Bridging the Gap between Academic Research and Regional Development in the Basque Country

Bridging the Gap between Academic Research andRegional Development in the Basque Countryejed_1512 122..138

James Karlsen, Miren Larrea, James R. Wilson & Mari Jose Aranguren

IntroductionUniversity activities have traditionally been built around the pillars of teaching andresearch. Today, universities and their academics are asked to contribute to theregional development of their host regions in ways that extend beyond a traditionalinterpretation of these pillars (Chatterton & Goddard, 2000; Etzkowitz et al.,2000; Nilsson, 2006; Harding et al., 2007; Karlsen, 2007; OECD, 2007) by cre-ating knowledge and contributing to change in other organisations in order to fitinto the knowledge economy (Cooke, 2002). This is a challenge both for thefiercely independent and often detached institution that is the university and forregional development practitioners who are not used to engaging with academics.Despite the strong normative arguments about the benefits of an active universitycontribution in regional economic development, there is a lack of in-depth studiesof universities and knowledge creation processes from the inside looking out(Clark, 2004) and of studies which examine how relationships and work methodschange over time. Studies that address this gap are of interest both for theacademic community and for policy-makers, as they can improve understanding/explanation of endogenous economic development and construct knowledge-based regional advantages through a fine-tuning of regional policy (Asheim et al.,2006).

The argument of this article is that academic, research-based knowledge andpractitioner, experience-based knowledge are initially bridged when these meet,that this bridging can develop into a process of knowledge co-generation undercertain circumstances (Greenwood & Levin, 2007), and when this happens, newknowledge can create changes in a region. We therefore conceive an importantinterplay between the dynamic relationship among researchers and agents from the‘bottom up’ and the conditions for institutional change created by institutionalentrepreneurs from the ‘top down’. With a positive interplay, the co-generationprocess can generate changes in behaviour, language used, work methods and thecreation of organisations. Related to such changes, we can define actionableknowledge as knowledge used to generate changes by actors with an entrepreneur-ial attitude. It can be new knowledge for those involved in regional development,but can also be new knowledge that is of interest for the academic community.

The theoretical inspiration for these arguments is the intersection betweenaction research and institutional theory, specifically, between a process-basedapproach of actions at micro level and the institutional entrepreneur concept.Action research is an approach with a methodology for studying and participatingin processes as they unfold in real time (Gustavsen 1992; Greenwood & Levin,2007; Reason & Bradbury, 2008). One of its main ideas is that development andchange are neither a top-down nor a bottom-up process, but a co-generatedprocess between practitioners and researchers (Greenwood & Levin, 2007).

European Journal of Education, Vol. 47, No. 1, 2012

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA02148, USA.

The inspiration from institutional theory is the concept of institutional entre-preneurship (Sotarauta, 2011) whereby institutions are acknowledged as productsof human agency (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Sotarauta, 2011). Institutionalentrepreneurs mobilise resources to create institutions or transform existing ones(Sotarauta, 2011).They use actionable knowledge to initiate change in the systemof which they are a part, implying relatively enduring institutions. One example isthe university, one of the oldest institutions in society. The interlinked pillars ofeducation and research have changed many times during the history of the uni-versity, but the institution remains vital.

This article presents a case where changes in the relationship between univer-sity, academic research and regional actors have been apparent. Data were gener-ated over 11 years when researchers collaborated with regional practitioners in theBasque Country (Spain). Participative processes were used to generate changes inthe relationship between 13 private and public regional development agents in acooperative network. It was not designed as an action research project, but, seen inretrospect, it has evolved along action research cornerstones, such as participationfounded on democratic values, action and reflections on the outcome of the changeprocess, and documentation of the change process in academic reports and jour-nals. During the period, the process changed from simple bridging to aco-generated process between practitioners and researchers. Regional develop-ment outcomes included new knowledge organisations, regional networks, workmethods and language.

The research questions 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 institutional entrepreneurs and action research approaches play

in generating this change?c) What are the main theoretical and policy lessons that can be learnt from the

case?

An Analytical Framework for Identifying ChangeAs universities and academics are asked by regional actors to make a more activecontribution to regional development, challenges arise with respect to teaching andresearch. In this article, we focus on the research side, where the main challengestems from the idea that knowledge creation processes in society differ fromacademic knowledge creation processes in the university. This difference can berelated to the distinction between Mode-1 and Mode-2 knowledge productionmade by Gibbons et al. (1994). While Mode-1 knowledge is ‘generated within adisciplinary, primarily cognitive context’, Mode-2 knowledge is created in‘broader, transdisciplinary social and economic contexts’ (p.2). Mode-1 is seen asthe traditional academic mode and prevails in universities. It is created within theuniversity in specific disciplinary divisions and then transferred ex-post to societyin the form of new technology (technology transfer), creation of a company(spin-off) or theory that is codified in publications. Mode-2 knowledge, in contrast,is generated in society (which includes the university) in a context of applicationwhere the process of knowledge creation and use of knowledge have been inte-grated. The context of application describes the environment in which scientificproblems arise, methodologies are developed, outcomes are disseminated and usesare defined (Gibbons et al., 1994).1 Mode-1 and Mode-2 are identified as ideal

James Karlsen et al. 123

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

types, as each other’s opposite. As a framework for understanding the differencesbetween knowledge creation in university and in society, the concepts do their jobwell. The problem is that they ‘black box’ the knowledge creation processes(Karlsen, 2007). The concepts are not designed to explain how academic andexperience-based knowledge can be bridged in Mode 2, how new knowledge isco-generated, and how this knowledge is made actionable and used to catalysechange. Our challenge is to recognise and understand the practical changesinvolved in the transition from a Mode-1 knowledge transfer process to a Mode-2knowledge co-generation process (Fig. 1). We identify two stages. The first is aninitial bridging stage when researchers and regional agents meet, a step that maybe related to contact through Mode-1 knowledge transfer. If they continue tomeet, a process of mutual knowledge co-generation can develop, making a tran-sition to the Mode-2 depicted in Figure 1. The key to opening the black box is tounderstand the conditions in which bridging develops into knowledgeco-generation.We draw on action research in terms of understanding the approachand values that need to be developed from the bottom-up (the researchers andpractitioners); and institutional entrepreneurship in terms of understanding thefacilitating institutional changes from the top-down.

In action research, the core idea is to co-generate with practitioners socially robustand actionable knowledge (Greenwood & Levin, 2007). It implies that researchersand practitioners engage in a learning process to mutually generate new knowledge(Toulmin & Gustavsen, 1996) in the triangle of participation, action, and research(Greenwood & Levin, 2007) where all three elements should be present at thesame time. Moreover, it is done in real time, when people meet and interact. Actionresearchers hence participate as stakeholders in knowledge creation alongside

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

124 European Journal of Education, Part II


practitioner stakeholders. They are not afraid of influencing and changing aprocess, as long as this happens in a participative, democratic way. In this sense, theresearchers are ‘outsiders’, invited into a process by the owners of a particularproblem or challenge. They bring theoretical knowledge and a methodology forparticipation with the ‘insiders’ in the process.

A key feature of action research is the use of language to create consensus anda common ground for action. This has been increasingly emphasised in a ‘com-municative turn’ in action research and working life research (Johnsen, 2001). Oneof the main contributors to this turn is Gustavsen (1992). He emphasises changesin patterns of communication and in the issues defined as subjects for develop-ment, connecting these with real changes, such as those in work methods andwork organisation. The main argument is to link people through a process ofshared meanings. Hence, the research process is merged with a process oflanguage restructuring which encompasses those who must understand theresearch (Gustavsen, 1992, p. 33).This can be achieved through dialogue where allparticipants share an interest in creating ‘a good language’. However, Gustavsen(1992) acknowledges that change in language and the use of words is not sufficientand must be connected to changes in practice, such as methods or work organi-sation. More generally, a common ground for connecting participation and actioncan be based on the criteria of democratic dialogue (Gustavsen, 1992).The majorstrength and primary challenge for a democratic system is that it should draw upona broad range of opinions and ideas to inform practice, while at the same timemake decisions that gain the support of all participants and support practicalactions (Gustavsen, 1992, pp. 3–4).

Action researchers have tended to develop their concepts within an organisa-tional framework, with internal processes in organisations such as firms being themain unit of analysis. Actionable knowledge co-generated between insiders in thecompanies and researchers has been used to initiate organisational change pro-cesses (Gustavsen, 1992; Greenwood & Levin, 2007). However, despite concernsexpressed by some action researchers about the need for changes in universities inorder to be more useful for their host regions (Greenwood & Levin, 2001; Levin,2007), until now action research has been less used in regional development.Furthermore, where it has been used, it has sometimes been found to be lesssuccessful.2 Thus, we could argue that, while action research with a process-basedapproach and democratic ideals can be useful to generate changes in organisations,it does not offer an approach to understand regional development and institutionalchange at macro level. This is where we see a key intersection between actionresearch approaches as developed and used by those on the ground and macro-institutional changes that are necessary to facilitate their impacts beyond within-organisation changes. We therefore turn to the concept of the institutionalentrepreneur.

The institutional entrepreneur concept assumes that institutions are outcomesof complex social processes and that actors can change the institutions of whichthey are a part (DiMaggio, 1988; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Sotarauta, 2011).Institutional entrepreneurs are actors—people, groups, organisations, or a mixture— who initiate and take part in the process of changing their institu-tions (Sotarauta, 2009). The definition of an institution typically concerns theunderlying foundations of the social system. For example, an institution can bedefined as patterns of behaviour such as habits, conventions and routines (Morgan,



1997; Sotarauta, 2011) or as systems of established and prevalent rules thatstructure social interaction, such as language, law, systems of weights and mea-sures, table manners, and firms (Hogdson, 2006).These are particularly importantfrom the macro perspective. Indeed, the knowledge co-generation processes thatwe are seeking to understand are micro processes that form part of larger and moremacro complex processes where change is not only a matter of participants’ goodwill. Critically, the indirect and hidden social rules governing behaviour bothenable and constrain human action. Since these institutions are large and complex,they can be difficult to change, but we know that they do change, even if thechanges can often be slow. Our focus is on two types of institution: the universityas an institution of knowledge in society, and local development agencies as policyinstitutions. Both contain micro processes among individual academics/policyagents, but are also framed by macro processes that govern what is acceptedbehaviour in the system. We propose a conceptual framework that recognises theimportance of changes in both micro and macro processes in the transition fromlinear knowledge transfer to knowledge co-generation. The meeting of agents(bridging) represents a first step, but the development of knowledge co-generationprocesses requires mutually re-enforcing changes in the approach and attitudes ofindividuals (action research) and in the form of the institutions themselves (insti-tutional entrepreneurship) (Fig. 2). It simplifies the change process, as it onlyrepresents a stage of change from linear transfer to knowledge co-generation.Change, of course, is continuous and it could again go from co-generation to lineartransfer or evolve into different types of co-generation processes.

In the remainder of the article we will reflect on this conceptual framework usinga long-term case study. In this context, we first need to identify the change from asimple bridging between academics and practitioners to a process of knowledgeco-generation (Fig. 3). In particular, identifying the change focuses on the lan-guage used and the work methods and organisation. Thus, a change occurs whenresearchers and practitioners start to co-generate knowledge, indicated by a

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



change in words and topics, and when they change their work methods and/ororganisation, or establish a new organisation.We seek to explore when the changehappened and what caused it.The second question relates to the role of the two keydrivers proposed in the framework above.

The Case StudyThe Basque Country is an autonomous region of Spain with some 2 millioninhabitants. It has a dense institutional framework, with three administrative levels.First, the regional government has substantial autonomy to define industrial policyand is well-known for its strong proactive industrial policy in the last three decades(Cooke et al., 1997). Second, the provincial councils have a significant role invarious policy areas and are responsible for collecting taxes. Finally, municipalauthorities (especially in the bigger cities) and local development agencies pro-moted by them (in other areas) play an important role in innovation policies. In thecontext of their approach to local development they are able to reach the benefi-ciaries of such policies (specific firms) (Aranguren et al., 2010).

Regional innovation is characterised by the strong presence of technologycentres that have developed with government support and a weaker role of uni-versities.This has generated some criticism.While the system has a strong capacityto adapt knowledge and technology generated externally to the needs of Basquefirms, there is a weakness related to the generation of new basic knowledge andassociated innovation which is also reflected in the policy sphere. Here, like inmany other regions, there has been little tradition of cooperation between univer-sity academics in the social sciences and the regional agents’ policy for socio-economic development.

Two groups of institutions are central to our case study.The academic research-ers involved in the case (among whom, the authors of this article) were initiallybased at the University of Deusto and are now part of Orkestra, The Basque

Figure 3. How to identify evolution in bridging processes



Institute of Competitiveness founded in 2006. It was established as a bridgebetween academic knowledge and society in fields related to competiveness andsupport activities of public administrations, socioeconomic agents and the univer-sities of the Basque Country to improve the competitiveness of the region.

The second group of institutions is the County Development Agencies andtheir association, Garapen. The first were created in the late 1980s when unem-ployment was very high, so they had a strong initial focus on employment andtraining issues. Through the years, they have adopted a wider approach to devel-opment (Aranguren et al., 2006). Now, they interact not only with individuals intraining and job-search, but with firms and knowledge institutions in innovationand competitiveness processes. The case study focuses on the processes ofcertain agencies to create and develop networks for cooperation between firmsand knowledge institutions, including Ezagutza Gunea (EG) (Aranguren et al.,2010).

