1

Bridging the Gap between Academic Research and Regional Development:

A case study of knowledge cogeneration processes in the Basque Country

James Karlsen

Agder Research and Basque Institute of Competitiveness

james.karlsen@agderforskning.no

Miren Larrea

Basque Institute of Competitiveness and University of Deusto

larrea@orkestra.deusto.es

James Wilson

Basque Institute of Competitiveness and University of Deusto

jwilson@orkestra.deusto.es

Mari Jose Aranguren

Basque Institute of Competitiveness and University of Deusto

mjarang@orkestra.deusto.es

Published as:

Karlsen, J., Larrea, M., Wilson, J. R & Aranguren, M-J. (2012). ‘Bridging the Gap between

Academic Research and Regional Development: A case study of knowledge cogeneration

processes in the Basque Country, European Journal of Education, 47:1, 122-138.

Abstract

The discussion in the paper is centred on how the gap between academic knowledge and regional development can be bridged, creating conditions for change processes between researchers and regional agents. Institutional entrepreneurs can create new regional development organisations and research organisations, but in order to fulfil regional needs it is necessary to create processes where researchers and practitioners can connect and create a mutual change process. The analysis shows how new organisations have been used to create conditions for knowledge cogeneration processes, a change in the language used and new work methods between researchers from Deusto University and Orkestra and regional actors over a period of 11 years in the Basque Country.

Keywords: research, knowledge cogeneration, institutional entrepreneur, regional development

2

1. Introduction

The activities of the university have traditionally been built firmly around the inter-related pillars of teaching and research. Today, however, universities and their academics are specifically asked to actively contribute to the regional development processes of their host regions in ways that extend beyond a traditional interpretation of these pillars (Chatterton and Goddard 2000; Etzkowitz et al. 2000; Nilsson 2006; Harding et al. 2007; Karlsen 2007; OECD 2007). The essential argument is that academics can play a key role in regional development by creating new knowledge and by contributing to change and transformation among other organisations, leaving them better equipped to fit into the knowledge economy (Cooke 2002). This is a challenge both for the fiercely independent and often detached institution that is the university, and for regional development practitioners unused to engaging with academics. In the interface between the two it represents a specific challenge for traditional academic knowledge creation processes. Despite the strong normative arguments about the benefits of an active contribution from universities in regional economic development, the arguments and evidence about how this can best be achieved are under-developed. There is a lack of in depth studies of universities and knowledge creation processes from the inside looking out (Clark 2004). There is also a lack of studies of the change process, examining how relationships and work methods change over time. Studies that address this gap in understanding of the dynamic relationship between academics and practitioners is of interest both for the academic community and for policy-makers. They can improve understanding/explanation of endogenous economic development (Sotarauta 2009), for example, and construct knowledge based-regional advantages through a fine-tuning of regional policy (Asheim et al. 2006). The central argument of this paper is that academic, research-based knowledge and practitioner, experience-based knowledge is bridged when these collectives meet, that this initial bridging can develop into a process of knowledge co-generation under certain circumstances, and that when this happens a result is new actionable knowledge that can be used to create changes in a region. Bridging is hence defined as a first step in a process where regional actors and researchers meet each other. If they continue to meet each other more or less regularly over a certain time period, and if the institutional conditions are conducive, the process can change to a mutual knowledge cogeneration process (Greenwood and Levin 2007). We therefore conceive an important interplay between the dynamic relationship among researchers and agents from the ‘bottom up’, and the conditions for institutional change created by institutional entrepreneurs from the ‘top down’. With a positive interplay, the mutual co-generation process can generate changes in behaviour. This can be identified, for example, in a change in words and language used, in new work methods and in the creation of new organisations. Related to such changes, we can define actionable knowledge as that knowledge used to generate changes by actors with an entrepreneurial attitude. This knowledge can be new knowledge for those involved in the regional development process, but can also be new knowledge of interest for the academic community. The theoretical inspiration and foundation for these arguments are from the intersection between action research and institutional theory; specifically, the meeting between a process-based approach of actions at micro level and the institutional entrepreneur concept. Action research is an approach with a methodology for studying and participating in processes as they unfold in real time (Gustavsen 1992; Greenwood and Levin 2007; Reason and Bradbury 2008). One of its main ideas is that development and change are cogenerated in an engagement between practitioners - those that own a particular challenge - and researchers. Change is neither a top-down nor a bottom-up process, but a mutual, cogenerated process between practitioners and researchers (Greenwood and Levin 2007).

3

The inspiration from institutional theory is the concept of institutional entrepreneurship (Sotarauta 2009), whereby institutions are acknowledged as products of humans’ agency (DiMaggio and Powell 1991; Sotarauta 2009). Institutions both give possibilities and hindrances for human action. Institutional entrepreneurs are actors that have interest in particular institutional arrangements and who mobilise resources in order to create new institutions or transform existing ones (Sotarauta 2009). Actionable knowledge is used by the institutional entrepreneur to initiate change processes in the same system they are part of, implying relatively enduring institutions. These can be changed by actors and their actions, but they still continue to exist. One example is the university, one of the oldest institutions in society. The interlinked pillars of education and research have changed many times during the history of university, but the institution remains vital. Framed within these theoretical foundations, the aim of the paper is to enhance understanding of how the change from bridging to knowledge co-generation takes place. This is approached through the presentation and discussion of a case where changes in the relationship between university, academic research and regional actors have been apparent. The case has generated data over a period of 11 years, where researchers have been active participators with regional practitioners in the Basque Country (Spain). Specifically, participative processes have been used to generate changes in the relationship between 13 private and public regional development agents in a cooperative network. The case was not planned and designed as an action research project, but seen in retrospect the case has evolved along action research cornerstones such as participation founded in democratic values, action and reflections over the outcome of the change process, and documentation of the change process in academic reports and journals. During the period the process has changed from simple bridging towards a cogenerated process between practitioners and researchers. Regional development outcomes have included new knowledge organisations, new regional networks and new work methods and language. The specific research questions of the paper are the following:

a) How can we identify the change from a simple bridging between academics and practitioners, to a process of knowledge co-generation?

b) What roles do (i) institutional entrepreneurs and (ii) action research approaches play in generating this change?

c) What are the main theoretical and policy lessons that can be learnt from the case? The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2 we develop a conceptual framework to analyse the change from bridging to knowledge cogeneration. In Section 3 the data, methodology and context for the case study are presented. This is followed in Section 4 by analysis of the evolution of the knowledge cogeneration process. Finally, in Section 5 we draw our conclusions and discuss the more general lessons of the paper.

