Cognitive proximity as essential criteria for knowledge interaction

In the literature, cognitive proximity, which is defined as the similarity of actors’ knowledge bases, is commonly understood as a necessary prerequisite for value-added knowledge relations to occur. Thus, a certain overlap of knowledge bases is essential to enable effec-tive understanding and communication, as well as successful integration and exploitation of new external knowledge (Boschma, 2005). Consequently, actors often seek to build interactive ties to other actors that possess similar references and knowledge bases, for example, in communities of practice, in order to effectively process the exchanged knowledge (Nooteboom, 2000a).

For the knowledge relations to academia of the resident firms interviewed, suffcient cognitive overlap and a specialized expertise of scientific actors, which matches the businesses’ distinct knowledge demands, are essential for the formation of interactive linkages and related knowledge interaction. Generally, the knowledge relations to scientific actors have to cater to the firms’ specialized knowledge demands, as the absorbed external scientific knowledge is intended to contribute to the companies’ technological development of new, innovative products, thus generating tangible results of economic val-ue for the companies. In particular, the businesses, who have been specified as strong and moderate knowledge seekers, stressed this decisive factor: ”Research institutions with their

specific knowledge in certain issues such as energy efficiency can really contribute to our projects and improve our products and services.” (CAR_2).²¹¹

Thereafter, based on the specific tasks and related knowledge demands, the interviewed companies scan, identify and contact suitable scientific knowledge sources (i.e. universities and R&D institutions) that dispose of the needed specialized resources (e.g. knowledge and equipment) to help them in solving specific problems: “They are the only ones that we know in Spain that can do this. That’s why we don’t do it with somebody else.” (CAR_19).

Thus, a firm’s interactive ties to science linked to learning are a result of both already exist-ing relations, as well as rational planned knowledge-creation activities with selected fittexist-ing knowledge sources: “I’m always looking for who has got technologies that exactly fit to our concept.” (ADL_21).

Sufficient cognitive proximity was referred to either in terms of related knowledge areas or certain knowledge diversity. For the former, strongly overlapping scientific knowledge in relation to a firm's technological expertise ensures the capability to aid in the solving of a firm’s specific tasks and problems: “Our criterion for cooperation is that the people are ca-pable (…). And also, complementing in our work, i.e. a research group that is doing some-thing similar than what we do, and vice versa.” (CAR_24). Such relations characterized by a strong cognitive overlap of knowledge bases can enhance the firm’s technology devel-opment significantly and, consequently, were often underlined as strong ties: “With other people, we don’t cooperate as closely as with [name of a university professor]. This is based on the substantial overlapping of the area of work and research, respectively.”

(ADL_12). For the latter, many interviewees pointed to the importance of accessing hetero-geneous, but still complementary scientific knowledge in order to stimulate novel combinations of knowledge and, in turn, innovation: “At best we will get in contact with somebody that could do certain activities for us that we don’t know of yet.” (CAR_14). Also, Boschma (2005) and Thune (2009) have argued that the balance of related and dissimilar knowledge is an important driver for the creation of novel ideas and technologies and, thus, learning and innovation. However, too large cognitive distance in terms of unrelated knowledge and the lack of absorptive capacity of the firm are hampering effective communication and, in turn, knowledge sharing. One interviewee illustrated this aspect:

”The precondition for cooperation is that both partners have the expertise. I presume this to

211 Similarly, firms categorized as lame knoweldge seekers underlined complementary expertises in their statements about the fundamental criteria for interaction with academia: “The ideal cooperation with science would be that a research institution conducts the materials research, and we take part in the development of the industrial application.” (ADL_11).

be the case for an R&D institution, but we also have to be capable to absorb the relevant knowledge.” (ADL_13).

In addition to cognitive proximity in terms of related similar and diverse scientific knowledge, many firms categorized as strong and moderate knowledge seekers highlight-ed the nehighlight-ed to access sophisticathighlight-ed scientific technical equipment that contributes to the firms’ R&D and technology development activities: “It is extremely important for a company like [company name] to have access to institutes that have got very specialized equip-ment.” (ADL_17). Since many of the firms are micro and small businesses the accessibility of certain scientific infrastructure is also related to cost savings. It also applies to the test-ing and validattest-ing of the SMEs’ new technologies and product prototypes. Moreover, the cooperation with related academic institutions in this respect also increases the firms’ repu-tation and, thus, the marketability of new products, for example, through scientifically veri-fied testings of new products and technologies: “We want the scientific background being proved. (…) There we want to be able to say we have tested this device there and there, and that’s why it’s good.” (ADL_19).

Furthermore, the prominent function of cognitive proximity within the proximity configuration in knowledge relations to scientific institutions is also illustrated in relation to other dimensions of proximity. To begin with, the companies emphasized that when they look to access specific scientific knowledge, appropriate knowledge sources are approached.

Whether prior shared work or personal experiences exist or not rather is a subordinate concern: “When we have to realize a specific task. What we do first is to look in the Internet or in the contact list that we have. When we find the person or the research group that can resolve the problem (…), I immediately send them an email.” (CAR_22). Also geographical proximity to scientific partners is not considered as a decisive criterion. This is also reflect-ed in the high importance of non-local knowlreflect-edge relations to academia throughout the three different types of STP resident firms (see Chapter 4.3). One interviewee interpreted the relevance of fitting scientific knowledge in relation to social and geographical proximity:

“I’m looking for the one that has the highest competency. Usually, that’s not the one who works next to me. (…) Also, personal aspects are not the crucial factor.” (ADL_16). Thus, consistent with the findings of Mattes (2012), also the STP resident firms’ knowledge rela-tions to academia always imply an intention to interact, to share and to acquire certain knowledge.

In sum, cognitive proximity takes over an exceptional role in the proximity framework in knowledge relations between STP resident firms and academia. Furthermore, the qualita-tive analysis confirms the emphasis widely stated in the literature that sufficient cogniqualita-tive proximity is a necessary prerequisite for successful knowledge interaction to take place.