The study started with a desire of some of those involved to change the existingmode of knowledge creation to increase usefulness for both practitioners andresearchers. Seen in retrospect, the changes can be interpreted in terms of both anevolution of action research principles at the micro level and certain macro devel-opments associated with institutional entrepreneurship.The interpretation of thesechanges as action research and institutional entrepreneurship only recently becameconscious. We suddenly realised that we were not objective, passive economicresearchers in an ivory tower, but active researchers with a desire to be useful forthe practitioners we had originally started doing research ‘on’.This came with therecognition that change was being generated in our research and that we were partof institutions that were changing. We also realised that the considerable datagenerated over 11 years could be used to write other kinds of research articles.Thestory in this article is developed as a theoretically informed case study (Yin, 2009).We used the data from the study to confront this theory, refine the model, anddiscuss if the data could be interpreted in different ways.

Two of the researchers generated data from the 11-year period, while the otherswere incorporated in the process at different stages. The ‘new’ researchers playedan ‘outsiders’ role, responding to and reflecting on the ‘inside’ information of the‘older’ researchers. This helped to verify the validity and reliability of the findings(Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 1992). Research in an action research contextrequires first the documentation and validation of the knowledge created, and thenthe analysis of the process, relating the generated knowledge to the bodies oftheory. As participants, the researchers need to abstract themselves from theprocess in which they have played an active part to build an analysis that can beevaluated in academic terms. The role of the ‘outsiders’ was to question thefindings and ask for alternative explanations. One danger of participating in realtime processes is that one becomes ‘blind’ and takes certain ways of doing thingsfor granted. The knowledge generated between the researchers and the practitio-ners is shared as a ‘tacit’ understanding of how and why things happened. Theoutsider role has thus been to make the shared tacit understanding explicit. Themethod used to generate the analysis presented in the article was one of dialogueamong researchers about the process, both face-to-face and by writing and com-menting on each other’s texts.This is the first time that the whole process has beenanalysed as such, but specific parts have been published previously and will bereferred to when relevant.



Evolving from a Linear Approach to Knowledge Co-generationIdentifying Changes: broad phases in the knowledge process

Applying the analytical framework to the case helped to define three broad phases(Fig. 4) which were arranged in a timeline. They should not be interpreted asabsolute phases where one replaces the other. Old processes continue to existalongside new ones and the outputs of each phase form inputs for subsequentphases. With regard to change between the phases, it is difficult to determine onespecific period or event that caused each change. Rather, it has been an evolutionwhere researchers and practitioners have gradually acknowledged a common needfor change. However, seen in retrospect, some main outcomes manifest themselvesas critical elements in the change process. Outcomes related to institutionalchanges are the creation of the EG county cooperation network, an importantevent to delimit phase 2, and the creation of Orkestra, an important event todelimit phase 3. Phase 1 is dominated by a Mode-1 approach where no knowledgeis co-generated between researchers and practitioners. However, the seed for achange process has been sown. Several researchers acknowledged that researchoutcomes were not being used by the practitioners responsible for the relevantpolicies. One outcome is that one of the researchers started working in a localdevelopment agency to develop the EG cooperation network. In the language ofour conceptual framework, a bridging process is initiated. Phase 2 sees a changefrom linear knowledge creation and transfer to more co-generated knowledgethrough various experimental processes. The main foundation is the experienceand theoretical knowledge generated from the development of EG. The label‘experimental’ denotes that there is no fixed solution and that researchers andpractitioners work together to create working methods and knowledge. Phase 3 ischaracterised by the consolidation and establishment of co-generative processes ata system level. The term system is used to reflect the establishment of a structureand routines for cooperation among regional development agents.The structure isestablished with the agents who want to develop networks, participate with othernetworks, and cooperate with researchers.Thus, the experience with EG developsfrom being an isolated and incipient phenomenon to having a trajectory fromwhich other networks can learn. Cooperation networks that bring together firms,knowledge institutions and local authorities to foster innovation and competitive-ness are being developed with many county development agencies. Many partici-pate in co-generation processes with researchers in Orkestra. 13 agencies havebeen cooperating with Orkestra in the process presented, mostly from the Easternprovince of Gipuzkoa, where the networks are more developed. In most cases, thepeople from the agencies who participated in the processes have been constant.

Specific Changes: language, work methods and institutional changeWe now turn to examples of changes that we identified in connection with thetransition of the different phases. They emerge from the telling of a more specificstory around the evolution of the phases and reflect a retrospective consciousnessof the significance of changes in language, work methods and institutions.

