2014
DOI: 10.1080/10438599.2014.882139
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How do dimensions of proximity relate to the outcomes of collaboration? A survey of knowledge-intensive networks in the Dutch water sector

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
61
1
4

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(74 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
61
1
4
Order By: Relevance
“…It is assumed that, the more one business has in common with another, particularly with respect to the problems that they face and the decisions that they make, the more likely it is that the lessons and examples of one will be of use to the other (Darr, Kurtzberg, 2000). It refers also to the social embeddedness of the collaboration (Heringa, et al, 2014). Social embeddedness involves trust, based on friendship, kinship, personal experiences (Boschma, 2005;Broekel, Boschma, 2012).…”
Section: No 2/2015mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…It is assumed that, the more one business has in common with another, particularly with respect to the problems that they face and the decisions that they make, the more likely it is that the lessons and examples of one will be of use to the other (Darr, Kurtzberg, 2000). It refers also to the social embeddedness of the collaboration (Heringa, et al, 2014). Social embeddedness involves trust, based on friendship, kinship, personal experiences (Boschma, 2005;Broekel, Boschma, 2012).…”
Section: No 2/2015mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first literature on proximity focused entirely on geographical proximity (Audretsch, Feldman, 1996). Over time other dimensions, such as organisational, institutional, cultural, cognitive, technological, and social proximity have been added (Heringa et al, 2014). Based on the literature, the fit between the sender and the receiver of the knowledge can be grouped into four categories: subjective, objective, time and spatial.…”
Section: No 2/2015mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Thus, the definitions that describe the different types of proximity significantly overlap with each other and according to Aguilera, Lethiais, and Rallet (2015, p. 799) are still "poorly defined and even more poorly measured". Nevertheless, the abundant empirical literature on proximity and innovation at the firm, and varying regional levels (Heringa, Horlings, van der Zouwen, van den Besselaar, & van Vierssen, 2014;Broekel, 2015), has generally agreed that "proximities have a significant complementary role in generating an important flow of knowledge across regions" (Paci, Marrocu, & Usai, 2014, p. 9). This signifies the importance of proximity in the conceptual debates on CBRIS.…”
Section: Proximity Related Variety and Cbrismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A concentration of resources can refer to individuals and groups within institutions and scientific fields, where the effects derive from selecting of the 'best' over the rest. It can also refer to an institutional or geographic location, where the effects emerge from economies of scale and scope and from proximity (Heringa et al 2014; Bonaccorsi & Daraio 2005;Frenken et al 2009). Policies aimed at creating centres of excellence may achieve either or both types of effect.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%