2. An Analytical Framework for Identifying Change

As universities and academics are asked by regional actors to make a more active contribution to regional development processes, challenges arise with respect to both the pillars of teaching and research. In this paper our focus is on the research side, where the main challenge stems from the idea that knowledge creation processes in society differ from academic knowledge creation processes in the university. The process of engagement is not therefore straightforward, and in itself requires processes of learning among the agents involved. This difference can be related to the distinction between Mode-1 and Mode-2 knowledge production made by Gibbons et al. (1994). While Mode-1 knowledge is “generated within a disciplinary, primarily cognitive context”, Mode-2 knowledge is created in “broader, transdisciplinary social and

4

economic contexts” (p.2). Mode-1 is seen as the traditional academic mode, and remains dominant within universities. It is created within the university, indeed within specific disciplinary divisions, and then transferred ex-post to society in the form of new technology (technology transfer), establishment of a new company (spin-off) or a new theory that is codified in publications. Mode-2 knowledge in contrast is generated in society (which includes the university), in a context of application where the process of knowledge creation and use of knowledge have been integrated. The context of application describes the total environment in which scientific problems arise, methodologies are developed, outcomes are disseminated and uses are defined (Gibbons et al. 1994).1 Mode-1 and Mode-2 are identified as ideal types, as each other’s opposite. As a framework for understanding the differences between knowledge creation processes in university and in society, the concepts do their job well. The problem with the concepts is that they ‘black box’ the knowledge creation processes themselves (Karlsen 2007). The concepts are not designed for the purpose of explaining in more detail how academic knowledge and experience-based knowledge can be bridged in Mode 2, how new knowledge is cogenerated, and how this knowledge is made actionable and used to catalyse change. With reference to the simplified depiction in figure 1, our challenge in this paper is to recognise and understand the practical changes involved in transition from a Mode-1 knowledge transfer process to a Mode-2 knowledge co-generation process.

MODE- 1

Figure 1: From Mode-1 to Mode-2 Knowledge Production

SOCIETY

MODE-2

MODE-2

FIRMS

UNIVERSITIES

DEVELOPMENT PRACTITIONERS

In seeking to understand this transition, we identify two distinct stages. The first step is an initial bridging stage when researchers and regional agents meet each other, a step that may be related to contact through Mode-1 knowledge transfer. If they continue to meet each other more or less regularly over a certain time period, a process of mutual knowledge cogeneration can develop, making a transition to the Mode-2 depicted in figure 1. The key to opening the black box is to understand the conditions under which bridging develops into knowledge co-generation. It is here that we draw on the two theoretical foundations previously mentioned: action research in terms of understanding the approach and values that need to be developed from the bottom-up (the

1 Gibbons (2000) has more recently used the term ‘context-specific science’ to reflect this more interactive

approach to social science.

5

researchers and practitioners); and institutional entrepreneurship in terms of understanding the facilitating institutional changes from the top-down. Action research is an approach where one of the core ideas is to cogenerate with practitioners socially robust and actionable knowledge (Greenwood and Levin 2007). It implies the researcher working closely with practitioners, engaging in a learning process to mutually generate new knowledge (Toulmin and Gustavsen 1996). Action research is done within the triangle of participation, action, and research (Greenwood and Levin 2007), where all three elements should be present at the same time. Moreover it is research done in real time, when people meet and interact; rather than passive observation of interaction, it requires active participation. An action researcher hence participates as a stakeholder in knowledge creation processes alongside practitioner stakeholders. She/he is not afraid of influencing and changing a process, as long as this happens in a participative, democratic way. In this sense, the researchers are in essence ‘outsiders’, invited into a process by the owners of a particular problem or challenge. The researchers bring with them theoretical knowledge and a methodology for participation with the ‘insiders’ in the process. A key feature of action research is the nature of communication between agents, specifically the active use of language to create consensus and a common ground for action. This has been increasingly emphasised in a so-called ‘communicative turn’ in action research and working life research (Johnsen 2001). One of the main contributors to this turn is Gustavsen (1992). He emphasises changes in patterns of communication and changes in the issues defined as subjects for development, connecting these with real changes, such as changes in work methods and work organisation. The main argument is to link people to each other through a process of shared meanings. Hence the research process is merged with a process of restructuring of language which encompasses those who have to understand the research (Gustavsen, 1992:33). This can be achieved through dialogue among a group of people, where all participants share an interest in creating “a good language”. However Gustavsen (1992) acknowledges that change in language and the use of words is not sufficient, and must be connected to changes in practice, such as methods or work organisation. More generally a common ground for connecting participation and action can be based on the criteria of democratic dialogue (Gustavsen 1992). The major strength and primary challenge for a democratic system is that it should draw upon a broad range of opinions and ideas to inform practice, while at the same time being able to make decisions that gain the support of all participants and support practical actions (Gustavsen 1992: 3-4).

