Social proximity is a key enabling factor of interactive ties to science

others, are considered as critical or auxiliary enabling factors for the creation and realiza-tion of knowledge relarealiza-tions. Closely related to social proximity shared trust between actors strongly facilitates the open exchange of knowledge, in particular tacit knowledge that is eminent to innovation (Boschma, 2005).

215 Also Huber (2009) has stated that strong social embeddedness in terms of emotional closeness and feel-ings of personal obligation facilitates the identification of shared objectives despite normally rather strong institutional dissimilarities.

As I have specified in Chapter 4.4.1, a great majority of the firms pointed out that a large amount of linkages to research institutions originate from personal relationships.²¹⁶ In par-ticular, contacts to former fellow students and co-workers, as well as prior business tions are fundamental influencing factors for the creation and realization of knowledge rela-tions with academia in the STP and external to the STP. As an illustration of the former, multiple Adlershof-based interviewees underscored their studies and/or research positions held in the past at the HU-Berlin or other research institutions such as the DLR and FBH for the formation of local interactive relations: “I still have very close links to the HU-Berlin, because I worked there.” (ADL_16). Similarly, several firms highlighted the personal ties to former colleagues of the Academy of Science of the GDR, who now work a diverse busi-nesses and scientific institutions in the science park.²¹⁷ This corresponds to the results of previous empirical studies in the Adlershof science park (Brühöfener McCourt, 2009; Jähn-ke, 2009). In regard to the STP Cartuja, many of the resident companies’ ties to scientific institutions can be is traced back to shared studies and work experiences at the School of Engineering of the University of Seville in particular. In particular the academic spin-offs interviewed strongly benefit from the existing ties to their - mostly co-located - scientific parent organizations and contacts to other scientific actors developed in the past in the realization of current multi-faceted knowledge relations: “Clearly, with [names of the Cartu-ja-based scientific parent organizations], it’s due to the founders of the company, their per-sonal connections. With the institutions outside the science park, the relationships are also based on personal connections. (...) When there was a R&D project in the field that we work in, right away, they know another university.“ (CAR_15).

For the latter, personal relationships strongly enable the development and retention of knowledge relations with regional, national and international scientific institutions, too. One interviewee from the STP Cartuja revealed the firm’s geographically dispersed knowledge relations to academia that were formed thanks to socially embedded linkages to its per-sonnel: “Because the research groups that we have contacted or identified are partly fellow students and acquaintances of our employees. (…) We have a lot of employees that have studied at the School of Engineering [author’s note: of the University of Seville]. (…) And this is also because some of our colleagues have worked first at the Technological Institute

216 As discussed in Chapter 4.4.1, about 77% of the 52 companies stressed the importance of their social networks for linkages to scientific actors. While ca. 95% of strong knowledge seekers and all firms classi-fied as moderate knowledge seekers placed emphasis on this entry channel, ca. 54% of lame knowledge seekers stressed this point.

217 One interviewee illustrated the important role of personal relationships to former work colleagues at AdW:

“Many of these relationships are based on personal contacts, in particular to former colleagues at the Academy of Sciences [of the former GDR] that work at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin or at research institu-tions now.” (ADL_2).

in Aragon.” (CAR_11). These findings correspond to the existing academic literature that has underlined the ability of knowledge interaction between geographically distant actors due to strong socially embedded ties (Agrawal et al., 2006). Overall, also Thune (2009) has emphasized personal trust-based relations as primary entry channels for inter-organizational R&D cooperation.

In addition, but rather rarely, existing or prior business relationships with academic actors linked have resulted in the formation of ties geared towards collective knowledge crea-tion.²¹⁸ In a few cases, the businesses also take advantage of the mobility of their socially embedded ties, thus enabling the development of new knowledge relations to additional scientific institutions in vicinity or far away over time. An interviewee from the STP Adler-shof illustrated this point: “One of my former colleagues at the [name of Adlershof-based R&D institute] is a professor there [author’s note: a Berlin-based university] now, and there-fore, we have a good connection there.” (ADL_4).

Furthermore, in some cases, existing relations to trusted scientific actors served as a reliable source of trustworthiness and reputation to allow the development of new interactive ties to previously unconnected scientific institutions and researchers, respectively. One interviewee pointed to an exemplary case: “[Our linkages] to the professors [names of two HU-Berlin professors], this was done by [name of the professor of the firm’s academic parent organization]. I asked him to make a contact to them, and then I took the initiative to have a first meeting.” (ADL_26). Especially in the case of STP resident firms identified as strong knowledge seekers, the comparatively greater im-portance of direct inquiries by scientific institutions for collaborative activities is related to strong structural embeddedness in communities of practice and associated networked rep-utation: “The contacts originate from the community. I know the [research] groups and we approach them directly, or they approach us.” (ADL_21). Nooteboom (2000a) as well as Glückler and Armbruster (2003), among others, have stressed the transfer of trustworthiness in newly created interactive relations.

Overall, the socially embedded knowledge relations of the firms to academia are characterized by trust, which increases the likelihood for an open exchange of tacit knowledge instead of calculative behaviour, as also Breschi and Lissoni (2003) have pointed out. One interviewee underlined the fundamental significance of shared trust for

218 For example, this Adlershof-based company highlighted the role of existing business contacts as a starting point for joint R&D projects: “Many of the relationships are based on personal contacts and business con-tacts, respectively, which enable the creation of joint research projects. The personal contact and trust has been created before.” (ADL_3).

knowledge interaction: “Trust is necessary, the personal contact. That’s crucial for the ex-change of information.” (ADL_6). In addition to increased trust over time, repeated shared experiences and interaction result in enhanced cognitive understanding, too. Thus, stable and long-term relations, termed strong ties by Granovetter (1973), are developed, as one interviewee highlighted: “Basically, we always work with the same universities, departments and research centres (...). When we worked with a [research] group, it’s easier to collabo-rate again.“ (CAR_14). This positive correlation between social and cognitive proximity, also emphasized by Boschma (2005) and Broekel (2015), applies to academic spin-offs in particular.²¹⁹

In stark contrast, the lack of personal relations to science represents a two-folded disadvantage to some of the STP resident firms examined, which are mostly categorized as lame knowledges seekers. Firstly, without personal contacts and prior cooperation the firms lack entry points to access specific scientific knowledge and resources. Secondly, these firms also lack sufficient information about relevant research activities that could set the potential for interactive relations. An Adlershof resident company stated this aspect as a great obstacle hampering the likelihood to develop relations to academia: “We just don’t have the contacts there and the knowledge about the existing [research] institutions.”

(ADL_5).

To sum up, the firms’ social networks due to shared personal, work or business experiences are very critical enabling factors for the formation of local and extra-local knowledge relations to academia and related knowledge sharing activities. Most importantly, associated trust increases the likelihood for the exchange of complex, and sometimes confidential, tacit and explicit knowledge. Furthermore, repeated interaction in conjunction with social proximity increases cognitive proximity and, in turn, reinforces the likelihood for effective knowledge interaction and learning.

4.5.4 Organizational proximity as another critical criteria to reduce