Universities as strategic agents in regional path development? A European comparison

Figures & data

Table 1. Different typologies of path development.

Typology	Definition
Extension	Continuation of existing industrial path based on incremental innovation along well-established technological trajectories
Modernization /upgrading	Major change of an industrial path based on new technologies or organizational innovations
Branching	Development of a new industry based on competencies and knowledge of existing related industries (related variety)
Diversification	Diversification into a new industry based on unrelated knowledge combinations
Importation	Setting up of an established industry that is new to the region (e.g. through foreign firms, inflow of skilled individuals with new competences)
Path creation	Emergence and growth of entirely new industries based on radically new technologies and scientific discoveries or as outcome of search processes for new business models, user-driven innovation, and social innovation

Source: Authors’ own elaboration after Isaksen, Martin, and Trippl (2018); Grillitsch and Asheim (2018), Hassink, Isaksen, and Trippl (2019).

Figure 1. Conceptual framework: adaptation of the trinity of change agency framework (Grillitsch and Sotarauta 2020) to universities, taking into account the dimensions of path creation of MacKinnon et al. (2019) (own illustration).

Table 2. Characteristics of the three case study areas as well as an overview of the interviews conducted in each case study region.

	University of Twente (UT)	Technical University Kaiserslautern (TUK)	Aalborg University (AAU)
Foundation	1964	1969	1973/74
Number of students (2021)	12,000	14,427	19,975
Interview partners in the three case study areas:
University – academics	10	6	4
University – management	6	5	5
University – others	3	3	2
Region– business	2	3	3
Region – regional development/intermediary	3	3	3
Region – local/regional policy makers/public authority	3	5	4
SUM	27	25	21

Isaksen, A., R. Martin, and M. Trippl. 2018. New Avenues for Regional Innovation Systems - Theoretical Advances, Empirical Cases and Policy Lessons. Cham: Springer.

 Google Scholar

Grillitsch, M., and B. Asheim. 2018. “Place-based Innovation Policy for Industrial Diversification in Regions.” European Planning Studies. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2018.1484892.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hassink, R., A. Isaksen, and M. Trippl. 2019. “Towards a Comprehensive Understanding of new Regional Industrial Path Development.” Regional Studies 53, 1636–1645. doi:10.1080/00343404.2019.1566704

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grillitsch, M. and M. Sotarauta. 2020. “Trinity of Change Agency, Regional Development Paths and Opportunity Spaces.” Progress in Human Geography, 44 (4): 704–723. doi: 10.1177/0309132519853870.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

MacKinnon, D., S. Dawley, A. Pike, and A. Cumbers. 2019. “Rethinking Path Creation: A Geographical Political Economy Approach.” Economic Geography 95: 113–135. doi:10.1080/00130095.2018.1498294

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar