The mediating effect of ambidextrous knowledge strategy between social capital and innovation of cultural tourism clusters firms

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to analyze the extent to which social capital (SC) spurs innovation in firms located within tourism clusters. Specifically, the study focuses on the mediating role of ambidextrous knowledge strategy (AKS) on the relationship between SC and innovation. Design/methodology/approach A structural model is used on a sample of 215 firms of the hospitality and tourism industry located in World Heritage Cities of Spain. Data analysis is carried out using partial least squares. Findings The combination of bonding and bridging capital yields higher innovation performance through AKS. Research limitations/implications This analysis does not take into account the full set of confounding factors that influence innovation. The factors captured by this study significantly explain heterogeneity in the intensity of innovation among the studied firms. Practical Implications The main recommendation is that firms located in cultural tourism clusters (CTCs) do not restrict the focus on either local or outside relations only but pursue a strategy based on the combination of internal and external relations. This will enable ambidextrous knowledge strategies and better innovation performance. Originality/value There are numerous studies on the relation between some dimensions of SC, some knowledge strategies and some types of innovation. The value added of the present study is the articulation of complementarities among these dimensions. In particular, this study integrates bonding and bridging dimensions of SC, exploration and exploitation of knowledge and incremental and radical innovation. In addition, the paper provides an empirical identification of World Heritage Cities of Spain as CTCs.

Analysing the Mediating Effect of Heritage Between Locals and Visitors: An Exploratory Study Using Mission Patrimoine as a Case Study

“…There is a dearth of research in this area which this work is going to contribute to address. The same could be said about cultural tourism and innovation [20].…”

“…The same could be noted about research associating heritage/cultural tourism and OA. Martinez-Perez, Garcia-Villaverde and Elche [20], provided the only paper in the area.…”

“…Cultural tourism clusters (CTCs) "entail engaging networks of collaborative and competitive relationships with other local companies, such as, for example, travel agencies, tour operators and institutions" (Sainaghi & Baggio, 2014 cited in [20], p. 1485). Moreover, Martinez-Perez, Garcia-Villaverde and Elche [20], explain that the connection among firms and tourists within CTC is particularly strong in historical and World Heritage Cities destinations due to the ability of these destinations to contribute to the development of social capital (SC). This ability is explained from the fact there is a strong connection between cultural heritage, identity and sense of belonging [20].…”

“…Moreover, Martinez-Perez, Garcia-Villaverde and Elche [20], explain that the connection among firms and tourists within CTC is particularly strong in historical and World Heritage Cities destinations due to the ability of these destinations to contribute to the development of social capital (SC). This ability is explained from the fact there is a strong connection between cultural heritage, identity and sense of belonging [20]. Putman (2000, cited in [20]) argues that SC puts together two opposites, namely bonding SC (Reciprocity and solidarity between individuals sharing similar characteristics) and bridging SC (connection from networks of different individuals) ( Figure 1).…”

Are different types of interfirm linkages conducive to different types of tourism innovation?

“…Hjalager () has argued that the types of innovations influenced by interfirm linkages require more attention. However, although the existing tourism innovation literature has mentioned that interaction provides the interlinked firms with knowledge sharing, and opportunities for sales and new product development (Hall & Williams, ; Novelli, Schmitz, & Spencer, ), the only systematic research in this area has been on how different forms of interfirm linkages impact on the degree of novelty in tourism innovation (Martínez‐Pérez, Garcia‐Villaverde, & Elche, ; Sørensen, ). Yet degree of novelty is only one criterion for differentiating innovation types, with Adams, Tranfield, and Denyer () distinguishing between typologies based on newness, focus (product versus process), and attributes (comparability, compatibility, etc.).…”