Action researchers have tended to develop their concepts within an organisational framework, with internal processes in organisations such as firms being the main unit of analysis. Actionable knowledge cogenerated between insiders in the companies and researchers has been used to initiate organisational change processes (Gustavsen 1992; Greenwood and Levin 2007). However, despite concerns expressed by some action researchers around the need for changes in universities in order to be more useful for their host regions (Greenwood and Levin, 2001; Levin, 2007), until now action research has been less used in regional development processes. Furthermore, where it has been used it has sometimes been found to be less successful.2 Thus we could argue that while action research with a process-based approach and democratic ideals can be useful in generating changes within organisations, it does not alone offer an approach to understand regional development and institutional change at macro level. This is where we see a key intersection between action research approaches as developed and used by those on the ground and the macro-institutional changes that are necessary to facilitate their impacts beyond within-organisation changes. We turn, therefore, to the concept of the institutional entrepreneur.

2 In the case of Norway, see for example: Johnsen and Normann 2004; Johnsen et al. 2005.

6

The institutional entrepreneur concept is from a branch of institutional theory that assumes institutions are outcomes of complex social processes and that actors can change the institutions they are a part of (DiMaggio 1988; DiMaggio and Powell 1991; Sotarauta 2009). Institutional entrepreneurs are actors – people, groups, organisations, or a mixture – that initiate and actively take part in the process of changing their institutions (Sotarauta 2009). The definition of an institution itself is fairly abstract, and typically concerns the underlying foundations of the social system. For example, an institution can be defined as patterns of behaviour such as habits, conventions and routines (Morgan 1997; Sotarauta 2009), or as systems of established and prevalent social rules that structure social interaction, such as language, law, systems of weights and measures, table manners, and firms (Hogdson, 2006). These are particularly important from the macro perspective. Indeed, the knowledge cogeneration processes that we are seeking to understand are micro processes that form part of larger and more macro complex processes where change is not only a matter of good will from those participating. Critically, the indirect and hidden social rules governing behaviour both enable and constrain human action. Since these institutions are large and complex they can be hard to change, but we also know that they do change, even if the changes can often be slow.

Our focus is on two specific types of institution: the university as an institution of knowledge in society, and local development agencies as institutions of policy. Both contain micro processes among individual academics/policy agents, but are also framed by macro processes that govern what is accepted behaviour overall in the system. We propose a conceptual framework that recognises the importance of changes in both micro and macro processes in the transition from linear knowledge transfer to knowledge cogeneration. The meeting of agents (bridging) represents a first step, but the development of knowledge cogeneration processes requires mutually re-enforcing changes in the approach and attitudes of individuals (action research) and in the form of the institutions themselves (institutional entrepreneurship). This is represented in figure 2. The figure, that is revisited in the last section, simplifies the change process as only represents a stage of change from linear transfer to knowledge cogeneration. Change, of course is continuous and it could again go from cogeneration to linear transfer or evolve into different types of cogeneration processes.

Figure 2: Critical drivers to change from Mode-1 to Mode-2

Mode-1: Linear Transfer

Mode-2: Knowledge Co-generation

MACRO CHANGE:

INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

MICRO CHANGE:

ACTION RESESEARCH

First Step: Bridging

In the remainder of the paper we will reflect on this conceptual framework using a specific long-term case study. In the context of this case we first need to identify the change from a simple bridging between academics and practitioners to a process of knowledge co-generation. This change and its

7

identification are summarised in Figure 3. In particular identifying the change is focused on (i) the language used, and (ii) the work methods and organisation of work. Thus a change occurs when researchers and practitioners start to cogenerate knowledge together, indicated by a change in the words they use and the topics they talk about. A change is also indicated when they change their work methods and/or organisation of work, or establish a new organisation. Specifically we seek to explore when the change happened and what caused the change. The second of these questions relates to the role of the two key drivers proposed in the above framework. Figure 3: How to identify evolution in bridging processes Characteristics of the linear approach Characteristics of knowledge cogeneration

Researchers mainly define the research questions considering the state of the art in a specific subject, that is responding to the challenges presented by other researchers

Research questions are defined by researchers and practitioners finding a balance between the state of the art in the specific subject and specific problems faced by practitioners

The knowledge creation process develops in teams of researchers and among different research teams

The knowledge creation process develops in arenas where researchers and practitioners work together, and action research inspired methodologies are used to foster cogeneration of knowledge

Questions: - When did change happen? - What caused the change? Indicators of change: - Change in language; such as words, concepts and topics in the communication - Change in work methods and organisation of knowledge creation processes

3. The Case Study: Context, Data and Method

The Basque Country is an autonomous region of Spain with approximately 2 million inhabitants. A key characteristic of the Basque Country is the dense institutional framework, with three different administrative levels present. Firstly, the regional government has substantial autonomy to define industrial policy and is well known for its strong proactive industrial policy during the last three decades (Cooke et al 1997). Secondly, the provincial councils have a significant role in various policy areas and are responsible for collecting taxes. Finally, municipal authorities (especially in the bigger cities) and local development agencies promoted by them (in other areas) play an important role in innovation policies. In the context of their approach to local development they are able to reach the final beneficiaries of such policies (specific firms) (Aranguren et al., 2010). The regional innovation system in the Basque Country is characterised by the strong presence of technology centres that have developed with important government support and a weaker role of universities. This has generated some criticism; while the system has strong capacity to adapt knowledge and technology generated externally to the needs of Basque firms, there is a weakness related to the generation of new basic knowledge and associated innovation. This situation is also reflected in the policy sphere. Here, as is the case in many other regions, there has been little tradition of connections and cooperation between university academics in the social sciences and the regional agents making policy towards socio-economic development. Two groups of institutions are central to our case study. The academic researchers involved in the case (among which are the authors of this paper) were initially based at the University of Deusto, and today are part of Orkestra, The Basque Institute of Competitiveness. Orkestra was founded in 2006 as an initiative of the Deusto Foundation, an institution devoted to making scientific knowledge available to society. Orkestra was established as a bridge between academic knowledge and society

8

in fields related to competiveness, and has the explicit aim of supporting activity from public administrations, socioeconomic agents and the universities of the Basque Country in generating real improvements in the competitiveness of the region. The second group of institutions are the County Development Agencies and their association, Garapen. The first agencies were created in the late 1980s when unemployment rates were very high, so they had a strong initial focus on employment and training issues. Throughout the years they have evolved to incorporate a wider approach to development (Aranguren et al., 2006). Now they interact not only with individuals in training and job-search processes, but with firms and knowledge institutions in cooperation processes for innovation and competitiveness. The case study is focused specifically in the processes of certain agencies to create and develop networks for cooperation among firms and knowledge institutions, including one specific case called Ezagutza Gunea (EG) (Aranguren et al., 2010).