In 1997 and 1999, two PhD research projects presented at the University ofDeusto focused on the dynamism of small firms in the Basque Country and atypology of local production systems in this region.When this work was published(Aranguren, 1998a; 1998b; 1999; 2000; Aranguren et al., 2002; Larrea, 1999a,



Figure 4. Main phases of the knowledge co-generation process with outcomes



1999b, 2000), both researchers felt that there was little impact from this knowledgecreation.They felt a need to interact with regional agents involved in the fields theyhad studied, but no mechanisms were at hand at the University at the time. In2002, an open call was made by one of the county development agencies to employsomeone who would create a cooperation network between firms, training centres,development agencies and town councils.The researcher who applied asked if shecould continue her part-time position in the University to conduct research. Thiswas considered a determining factor in the decision to hire her. Thus, the estab-lishment of EG in 2002 saw not only the creation of a local development organi-sation, but also of a space for the development of communication, language, workmethods and new theoretical knowledge between researchers and practitioners.Knowledge generated in this context was published: Aranguren et al. (2010, 2007,2006); Iturrioz et al. (2006); Larrea (2003); Larrea et al. (2010; 2007); Navarro &Larrea (2007); Parrilli et al. (2009).

Two years after the creation of the network, there was a change in workmethods, stimulated by concerns among policy-makers and firms that only firmswith more than 50 employees were participating in EG. Researchers and prac-titioners reflected on the problem together, defining a new research question:‘what are the factors that facilitate the integration of small firms in knowledgenetworks?’ 50 interviews were carried out with local firms and 3 workshops wereorganised where practitioners and researchers worked together to solve the chal-lenge. This resulted in the creation of a work-group in EG constituted by firmsof 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).

The work methods and organisation in the knowledge process had ‘naturally’evolved as a result of the EG experience.While the co-generation process began tobe organised using action research principles, this was very much a subconsciousdevelopment. At this point of time, the researchers were not aware of actionresearch methods, such as search and dialogue conferences. The change processhad been so incremental that they had interiorised this way of working. They firstbecame aware of this change in mid-2006 when presenting a paper with data fromthe project at an international workshop.3 One participant said he found thelanguage they had used strange, because they were using ‘we’ and ‘us’ in thepresentation of the case.There had been a change in language which the research-ers had not noticed.

Finally, we identified the creation of Orkestra in 2006 with the clear involve-ment of policy-makers as central in the transition from an experimental to a moresystemic co-generation process. Two practitioners from a large firm and a consul-tancy in the Basque Country with a background as policy-makers and who wereclosely related to academia and a Professor at the University of Deusto worked togain the support of public and private agents in the Basque Country to create anarena where researchers and practitioners would interact to improve ‘real com-petitiveness’ through research.The two researchers who had been most involved inthe experience with EG moved to Orkestra on its creation, where the new organi-sation defined new work methods at the regional level. Regular participatoryworkshops were organised with all local development agencies invited, and newknowledge co-generation processes began with the group of 13 agencies. The‘know-how’ developed with small firms in EG was a critical input, where the need



to better understand the processes was seen as a central challenge by the research-ers involved. As this understanding developed more explicitly, action researchprocesses were adopted more widely in Orkestra, alongside others.

The Interplay between Action Research and InstitutionalEntrepreneurshipHere, we suggest that the changes have been generated as interplay between themicro level development of action research principles among researchers andmacro level institutional changes led by institutional entrepreneurs.These changeshave reinforced each other and overlap in ways that are sometimes difficult toseparate. Our core argument is that both processes were necessary to evolve froma simple bridging between researchers and development agents to a genuineprocess of knowledge co-generation.

Both EG and Orkestra were created by institutional entrepreneurs, policy-makers and researchers who realised the need for new institutions to support localdevelopment and innovation in the Basque Country. In both cases, the creation ofan organisation represented an opportunity to initiate a macro change process, butthe decision-makers involved lacked the framework and methodology to create thenecessary micro processes. Micro processes related to the development of actionresearch principles were in incipient stages among groups of researchers andpractitioners, but lacked the institutional structure to fully develop.

In the case of EG, the researchers realised that this practitioner-led institu-tional development represented a potential arena for knowledge cogeneration;here, they could show that their knowledge could be useful for practitioners,hence developing micro changes in research processes more effectively. Therewas a mutual congruence between the policy makers’ creation of an organisationand the researchers’ ambitions to work in Mode-2. The combination of macroinstitutional changes and micro research processes made the transition fromphase 1 to phase 2 possible, initiating a process of experimental knowledgeco-generation. The consolidation of these experimental approaches in a moresystemic phase of knowledge co-generation also required simultaneous develop-ments at macro and micro levels. Those involved in the creation of Orkestra canalso be seen as institutional entrepreneurs. They acknowledged the need tocreate an arena that was outside the university but linked to it, where researchersand practitioners could meet to generate change in the Basque Country as awhole. Critically, this vision was shared by Deusto University. However, withoutmicro change processes generated by the researchers themselves, Orkestra couldeasily have been a research institute in a more traditional mould. In this case, itwas the same researchers who were involved in EG who initiated local develop-ment projects from Orkestra. They developed further the methods they had usedin EG, but this time at a system level, with many agencies in the BasqueCountry. As this co-generation process is becoming established at thesystemic level, it is generating a great deal of energy, practical solutions andunderstanding of each other’s positions. This creates a better foundation fordecision-making among socio-economic agents, both in terms of content andconditions.

