Search

This paper considers how heterogeneous groups of regional stakeholders design and implement strategic activities that contribute to their region’s innovation capacity. We aim to understand how these stakeholder groups attempt to create new regional development pathways, and explore why otherwise enthusiastic and willing partnerships might fail to progress. We conceptualize this in terms of partners seeking to develop a shared actionable knowledge set as the basis for future development, and contend that one explanation for these failures might be a failure of the ways that partners combine their knowledge. We conceptualize strategic processes in terms of a series of distinct phases, and identify how problems in knowledge combination processes might manifest themselves in preventing the creation of valuable knowledge for subsequent action. Drawing on a detailed empirical case study of the Creative Science Park in Aveiro (Portugal), we argue that a better understanding of inter-stakeholder knowledge combination processes is necessary for creating and implementing better strategic transformational development processes for regions.

There is increasing interest in the question of how different stakeholders develop, implement and lead regional upgrading processes with the concept of place leadership emerging as one response to this. Simultaneously, universities face growing expectations that they will contribute to regional development processes – often through their collaborative relationships with other regional stakeholders. But universities are complex in terms of their internal and institutional structures, which undermines their capacities to enact coherent place leadership roles. We seek to understand how strategic leadership in universities can contribute to innovation and regional development in the context of the fundamental institutional complexity of universities. We address this through a qualitative, explorative case study comparing six European regions where universities have sincerely attempted to deliver place leadership roles. We identify that the elements of agency and alignment are vital in that: firstly, university leadership has to align with regional coalitions on the one hand and internal structures on the other hand, and secondly, this leadership must give individuals agency in their regional engagement activities.

University-industry-government relationships driving regional innovation are often discussed by using the shorthand of the 'triple helix', referring to any arena where these partners come together. This rapid expansion of the idea's use risks it becoming a 'policy concept' whilst potential tensions of collaboration can be ignored. Instead of 'happy family stories' of well-functioning regional partnerships, we seek to explore how triple helix mechanisms may stimulate regional innovation systems in places that have traditionally not had a long history of collaboration. Whilst universities are often dominant drivers of innovation in these 'sparse' regional innovation ecosystems, they may not be fit to respond to the identified regional needs. We address this by using empirics from five regions with relatively sparse triple helix environments and present evidence on the ways in which the universities have sought to play the role of tertius gaudens — honest broker — helping to address the stalemates that emerge between partners with very different goals, norms, values and intentions around regional innovation. We identified several processes through which universities can play this role and thereby contribute to densifying sparse innovation environments, increasing agglomeration and diversity whilst helping to address the tensions and problems that densification brings.

There is increasing interest in the question of how different stakeholders develop, implement and lead regional upgrading processes with the concept of place leadership emerging as one response to this. Simultaneously, universities face growing expectations that they will contribute to regional development processes - often through their collaborative relationships with other regional stakeholders. But universities are complex in terms of their internal and institutional structures, which undermines their capacities to enact coherent place leadership roles. We seek to understand how strategic leadership in universities can contribute to innovation and regional development in the context of the fundamental institutional complexity of universities. We address this through a qualitative, explorative case study comparing six European regions where universities have sincerely attempted to deliver place leadership roles. We identify that the elements of agency and alignment are vital in that: firstly, university leadership has to align with regional coalitions on the one hand and internal structures on the other hand, and secondly, this leadership must give give individuals agency in their regional engagement activities.

Active coalitions of regional stakeholders are at the heart of contemporary regional economic development policies, such as Smart Specialisation or Constructing Regional Advantage. These coalitions consist of actors from various organizations such as regional authorities, companies and higher education institutions that come together to achieve common agendas and advance their region. Accordingly, the numerous stakeholders are expected to work together seamlessly, build and implement strategies and thereby deliver regional development. However, by assuming that strategy formulation and implementation is straightforward, the challenges that lie within partnerships and the tensions that may arise between stakeholders can become neglected. Therefore, it is vital to understand tensions that drive towards situations in which strategy-building is not successful and ‘black holes’ of strategy-building emerge. By identifying the tensions between regional partners in the Twente region of the Netherlands, the aim is to understand how such stakeholder tensions affect regional development. It is assumed that by easing or resolving these tensions, stakeholder partnerships can contribute to the successful advancement of their region. The data for this qualitative case study are drawn from both research interviews and secondary sources.

The chapter contributes to the literature and discussions on the regional engagement of universities, providing empirical evidence on academic engagement and how these academics can be motivated and encouraged by regional policy. The chapter specifically asks the question how do entrepreneurial universities create (or do not) frameworks which enable purposive actions by academic actors acting as institutional entrepreneurs to participate in regional development outcomes. The chapter draws upon case studies of three universities all recently actively promoting regional entrepreneurship activities in various ways at the institutional level. This chapter identifies the key tensions and dynamics of the entrepreneurial university’s behaviour to propose a first reflection on how regional policy can be both supportive and steering for institutional entrepreneurs. The chapter concludes that because the connections between institutional entrepreneurs and regional partners are vital to collaboration undertaken – regional policy should devote more resources to building these critical links.

The final chapter presents the practical implications arising from consequences of tensions emerging when universities engage with actors in peripheral regions. Recommendations to education/science ministries require ensuring that national policy frameworks do not lead universities to downgrade regional missions, whilst regional policy-makers should pay attention to key university actors who may not be their strategic leaders. The volume concludes by arguing that policy-makers and practitioners should seek to better understand the tensions inherent in collaboration as an antecedent to developing better, more implementable, and ultimately more successful strategies for knowledge-based regional development in economically peripheral regions.

This chapter presents the overall problematic of universities being situated within environments where diverse actors have rising expectations from them, while not considering the universities’ organisational complexities. Universities are expected to contribute to regional development, but host a range of academic communities with different engagement practices that hinder implementing common engagement strategies. Using two contemporary conceptual approaches (constructed regional advantage and smart specialisation), the chapter problematises the university as a regional economic development partner. The chapter concludes by exemplifying how universities can engage with regional partners in peripheral regions.

The RUNIN project's Design Lab Think Tank took place on 28th June 2018. Its aim was to discuss the topic of universities' engagement with society, specifically in their region. It used a world café format that brought together regional stakeholders to discuss how the University of Twente (UT) can incorporate societal questions in its core activities and, through this, create regional benefits. This report provides a description of the event, a summation of the initiatives proposed and an analysis of the discussion that was prompted by the sub-questions around the subject of universities' societal engagement.

A well-functioning regional innovation system involves a lot of communication and interaction among the actors. However, sometimes the communication and interaction create tensions impeding regional development. In order to explore the reasons behind this, this study looks at the relationships between key stakeholders in the Twente Region in the Netherlands. The region has an established reputation for innovation and entrepreneurship, a high inter-connectedness between the actors, and a strong knowledge infrastructure. The research focuses on the University of Twente as a key actor contributing to regional growth in close cooperation with various stakeholders. This is an introductory interview-based case study that identifies four areas of tension between the university and its regional stakeholders. Our inquiry sheds light on the misalignment of stakeholders’ interests and expectations that lessens the actors’ capacity for policy formulation and strategic agenda setting, as well as hinders its successful translation into action. Then, the absence of clear intermediaries significantly increases the perceived distance between the University of Twente and the Twente region and impedes the university’s collaboration with companies outside the science and business park. Next, the tension of discontinuity highlights the complexities of human resources and personalised networks – their diversity, multidimensionality, and overlaps make it harder to synchronise action and enhance reciprocal benefits. The knowledge asymmetry between the parties further complicates their communication and weakens commitment. In the end, the paper offers a few ideas for action for academic leaders and regional policymakers.