The study focuses on the interaction between these two groups of agents. It was not designed as a research project at the beginning, but started with a desire among some of those involved to change the existing mode of knowledge creation to increase usefulness to both practitioners and researchers. Seen in retrospect, the changes that have evolved over time can be interpreted in terms of both an evolution of action research principles at the micro level and certain macro developments associated with institutional entrepreneurship. The interpretation of these changes as action research and institutional entrepreneurship was not conscious in our minds until recently. We fairly suddenly realised that we were not objective, passive economic researchers in the ivory tower, but active researchers with a desire to be useful for the practitioners we originally had started doing research ‘on’. This came through recognition that change was being generated in our research process and that we were part of institutions that were themselves changing. We also realised that the considerable data generated over 11 years could be used to write other kind of research articles than we originally had thought.

The story in this paper is developed as a theoretically informed case study (Yin 2009). The theory cited in Section 2 has guided the development of a specific model and research questions. Our method, developed in Section 4, is to use the data from the case to confront this theory, to refine further the model, and to discuss if the data could be interpreted in different ways.

Two of the researchers have generated data from the whole 11-year period, while the others have incorporated into the process at different stages. In writing the paper the ‘new’ researchers have played an ‘outsiders’ role, responding to and reflecting on the ‘inside’ information of the ‘older’ researchers. This process has helped verify the validity and reliability of the findings (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1992). Research in an action research context requires first the documentation and validation of the knowledge created, and then the analysis of the process, relating the knowledge generated to bodies of theory. This is challenging. As a participant the researcher needs to abstract from the process in which she/he has played an active part to build an analysis that can be evaluated on academic terms. The role of the ‘outsiders’ has been to question the findings and ask for alternative explanations. One danger of participating in real time processes is that one becomes ‘blind’ and starts taking certain ways of doing things for granted. The knowledge generated between the researchers and the practitioners is shared as a more or less ‘tacit’ understanding of how things happened and why they happened. The outsider role has thus been to make the shared tacit understanding explicit. The method used to generate the analysis presented in the paper has been one of dialogue among researchers about the process, both face-to-face and through writing and commenting on each other’s texts. By acting as critical colleagues these ideas have slowly become integrated and explicit, and have developed to a full paper. This is the first time the whole process is analysed as such, but specific parts have been published previously and will be made reference to when relevant.

9

4. Analysis: Evolving from a Linear Approach to Knowledge Cogeneration

4.1 Identifying Changes: Broad Phases in the Knowledge Process

The application of the analytical framework to the case has helped define three broad phases in the process. Figure 4 sets these out with reference to the main mode of knowledge generation, the main research approach, and the main outcomes for researchers and practitioners. The phases have been arranged in a timeline, but are less distinct than they seem. The three phases should not be interpreted as absolute phases where one substitutes the other. Old processes continue to exist alongside new ones, and the outputs of each phase form inputs for subsequent phases. This way the phases not only coexist but reinforce each other. Thus the three types of learning processes presented in Figure 4 are today developing in an intertwined way.

With regards when change between the phases happened it is difficult to determine one specific time period or event that caused each change. Rather it has been an evolution where researchers and practitioners have gradually acknowledged a common need for change. However, seen in retrospect there are some main outcomes that manifest themselves as critical elements in the change process. Such outcomes, related to institutional changes, are the creation of the county cooperation network EG, an important event to delimit phase 2, and the creation of Orkestra, an important event to delimit phase 3.

Figure 4: Main phases of the knowledge cogeneration process with outcomes Time period

Mode of knowledge generation

Main research approach Outcomes

1998-2001

Phase 1. Linear knowledge generation and transfer

During this period research on local development is made by a research team at the University of Deusto without contact with the local development agencies

For researchers: Researchers develop conceptual models related to local development that they consider adapted to the context of the Basque Country and use secondary data to test them. There are publications in academic journals as well as reports published by different institutions in the Basque Country that get no feed back from local agents. Probably very few of them read such publications, and even those lacked the arenas to exchange their opinions with researchers. For practitioners: no results are detected.

2002-2006

Phase 2. Initial stage in knowledge cogeneration: focused experimental cogeneration

EG develops an experimental approach where researchers from the University of Deusto and practitioners work together with specific problems detected in the develop-ment of the network

For researchers: They get an in-depth understanding of the processes to create and develop networks for local development. There are various publications in academic journals and edited books (with a more international coverage than in the previous stage). This time, contents of such documents have been discussed with practitioners in EG before they are published. They are also used to discuss with other agents in the Basque Country that approach EG to learn about their experience. For practitioners: they generate together with researchers proposals for the design of the network structure, models to approach knowledge management at network level, strategies to incorporate small firms in the network, diagnoses of competitiveness in the area and strategies for innovation policies that they take into action in the EG context.

