Beyond cultural and geographical proximity: delving into the factors that influence the dynamics of academic relationships between students in higher education

Scholars have widely recognised the importance of academic relationships between students at the university. While much of the past research has focused on studying their influence on different aspects such as the students’ academic performance or their emotional stability, less is known about their dynamics and the factors that influence the formation and dissolution of linkages between university students in academic networks. In this paper, we try to shed light on this issue by exploring through stochastic actor-oriented models and student-level data the influence that a set of proximity factors may have on formation of these relationships over the entire period in which students are enrolled at the university. Our findings confirm that the establishment of academic relationships is derived, in part, from a wide range of proximity dimensions of a social, personal, geographical, cultural and academic nature. Furthermore, and unlike previous studies, this research also empirically confirms that the specific stage in which the student is at the university determines the influence of these proximity factors on the dynamics of academic relationships. In this regard, beyond cultural and geographic proximities that only influence the first years at the university, students shape their relationships as they progress in their studies from similarities in more strategic aspects such as academic and personal closeness. These results may have significant implications for both academic research and university policies.

Encouraging teamwork and innovative practices by creating proximity: A qualitative study of continuous improvements in the Quebec Cancer Network.

e13509 Background: Quality cancer care relies on each profession keeping up with advances and best practices and spreading these across a complex multi-team system1. It requires enabling multiple providers and people living with cancer to bridge the distance between them and complement each other's contributions. The proximity framework2 provides a valuable way to understand conditions that increase the likelihood of knowledge sharing, innovation and collaboration. Methods: A qualitative study design of the Quebec Cancer Network was undertaken, with data collected from interviews with policymakers, managers, providers and users (N=22), observation of national and local level meetings (N=28) and document review. Interpretive Description using content analysis sought to identify actions that created proximity dimensions and the perceived influence these had on the development and spread of new approaches. Results: Deliberate actions taken within the network created different dimensions of proximity that impacted teamwork. Prescriptions from network leadership – including consistent promotion of the National cancer plan, patient participation in governance structures, shared quality indicators, and establishment of multidisciplinary committees at local level, created cognitive proximity: a shared mental model emphasizing patient-centred care and organizational proximity: shared standards across the network. Support for professional communities of practice created relational and institutional proximity, increasing trust and knowledge sharing. Local committees enhanced relational and cognitive proximity as providers came to appreciate and optimize each other's contribution to care. Conclusions: The combination of proximity dimensions created through communities of practice and prescriptions from the national level help develop and spread improvements that are tailored to - and take advantage of - networked team-based cancer care delivery. This reflects a balanced proximity where communities of practice pursue new knowledge and innovative practices that can be introduced in local committees to see how it fits with other contributions to solving a problem, thereby promoting recognition of interdependency within and between teams. Synergy between actions is essential to enhancing proximity. The proximity framework offers a complementary perspective to better understand opportunities for improving models of care. References: 1Weaver, S. J., et al. (2018). Unpacking care coordination through a multiteam system lens. Medical care, 56(3), 247-259. et al. Unpacking Care Coordination Through a Multiteam System Lens. Medical Care. 2018;56(3):247-59. 2Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. (2006). Proximity and inter‐organizational collaboration: A literature review. I nternational Journal of management reviews, 8(2), 71-89.

Proximity dimensions and the emergence of collaboration: a HypTrails study on German AI research

Creation and exchange of knowledge depends on collaboration. Recent work has suggested that the emergence of collaboration frequently relies on geographic proximity. However, being co-located tends to be associated with other dimensions of proximity, such as social ties or a shared organizational environment. To account for such factors, multiple dimensions of proximity have been proposed, including cognitive, institutional, organizational, social and geographical proximity. Since they strongly interrelate, disentangling these dimensions and their respective impact on collaboration is challenging. To address this issue, we propose various methods for measuring different dimensions of proximity. We then present an approach to compare and rank them with respect to the extent to which they indicate co-publications and co-inventions. We adapt the HypTrails approach, which was originally developed to explain human navigation, to co-author and co-inventor graphs. We evaluate this approach on a subset of the German research community, specifically academic authors and inventors active in research on artificial intelligence (AI). We find that social proximity and cognitive proximity are more important for the emergence of collaboration than geographic proximity.

University-Industry Collaborations (UICs): A Matter of Proximity Dimensions?

