roper et al (2017), Weidenfeld, Butler, and Williams (2011), and Weidenfeld and Hall (2014) found that geographical proximity of companies and institutions has a positive impact on collective learning, also called collaborative learning (Asheim & Gertler, 2013), learning through interaction (Lazonick, 2013) or interactive learning (Roper et al, 2017). Therefore, geographical proximity enables innovation much more than other determinants of knowledge creation.…”

Section: Geography Of Innovation In Tourism Companiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of localized innovations on the stock returns of tourism companies

Napierała

Szutowski

2018

Journal of Tourism Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to determine the role of source of innovation, its degree of novelty, and their interaction in shaping tourism companies' stock returns in different geographical contexts. The research employed the buy‐and‐hold method. It included 378 innovation announcements released in the years 2011–2016 for 111 tourism companies operating in European Union countries. Findings suggest that abnormal returns for the companies listed in the innovation leading countries were significantly smaller than those for the moderate innovators group. The study proposes a novel, geographical perspective to the analysis of the effects of innovation on stock returns in tourism.

show abstract

Firms’ knowledge search and local knowledge externalities in innovation performance

Cited by 216 publications

References 58 publications

Knowledge context, learning and innovation: an integrating framework

Knowledge context, learning and innovation: an integrating framework

Knowledge management and entrepreneurship

The impact of localized innovations on the stock returns of tourism companies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About