2007- Phase 3. An agreement is signed For researchers: They have the opportunity to gain

10

2009 Consolidation stage in knowledge cogeneration: cogeneration at system level

between Orkestra and Garapen to develop know-ledge cogeneration pro-cesses open to all local de-velopment agencies that require support in their local networking processes. This way knowledge is not cogenerated only in a specific network, but in the whole system of networks in the region. Knowledge cogeneration gains scope, but each network does not go into indepth processes such as EG does.

scope in their research and apply their models and measurement instruments in 13 different geographical areas simultaneously. A deeper understanding of what part of the knowledge is specific for each network depending on their context, and what knowledge can be practical and useful for solving problems in any of the networks is developed. There are various papers and articles in process contrasted in international academic arenas. For practitioners: they have developed together with the research team competitiveness analyses, cluster maps and network development proposals for their specific territories that they use in their processes. At the system level (all networks together) awareness of the role they can play in the innovation system of the Basque Country has grown.

Phase 1 is dominated by a Mode-1 approach where no knowledge is cogenerated between researchers and practitioners. However, in this phase the seed for a change process has been created. Several of the involved researchers acknowledge that research outcomes were not being used by the practitioners responsible for the relevant policies. An outcome is that one of the researchers starts working in a local development agency with the aim of developing the EG cooperation network (see section 4.2 where this process is emphasised more). In the language of our conceptual framework, a bridging process is initiated.

Phase 2 sees a change from linear knowledge creation and transfer to more cogenerated knowledge, through various experimental processes. The main foundation is the specific experience and theoretical knowledge generated from the development of EG. This process is characterised by fairly intense interaction between researchers and practitioners. The label ‘experimental’ denotes that there is no fixed solution and that researchers and practitioners work together with the aim of creating new working methods and new knowledge.

Phase 3 is characterised by consolidation and establishment of co-generative processes at a system level. The term system is used to reflect the establishment of a structure and routines for cooperation among regional development agents. The structure is established with the agents that want to develop networks, participate with other networks, and cooperate with researchers. Thus the experience with EG develops from been an isolated and incipient phenomenon to having a trajectory from which other networks can learn. Cooperation networks that gather firms, knowledge institutions and local authorities to foster innovation and competitiveness are now being developed related to many of the county development agencies. Many of these participate in cogeneration processes with researchers in Orkestra. Figure 4 illustrates the extent of these developments in January 2010. Counties with no agency are in grey and counties with an agency but no related cooperation network in white. The areas in blue show counties where the agency is developing a cooperation network, and the intensity of blue signals the degree of development of the network. 13 of these agencies have been cooperating with Orkestra in the process presented, mostly from the Eastern province of Gipuzkoa, where the networks are more developed. In most cases the people from the agencies that have participated in the processes have been constant.

Figure 4: Network Cooperation for Local Development in the Basque Country (2010)

11

Source: Own data.

4.2 Specific Changes: Language, Work Methods and Institutional Change

We now turn our analysis to some specific examples of changes that we have identified, connected to the transition of the different phases. The examples emerge from the telling of a more specific story around the evolution of the phases and reflect a retrospective consciousness of the significance of changes in language, work methods and institutions.

In 1997 and 1999 two PhD research projects were presented at the University of Deusto focused on (i) the dynamism of small firms in the Basque Country, and (ii) a typology of local production systems in this region. While this work was published (Aranguren 1998a; 1998b; 1999a; 2000; 2002; Larrea, 1999a; Larrea, 1999b Larrea 2000), both researchers had a feeling that there was little real impact from this knowledge creation. They perceived a need to interact with regional agents involved in the fields they had studied, but no mechanisms were at hand at the university at that time. In 2002 an open call was made by one of the county development agencies to employ someone that would start the creation of a cooperation network between firms, training centres, development agencies and town councils. One of the researchers applied for this job, asking as a condition that she be able to continue with a part time position in the university to conduct research. This request was considered a determining factor in the decision of the policy-makers and firm representatives to hire her. Thus the establishment of EG in 2002 saw not only the creation of a new local development organisation, but also a space for the development of communication, language, work methods and new theoretical knowledge between researchers and practitioners. Knowledge generated in this context has been published by the researchers involved in a wide range of outputs: Aranguren et.al. (2010, 2007, 2005); Iturrioz et.al. (2006); Larrea (2003); Larrea et.al. (2010 forthcoming, 2007); Navarro and Larrea (2007); Parrilli et.al. (2009). Two years after the creation of the network there was a specific change in work methods, stimulated in the first instance by concerns among policy-makers and firms that only firms with more than 50

12

employees were participating in EG. Researchers and practitioners reflected on the problem together, defining a new research question: “what are the factors that facilitate the integration of small firms in knowledge networks?” The answer to this question was sought through various processes that included 50 interviews to local firms and 3 workshops where practitioners and researchers worked together to solve the challenge. The process resulted in the creation of a new work-group in EG constituted by firms of less than 50 employees, and in the development of new research approaches including participatory and action research methods (Aranguren et al., 2007; Larrea et al., 2010 forthcoming). The work methods and organisation used in the knowledge process had ‘naturally’ evolved as a result of the experience from EG. While the co-generation process began to be organised using action research principles, this was very much a subconscious development. At this point of time the involved researchers were not explicitly aware of action research methods such as search conferences and dialogue conferences, for example. The change process had been so incremental that the researchers had interiorised this way of working, taking it for granted in their behaviour. They first became aware of this change in mid-2006 when presenting a paper with data from the project at an international workshop.3 A participant in the session said that he found the language they had used strange, because they were using the terms “we” and “us” in the presentation of the case. There had been a change in language, which the involved researchers had not noticed. Finally, we have identified the creation of Orkestra in 2006, with clear involvement from policy-makers, as central in the transition from an experimental to a more systemic cogeneration process. Two practitioners from a big firm and a consultancy in the Basque Country with a background as policy-makers and closely related to academia and a Professor at the University of Deusto worked to gain the support of public and private agents in the Basque Country to create an arena where researchers and practitioners would interact to improve ‘real competitiveness’ through research. The two researchers that had been most involved in the experience with EG moved to Orkestra on its creation, where the new organisation enabled the definition of new work methods at the regional level. Regular participatory workshops were organised with all local development agencies invited, and new knowledge cogeneration processes began with the above-mentioned group of 13 agencies. The ‘know-how’ developed in the process with small firms in EG was a critical input, whereby the need to better understand the processes was seen as a central challenge by the involved researchers. As this understanding has developed more explicitly, action research processes have been adopted more widely in Orkestra, alongside other research processes.