In the context of this specific case, we argue that action research and institu-tional entrepreneurship are necessary, but neither is sufficient on their own.However, we also learned that, conceptually, both processes are not as separate as



presented in the framework. In particular, the case shows that there have beendifferent kinds of institutional entrepreneurs’ involved, both at the macro and themicro level.

The first type is the entrepreneur who creates an organisation because of theperceived regional development need for an institutional change. For this kind ofentrepreneur, the job is done when the organisation has management and staff inplace. However, the management and staff do not necessarily have the rightknowledge to generate the micro changes that are needed to develop co-generated,actionable knowledge. Hence, we can define a second type of institutional entre-preneur who is much more closely linked to the micro changes, but develops themin the context of the macro changes. This second group of entrepreneurs under-stands that co-generation of knowledge involving practitioners and researchers isnecessary to create the conditions for change. In a society such as the BasqueCountry, where position, power, hierarchy and men have traditionally dominateddecision-making processes, the acceptance of this kind of process is difficult.Practitioners in lower hierarchical positions are often assumed to lack knowledge.Besides, micro processes are often considered time consuming and useless. Theentrepreneur has to have both belief in the knowledge co-generation process andpatience to move beyond the resistance against the establishment of this kind ofprocess. Thus, we can refine the general framework in Figure 2 to reflect thespecificities of this case (Fig. 5). First, we can adjust the concept of bridging toacknowledge that it may not occur only as a first step. In this case, bridging islinked to the macro institutional changes, generating experimental knowledgeco-generation in the first instance and creating the path towards systemic knowl-edge co-generation in the second. Secondly, we can emphasise the re-enforcingnature of the macro and micro changes; there is not a simple, separate arrow fromMode-1 to Mode-2, but a series of arrows that reflect the inter-dependence ofmicro and macro changes. Finally, we can acknowledge that institutional entre-preneurship can also occur at micro level.

Figure 5. The Evolution to Knowledge Co-generation in local networks in theBasque Country



ConclusionThis article responds to the lack of in depth studies of knowledge processes in theinterface between university research and regional development practitioners.Such research is especially important in the context of the increasing demandsplaced on universities and their researchers to contribute to regional development.Our focus was on opening the black box of change processes as knowledge creationevolves from Mode-1 to Mode-2. To do so, our first research question focused onhow to identify the change from a simple bridging between academics and prac-titioners to a process of knowledge co-generation. Knowledge bridging is definedas a first step, where regional actors and researchers meet.When they continue tomeet over a certain time period, the process can change into a co-generationprocess. To answer this first question we proposed an analytical framework, thespecification of which raises a second research question related to the specific rolesof (i) institutional entrepreneurs and (ii) action research approaches in the evolu-tion to Mode-2 knowledge creation.

The framework was applied to a long term case study focused on a group ofresearchers and development practitioners in the Basque Country. Micro levelchanges among researchers and practitioners leading to the gradual adoption ofaction research principles are identified, primarily by observing changes in lan-guage and work organisation. Macro changes related to institutional entrepreneur-ship are also observed in the creation of two organisations that have reinforcedinstitutional change during the timeframe of the case.

Subtle differences are detected in the case with regard to the proposed frame-work. In particular, the case illustrates greater sophistication in the nature ofinstitutional entrepreneurship, which is observed both at the macro and microlevels, converging in the latter with the adoption of action research principles byresearchers and practitioners. The case shows that two kinds of institutionalentrepreneurship interweave throughout the process to make the transition fromMode 1 to Mode 2 possible. On the one hand, policy makers who appreciatedacademic knowledge launched new organisations where researchers and practitio-ners could interact. This made bridging possible. On the other, researchers whoappreciated practitioner’s experience-based knowledge generated the method andwork habits that made the initial bridging evolve into co-generation processes.

Our third research question requires us to reflect on the main theoretical andpolicy lessons from the analysis. To be a satisfactory action research process, thepaper should give insight on issues that are relevant for academia at the same timeas generating actionable knowledge for practitioners. In the theoretical field, thearticle contributes to the Mode-1/Mode-2 debate by opening the black box ofprocesses and addressing how change happens. Specifically, it demonstrates thatinstitutional entrepreneurship is a key element for the development of Mode-2approaches. The argument is further developed to show that the intersectionbetween institutional theory and action research can help to understand how microlevel learning processes and macro level institutional change interact.