Firms and universities interact with each other despite several barriers hindering their collaboration, such as distances in their worldviews, organizational structures and cognitive capabilities. This suggests that these distances can be bridged in some instances and proximity between the actors may help in the formation of university-industry collaborations (UICs). Proximity, being a multidimensional concept – including geographical and a variety of non-geographical dimensions such as cognitive, organizational, institutional and social – plays a bridging role between the two worlds of academia and industry and facilitates the formation of university-industry linkages. UIC, as well, represents an umbrella term that covers many different types of channels and refers to a broad range of activities as well as outputs of the interactions. Moreover, firms are driven by a variety of different motivations that influence their decision to engage in UICs, which adds to the comprehensiveness of UIC concept. This thesis, thus, examines UICs from the proximity perspective and aims to increase the understanding of proximity in UICs. It analyses the role, importance and influence of proximities with regards to UICs, which differ greatly in terms of their contents, outputs and motivations. Proximity, through its geographical and non-geographical dimensions, helps in the formation of collaborations between firms and universities. Yet, the influence and importance of different forms of proximity depend heavily on the UIC channels in question and the initial motivation of the firm to interact with universities. Additionally, while proximity dimensions influence UIC outputs generated, the collaboration process might also have an impact on changing the proximity between actors. Despite the overall acknowledgement of the multidimensional character of the proximity concept, it is generally assumed that geographical proximity is a strong facilitator of interactions between academia and industry. However, several UIC activities, such as co-publishing, can be geographically dispersed since the collaboration of actors over large distances is possible. In addition, multinational enterprises (MNEs) present a rather unique configuration for the analysis of the importance of geographical proximity in UICs owing to their distributed organizational structures across different geographical locations. This dissertation, hence, examines the importance of geographical proximity for MNE’s collaboration with universities. Through a case study of copublication partnerships in the MNE-university setting, the findings demonstrate that the propensity to collaborate with regional vs. nonregional universities varies by the location of subsidiaries. While this may be caused by the differences in the influence of geographical proximity for different subunits within an MNE, it may well be due to some other factors which lead to different outcomes for the geography of UICs. This suggests a need for the inclusion of non-geographical dimensions of proximity in order to explain better the influence of proximity dimensions in UICs alongside the geographical dimension. Previous studies have seldom taken into consideration the multidimensionality of the proximity concept of and UICs. They rather limited their scope of analysis by covering a limited number of proximity dimensions and UIC channels. This implies that most of the prior studies falls short of providing a thorough analysis of proximity dimensions in UICs. Therefore, following the proximity framework suggested by Boschma (2005), this dissertation presents a novel and comprehensive model that examines the significance of different proximity dimensions across UIC processes. With a quantitative methodology applied via the econometric examination of a survey conducted with 1201 firms, the empirical results highlight the variation in the significance of proximities by UIC channels and outputs. The findings indicate that cognitive proximity and institutional proximity have greater importance for knowledge exploration UICs, while geographical proximity matters less for this type of collaborations. For UICs oriented towards knowledge exploitation, social proximity is more important, whereas organizational proximity matters less for advice-seeking collaborations. There is a growing interest in the dynamic aspect of proximity, implying that interaction processes increase the proximity levels between the actors and proximities co-evolve during interaction processes since they are interrelated and interdependent (Balland et al., 2015; Broekel, 2015). However, the dynamics of proximity have not been examined extensively in UIC context. In this dissertation, this aspect has been addressed by looking at the outputs of UIC processes from the perspective of learning effects represented by non-geographical dimensions of proximity as intangible outputs. Drawing on the use of survey data, the results indicate a close relationship between the formalization of interactions and tangible outputs – such as patents – as well as the contribution of interaction processes in the development of non-geographical proximity regardless of the UIC types. Additionally, the motivations of firms in engaging in UICs vary across firms, and this has implications for who they choose to collaborate with. Different motivations may affect whether the firms collaborate with the university partners located either in proximity or at a distance. Similarly, the existence of non-geographical proximities may affect the spatiality of UICs, suggesting an interplay between geographical and nongeographical aspects of proximity. Yet, these two factors – motivations and non-geographical proximities – have not been examined within the scope of a single study. This dissertation, however, investigates whether and how firm motivations and non-geographical dimensions of proximity affect the geographical aspect of interactions between firms and universities. The results illustrate that UICs motivated by the need for capacity development and relying on cognitive proximity are less sensitive to distance, while geographical proximity matter more for firms intending to create societal impact and building their collaboration on institutional and social proximity.

Joint university-industry laboratories through the lens of proximity dimensions: moving beyond geographical proximity

Purpose There is little known about investigating the importance of all proximity dimensions simultaneously as a result of geographical proximity on university-industry collaborative innovation. This paper aims to answer the question of how geographically proximate university and industry influence cognitive, social, organizational, institutional and cultural proximity within university-industry joint laboratories and finally, what is the outcome of these interplays on collaborative innovation. Design/methodology/approach The study uses an exploratory multiple-case study approach. The results are derived from 53 in-depth, semistructured interviews with laboratory directors and representatives from both the company and the university within 8 joint laboratories of Telecom Italia (TIM). The data collection was carried out in 2014 and 2015. The analysis follows a multi-grounded theory approach and relies on a mix of deductive and inductive reasoning with the final goal of theoretical elaboration. Findings This study finds the role of social and cultural proximity at the individual level as a result of geographical proximity as an enabler of collaborative innovation by triggering mutual learning, trust formation and frequent interactions. Cognitive proximity at the interface level could systematically influence collaborative innovation, while organizational and institutional proximity has marginal roles in facilitating collaborative innovation. The qualitative analysis offers a conceptual framework for proximity dimensions and collaborative innovation within university-industry joint laboratories. Practical implications The framework not only advances state-of-the-art university-industry collaboration and proximity dimension but also offers guidance for managers in designing collaborative innovation settings between university and industry. Originality/value With this study, the paper advances the understanding beyond solely the relationship between proximity and collaboration and shed light on the interplay between geographical proximity and other proximity dimensions in this context, which has received limited scholarly attention.

Studies of Proximity in Coworking Spaces: the Basic Conceptual Challenges

The article aims to identify main research challenges in studying coworking spaces (CSs) within the field of economic geography. It combines the perspective of proximity economics with the growing body of papers about spatial aspects of the operations of CSs and their role in stimulating collaboration. Based on a review of literature, the author identified the characteristic features of CSs and the corresponding proximity dimensions. He further assessed the significance of various dimensions of proximity in CSs. The article reveals how various proximities differ between CSs. It also distinguished the research strands referring to the spatialities of CSs. Next, it discusses the conceptualisation and operationalisation of proximity. Then, it applied it in the micro-scalar context of coworking spaces. The paper sheds a new light on ‘real CSs’ as physical spaces of strong institutional, cognitive and social proximities. It has been argued that even if organisational proximity in CSs is taken for granted, there is a heterogeneity amongst their users.