4.3 The Interplay between Action Research Principles and Institutional Entrepreneurship

Here we reflect on the changes described in the previous sections with relation to the conceptual framework proposed in Section 2. Specifically, we suggest that the changes analysed have been generated as interplay between the micro level development of action research principles among researchers and macro level institutional changes, led by institutional entrepreneurs. These changes have mutually reinforced each other, and indeed overlap in ways that are difficult to separate at times. Our core argument is that both processes have been necessary in order to evolve from a simple bridging between researchers and development agents towards a genuine process of knowledge co-generation.

3 EUNIP Exploratory Workshop on Democratic Globalisation: Innovative Policies for Enhancing Economic Participation and Governance, Limerick (Ireland), 29th June, 2006.

13

Both EG and Orkestra were created by institutional entrepreneurs; policy-makers and researchers that realised the need for new institutions to support local development and innovation in the Basque Country. In both cases, the creation of a new organisation represented an opportunity to initiate a macro change process, but the decision-makers involved lacked the framework and methodology to create the necessary micro processes. On the other hand, micro processes related to the development of action research principles were in incipient stages among groups of researchers and practitioners, but lacked the institutional structure to fully develop.

In the case of EG, the researchers realised that this practitioner-led institutional development represented a potential arena for knowledge cogeneration; here they could demonstrate that their knowledge could be useful for practitioners, hence developing micro changes in research processes more effectively. There was hence a mutual congruence between the policy makers’ creation of a new organisation and the researchers’ ambitions of working in Mode-2. The combination of macro institutional changes and micro research processes made the transition from phase 1 to phase 2 possible, initiating a process of experimental knowledge co-generation.

The consolidation of these experimental approaches in a more systemic phase of knowledge co-generation also required simultaneous developments at macro and micro levels. The people involved in the creation of Orkestra can similarly be interpreted as institutional entrepreneurs. They acknowledged the need to create a new arena outside the university, but linked to it, where researchers and practitioners could meet in order to generate change in the Basque Country as a whole. Critically, this vision was shared by Deusto University. However, without micro change processes generated by the researchers themselves, Orkestra could easily have been a research institute in a more traditional mould. In this case it was the same researchers that were involved in EG that initiated local development projects from Orkestra. They developed further the methods they had used in EG, but this time at a system level with many agencies in the Basque Country. As this co-generation process is becoming established at the systemic level it is generating a lot of energy, practical solutions and understanding of each other’s positions. This creates a better foundation for decision-making among socio-economic agents, both in terms of content and conditions.

In the model proposed in Section 2 there are two distinct processes considered critical in moving engagement between researchers and practitioners beyond first steps of bridging and towards knowledge co-generation processes. In the context of this specific case we can argue that both of these processes - action research and institutional entrepreneurship - are necessary, but neither on its own sufficient. Their interaction and mutual re-enforcement has been critical. However, we have also learned that conceptually the two processes are not as obviously separate as presented in the framework. In particular, the case shows that there have been different kinds of institutional entrepreneurs’ involved, both at the macro and the micro level.

The first type is the entrepreneur that creates a new organisation because of the perceived regional development need for an institutional change. This is part of a general trend, and many agencies and research institutions have been established in regions all over the world. For this kind of entrepreneur the job is done when the organisation is established, with management and staff in place. However the management and staff do not necessarily have the right knowledge for generating the micro changes that are needed to develop co-generated, actionable knowledge. Thus we can characterise a second type of institutional entrepreneur, much more closely linked to the micro changes, but developing them in the context of the macro changes.

This second group of entrepreneurs understand that cogeneration of knowledge involving practitioners and researchers is necessary to create the conditions for change. In a society such as the Basque Country, where position, power, hierarchy and men have traditionally dominated decision-making processes, the acceptance for this kind of process is difficult. Practitioners in lower

14

hierarchical positions are often assumed to lack knowledge. Besides, micro processes are often considered time consuming and useless. The entrepreneur has to have both belief in the knowledge cogeneration process and patience to move past the resistance against the establishment of this kind of process.

Thus we can refine the general framework introduced in Figure 2 to reflect the specificities of this case. Firstly we can adjust the concept of bridging to acknowledge that it may not occur only as a first step. In this case bridging is linked to the macro institutional changes, in the first instance generating experimental knowledge co-generation, and in the second instance starting the path towards systemic knowledge co-generation. Secondly, we can emphasise the re-enforcing nature of the macro and micro changes; there is not a simple, separate arrow from Mode-1 to Mode-2, but a series of arrows that reflect the inter-dependence of micro and macro changes. Finally, we can acknowledge that institutional entrepreneurship can also occur at micro level.