The article also highlights actionable knowledge that could help practitioners intheir decision-making processes. Lessons from the case here are threefold. First,there is a need to develop entrepreneurial attitudes among practitioners to createappropriate organisational contexts for knowledge co-generation.The new organi-sations analysed were linked to previously existing ones (EG to the development



Iraurgi Lantzen agency and Orkestra to Deusto University), but had their owndecision-making mechanisms so that they could evolve from pre-establishedapproaches. Second, there is a need to train researchers in action-orientedapproaches. In the Basque Country, a lack of incentives for researchers to evolve toMode-2 approaches has been detected. Third, the case illustrates the benefits ofpromoting mobility among development and research organisations, and evenamong organisations of the same kind, so that different co-generation processeslink together coherently.

Building from these conclusions, we recognise certain limitations of thearticle and avenues for further research. The article is based on a long term butsingle case study. Accordingly, more extensive studies are required in order toreach more generally applicable conclusions. For example, while it providesinsight into how universities which are willing to play a new role in their regionscan evolve, comparative studies of such processes in different regions couldstrengthen the conclusions. They could also enhance the contribution of thearticle to analysing the intersection between institutional theory and actionresearch and its focus on how micro and macro changes interact. Finally, froma methodological point of view, the article responds to the challenge of writingabout action research processes in a scientifically rigorous manner. There isagain a new avenue for future developments here that will be critical to fosteraction research that combines actionable knowledge with contributions that aresignificant for academia.

James Karlsen, Agderforskning, Gimlemoen 19, N-4630 Kristiansand, Norway,[email protected], www.agderforskning.no/pictures/profileCV/29.pdf

Miren Larrea, Basque Institute of Competitiveness and Development, Orkestra,Mundaiz, 50 (University of Deusto Campus) 20012 San Sebastián Gipuzkoa, Spain,[email protected], www.orkestra.deusto.es/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=71&Itemid=89&lang=en

James R. Wilson, Basque Institute of Competitiveness and Development, Orkestra,Mundaiz, 50 (University of Deusto Campus) 20012 San Sebastián Gipuzkoa, Spain,[email protected]

Mari Jose Aranguren, Basque Institute of Competitiveness and Development, Orkestra,Mundaiz, 50 (University of Deusto Campus) 20012 San Sebastián Gipuzkoa, Spain,[email protected], www.orkestra.es/index.phpoption=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=69&Itemid=219&lang=en

NOTES

1. Gibbons (2000) more recently used the term ‘context-specific science’ toreflect this more interactive approach to social science.

2. In the case of Norway, see Johnsen and Normann 2004; Johnsen et al. 2005.3. EUNIP Exploratory Workshop on Democratic Globalisation: Innovative

Policies for Enhancing Economic Participation and Governance, Limerick(Ireland), 29th June, 2006.



REFERENCES

Aranguren, M. J. (1998a) Creación de empresas: factores determinantes. Industriade la CAPV (San Sebastián, Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa and DeustoUniversity).

Aranguren, M. J. (1998b) Determinantes de creación de unidades económicas enla industria manufacturera de la CAPV, Economía Industrial, 323, pp. 149–164.

Aranguren, M. J. (2000) Tamaño y costes en las empresas manufactureras de laCAPV, Ekonomiaz, 44, pp. 174–207.

Aranguren, M. J. (1999) Determinants of economic units creation in the period1985–93. The case of the Manufacturing Industry in CAPV, Small BusinessEconomics, 12, pp. 203–215.

Aranguren, M. J., Larrea, M. & Wilson, J. (2010) Learning from the local:governance of networks for innovation in the Basque Country, EuropeanPlanning Studies, 18, pp. 47–66.

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

Aranguren M. J., Larrea, M. & Navarro, M. (2006) The policy process: clustersversus spatial networks in the Basque Country, in: C. Pitelis, R. Sudgen &J. R. Wilson (Eds) Clusters and Globalisation.The Development Of Urban andRegional Economies (Cheltenham, Edward Elgar) pp. 258–280.

Asheim, B. T., Boschma, R., Cooke, P., Laredo, P., Lindholm-Dahlstrand, Å.& Piccaluga, A. (2006) Constructing Regional Advantage: Principles — Perspec-tives — Politics. Final Report. DG Research Expert Group on ConstructingRegional Advantage.

Chatterton, P. & Goddard, J. (2000) The response of higher education institu-tions to regional needs, European Journal of Education, 35, pp. 475–496.

Clark, B. R. (2004) Sustaining Change in Universities: Continuities in Case Studiesand Concepts (Society for Research into Higher Education & Open UniversityPress).

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

Cooke, P., Gomez Uranga, M. & Etxebarria, G. (1997) Regional innovationsystems: institutional and organisational dimensions, Research Policy, 26, pp.475–491.