Figure 5: The Evolution to Knowledge Cogeneration in local networks in the Basque Country

Mode-1: Linear Transfer

Mode-2: Systemic Knowledge Co-generation

MACRO CHANGE:

INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

MICRO CHANGES:

ACTION RESESEARCH

INSTITUTIONAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Bridging

Experimental Knowledge

Cogeneration

Bridging

5. Conclusion

The paper responds to the lack of in depth studies of knowledge processes in the interface between university research and regional development practitioners. Such research is especially important in the context of the increasing demands placed on universities and their researchers to contribute to regional development processes. Our specific focus is on opening the black box of change processes as knowledge creation evolves from Mode-1 to Mode-2. To do so our first research question focuses on how we can identify the change from a simple bridging between academics and practitioners to a process of knowledge co-generation. Knowledge bridging is defined as a first step, where regional actors and researchers meet. When they continue to meet more or less regularly over a certain time period, the process can change into a cogeneration process. To answer this first question we proposed an analytical framework, the specification of which raises a second research question related to the specific roles of (i) institutional entrepreneurs and (ii) action research approaches in the evolution to Mode-2 knowledge creation. The framework has been applied to a long term case study focused on a group of researchers and development practitioners in the Basque Country. Micro level changes among researchers and practitioners leading to the gradual adoption of action research principles are identified, primarily

15

through observing changes in language and work organization. Macro changes related to institutional entrepreneurship are also observed in the creation of two new organizations that have reinforced institutional change during the timeframe of the case. There are subtle differences detected in the case with regards to the proposed framework. In particular the case illustrates greater sophistication in the nature of institutional entrepreneurship, which is observed both at the macro and micro levels, converging in the latter with the adoption of action research principles among researchers and practitioners. The case shows that two kinds of institutional entrepreneurship interweave throughout the process to make the transition from Mode 1 to Mode 2 possible. On the one hand, policy makers that appreciated academic knowledge launched new organisations where researchers and practitioners could interact. This made bridging possible. On the other hand, researchers that appreciated practitioner’s experience-based knowledge generated the method and work habits that made the initial bridging evolve into cogeneration processes. Our third research question requires us to reflect on the main theoretical and policy lessons from the analysis. To be a satisfactory action research process, the paper should give insight on issues that are relevant for academia at the same time as generating actionable knowledge for practitioners. On the theoretical field, the paper contributes to the Mode-1/Mode-2 debate by opening the black box of processes and addressing how change happens. Specifically, it demonstrates that institutional entrepreneurship is a key element for the development of Mode-2 approaches. The argument is further developed to show that the intersecting area between institutional theory and action research can help us understand how micro level learning processes and macro level institutional change interact.

The paper also highlights actionable knowledge that might help practitioners in their decision-making processes. Lessons from the case here are threefold. Firstly, there is a need to develop entrepreneurial attitudes among practitioners to create appropriate organisational contexts for knowledge cogeneration. The new organisations analysed were linked to previously existing ones (EG to the development agency Iraurgi Lantzen and Orkestra to the Deusto University), but had their own decision-making mechanisms so that they could evolve from pre-established approaches. Secondly, there is a need to train researchers in action-oriented approaches. In the Basque Country a lack of incentives for researchers to evolve to Mode-2 approaches has been detected. Thirdly, the case illustrates the benefits of promoting mobility among development organisations and research organisations, and even among organisations of the same kind, so that different cogeneration processes link together coherently. Building from these conclusions, we recognise certain limitations with the paper and avenues for further research. The paper is based on a long term but single case study. Accordingly, more extensive studies are required in order to reach more generally applicable conclusions. For example, while the paper provides insight on how universities willing to play a new role in their regions can evolve, comparative studies that compare such processes in different regions could strengthen the conclusions. Such comparative studies could also enhance the contribution of the paper to analysing the intersection between institutional theory and action research and its focus on how micro and macro changes interact. Finally, from a methodological point of view, the paper responds to the challenge of writing about action research processes in a scientifically rigorous manner. There is again a new avenue for future developments here that will be critical to foster action research that combines actionable knowledge with contributions that are significant for academia.

16

References

Aranguren, M. J. (2000): Tamaño y costes en las empresas manufactureras de la CAPV. Ekonomiaz, nº 44, pp. 174-207.

Aranguren, M. J. (1999): Determinants of economic units creation in the period 1985-93. The case of the Manufacturing Industry in CAPV. Small Business Economics, V. 12, nº 3, pp. 203-215.

Aranguren, M. J. (1998a): Creación de empresas: factores determinantes. Industria de la CAPV. Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa and Deusto University. San Sebastián. ISBN. 84-89062-44-3

Aranguren, M. J. (1998b): Determinantes de creación de unidades económicas en la industria manufacturera de la CAPV, Economía Industrial, nº 323, pp. 149-164.

Aranguren, M.J., Larrea, M. and Wilson, J. (2010). Learning from the local: Governance of Networks for Innovation in the Basque Country. European Planning Studies, 18(1): 47-66.

Aranguren, M.J.; Larrea, M. and Wilson, J. (2009): The co-generation of knowledge and learning processes: A missing link in higher education?” presented at the Research Workshop on “Innovation and learning: Explicit and Tacit Knowledge Flows”, San Sebastián, 13-14 May, 2009.

Aranguren, M.J.; Larrea, M.; Mujika. A.; Plazaola, A. y Triguero, R. (2007): Las empresas pequeñas del Urola Medio. Bases para la competitividad (en euskara y castellano). Iraurgi Lantzen, Azkoitia.

Aranguren M.J.; Larrea, M.; Navarro, I. (2006): “The Policy Process: Clusters Versus Spatial Networks In The Basque Country” en Christos Pitelis, Roger Sugden and James R Wilson: Clusters And Globalisation: The Development Of Economies. Edward Elgar.

Aranguren, M.J., Iturrioz, C.; Aragón, C. (2002): La respuesta de los sectores tradicionales frente a la globalización y el avance tecnológico. El caso de la industria textil en la CAPV. Ekonomiaz, nº 49; pp 196-219, San Sebastián.

Asheim, B. T., Boschma, R., Cooke, P., Laredo, P., Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Å. and Piccaluga, A. (2006). Constructing Regional Advantage: Principles - Perspectives - Politics. Final Report. DG Research Expert Group on 'Constructing Regional Advantage'.

Chatterton, P. and Goddard, J. (2000). The Response of Higher Education Institutions to Regional Needs. European Journal of Education. Vol. 35, No. 4.

Clark, B. R. (2004). Sustaining Change in Universities : Continuities in Case Studies and Concepts. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press Berkshire.

Cooke, P. (2002). Knowledge Economies: Clusters, Learning and Cooperative Advantage. Routledge London.

Cooke, P., Gomez Uranga, M. and Etxebarria, G. (1997). Regional Innovation Systems: Institutional and Organisational Dimensions', Research Policy, 26: 475-491.

DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and Agency in Institutional Theory In L. G. Zucker (eds.) Institutional Patterns and Organizations Ballinger Cambrigde, MA: 3-22.

DiMaggio, P. and Powell, W. (1991). Introduction In P. Dimaggio and Powell, W. (eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago University Press Chicago: 1:38.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm. Research Policy. 29(2): 313–330.

Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. (1992). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. St. Martin's Press New York.

Gibbons, M. (2000). Context-sensitive Science: Mode 2 Society and the Emergence of Context-specific Science'. Science and Public Policy. 27(3): 159-163.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzmann, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge - the Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage London.

17

Greenwood, D. and Levin, M. (2001). Re-Organizing Universities and ‘Knowing How’: University Restructuring and Knowledge Creation for the 21st Century. Organization speaking out. Volume 8(2): 433–440.

Greenwood, D. J. and Levin, M. (2007). Introduction to Action Research - 2nd Edition. Sage Publications Thousand Oaks.

Gustavsen, B. (1992). Dialogue and Development. Theory of Communication, Action Research and the Restructuring of Working Life. Assen: Van Gorcum. .

Harding, A., Scott, A., Laske, S. and Burtscher, C. (2007). Bright Satanic Mills Universities, Regional Development and the Knowledge Economy. Ashgate Aldershot.

Hogdson, G. M. (2006). What Are Institutions? Journal of Economic Issues. XL(1): 1-25. Johnsen, H. C. G. (2001). Involvement at Work : A Study of Communicative Processes and Individual

Involvement in Organizational Development. Handelshøjskolen i København København Iturrioz, C.; Aranguren, M.J.; Aragón, C. y Larrea, M. (2006): “¿La política industrial de cluster/redes

mejora realmente la competitividad empresarial? Resultados de la evaluación de dos experiencias en la CAPV”, Ekonomiaz, Nº 60.

Johnsen, H. C. G., Lysgård, H. K., Kvaale, G., Fosse, J. K., Normann, R. and Karlsen, J. (2005). The Agder Story. AI & Society. 19/4.

Johnsen, H. C. G. and Normann, R. (2004). When Research and Practice Collide: The Role of Action Research When There Is a Conflict of Interest with Stakeholders. Systemic Practice and Action Research. 17: 207-235.

Karlsen, J. (2007). The Regional Role of the University: A Study of Knowledge Creation in the Agora between Agder University College and Regional Actors in Agder Theses at NTNU 2007:91. Trondheim, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Larrea, M.; Mujika, A.; Aranguren, M.J. (forthcoming, 2010) : ‘Access of small firms to knowledge networks as a determinant of local economic development’, en Lenihan, H; Andreosso-O’Callaghan B. and Hart, M. (Eds.) SMEs in a Globalised World: Survival and Growth Strategies on Europe´s Geographical Periphery, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Larrea, M.; Aranguren, M.J. y Parrilli M.D. (2007): “El papel de los procesos de aprendizaje comarcales en las políticas regionales de competitividad e innovación” en Mujika A. (Coord.), Regiones de Conocimiento, Universidad de Deusto, San Sebastián.

Larrea, M. (2003): Clusters y territorio: retos del desarrollo local en la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco. Ekonomiaz, nº 53.

Larrea, M. (2000): Sistemas Productivos Locales en la C.A. del País Vasco. Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco, Vitoria.

Larrea, M. (1999a): “Evolución de las Economías de Localización de los Sistemas Productivos Locales de la CAPV”, in Eustat, Tablas Input-Output de la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi, Análisis de resultados: 321-371. Eustat.

Larrea, M. (1999b ): “Competitividad y Empleo en los Sistemas Productivos Locales de la CAPV”. Ekonomiaz, nº44: 144-173

Levin, M. (2007). Knowledge and Technology Transfer. Can Universities Promote Regional Development In A. C.Burtscher, Harding, S. Laske & A. Scott (eds) (eds.) Knowledge Factories: Universities and Territorial Development in the Global Information Age. Hampp-Verlag Munich.

Morgan, K. (1997). The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation and Regional Renewal. Regional Studies. 31(5): 491-503.

Nilsson, J.-E. (2006). The Role of Universities in Regional Innovation Systems a Nordic Perspective. Copenhagen Business School Press [Frederiksberg].

Navarro, M. y Larrea, M. (Dir.) (2007): Indicadores y Análisis de Competitividad Local en el País Vasco. Dok Ekonomiaz, Servicio Central de Publicaciones del Gobierno Vasco.

OECD (2007). Higher Education and Regions: Globally Competitive, Locally Engaged

18

Parrilli, M.D., Aranguren, M.J., Larrea, M. (2009). A Typology of learners: applications and relevant policy implications. Paper presented at the Research Workshop on “Innovation and learning: Explicit and Tacit Knowledge Flows”, San Sebastián, 13-14 May, 2009.

Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008). The Sage Handbook of Action Research Participative Inquiry and Practice. SAGE London.

Sotarauta, M. (2009). Institutional Entreprenurship in Regional Innovation Systems: Framing the Emerging Research Agenda. Stavanger Innovation Summit, Stavanger

Sotarauta, M. (2009). Power and Influence Tactics in the Promotion of Regional Development: An Empirical Analysis of the Work of Finnish Regional Development Officers. Geoforum. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.06.005.

Toulmin, S. and Gustavsen, B. (1996). Beyond Theory: Changing Organizations through Participation. John Benjamins Publisching Company Amsterdam.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research Design and Methods. Sage Los Angeles.