Dimaggio, P. (1988) Interest and agency in institutional theory, in: L. G. Zucker(Ed) Institutional Patterns and Organizations (Cambrigde, MA, Ballinger) pp.3–22.

Dimaggio, P. & Powell, W. (1991) Introduction, in: P. Dimaggio & W. Powell(Eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (Chicago, ChicagoUniversity Press) pp. 1–38.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. & Terra, B. R. C. (2000) The futureof the university and the university of the future: evolution from ivory tower toentrepreneurial paradigm, Research Policy, 29, pp. 313–330.

Frankfort-Nachmias, C. & Nachmias, D. (1992) Research Methods in the SocialSciences (New York, St. Martin’s Press).

Gibbons, M. (2000) Context-sensitive science: Mode 2 society and the emergenceof context-specific science, Science and Public Policy, 27, pp. 159–163.



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

Greenwood, D. & Levin, M. (2001) Re-Organizing Universities and ‘KnowingHow’: University Restructuring and Knowledge Creation for the 21stCentury, Organization speaking out, 8, pp. 433–440.

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

Gustavsen, B. (1992) Dialogue and Development.Theory of Communication, ActionResearch and the Restructuring ofWorking Life (Assen, Van Gorcum).

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

Hogdson, G. M. (2006) What are institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, XL(1),pp. 1–25.

Iturrioz, C., Aranguren, M. J., Aragon, C. & Larrea, M. (2006) ¿La políticaindustrial de cluster/redes mejora realmente la competitividad empresarial?Resultados de la evaluación de dos experiencias en la CAPV, Ekonomiaz, 60.

Johnsen, H. C. G. (2001) Involvement atWork: A Study of Communicative Processesand Individual Involvement in Organizational Development (Handelshøjskolen iKøbenhavn, København).

Johnsen, H. C. G., Lysgard, H. K., Kvaale, G., Fosse, J. K., Normann, R. &Karlsen, J. (2005) The Agder Story, AI & Society, 19/4, pp. 430–441.

Johnsen, H. C. G. & Normann, R. (2004) When research and practice collide:The role of action research when there is a conflict of interest with stakehold-ers, Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17, pp. 207–235.

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

Larrea, M. (1999a) Evolución de las Economías de Localización de los SistemasProductivos Locales de la CAPV, in Eustat,Tablas Input-Output de la Comu-nidad Autónoma de Euskadi, Análisis de resultados: 321–371. Eustat.

Larrea, M. (1999b) Competitividad y empleo en los sistemas productivos localesde la CAPV, Ekonomiaz, 44, pp. 144–173.

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

Larrea, M. (2003) Clusters y territorio: retos del desarrollo local en la ComunidadAutónoma del País Vasco, Ekonomiaz, 53, pp. 138–159.

Larrea, M., Aranguren, M. J. & Parrillii, M. D. (2007) El papel de los procesosde aprendizaje comarcales en las políticas regionales de competitividad einnovación, in: A. Mujika (Coord.) Regiones de Conocimiento (San Sebastián,Universidad de Deusto).

Larrea, M., Mujika, A. & Aranguren, M. J. (2010) Access of small firms toknowledge networks as a determinant of local economic development, in: H.Lenihan, B. Andreosso-O’Callaghan & M. Hart (Eds) SMEs in a Globa-lised World: survival and growth strategies on Europe’s geographical periphery(Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing), pp. 47–66.



Levin, M. (2007) Knowledge and technology transfer. Can universities promoteregional development, in: A. C. Burtscher, Harding, S. Laske & A. Scott(Eds) Knowledge Factories: Universities and Territorial Development in the GlobalInformation Age (Munich, Hampp-Verlag) pp. 39–51.

Morgan, K. (1997) The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation and RegionalRenewal. Regional Studies, 31, pp. 491–503.

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

Navarro, M. & Larrea, M. (Dir.) (2007) Indicadores y Análisis de CompetitividadLocal en el PaísVasco (Dok Ekonomiaz, Servicio Central de Publicaciones delGobierno Vasco).

OECD (2007) Higher Education and Regions: Globally Competitive, Locally Engaged.Parrilli, M. D., Aranguren, M. J. & Larrea, M. (2009) A Typology of learners:

applications and relevant policy implications. Paper presented at the ResearchWorkshop on ‘Innovation and learning: Explicit and Tacit Knowledge Flows’,San Sebastián, 13–14 May, 2009.

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

Sotarauta, M. (2011) Institutional Entrepreneurship for Knowledge Regions: in searchfora fresh set of questions for regional and innovation studies, Environment &Planning C. 29(1), pp. 96–112.

Toulmin, S. & Gustavsen, B. (1996) Beyond Theory: Changing Organizationsthrough Participation (Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company).

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



Documents

Bridging the Gap between Academic Research and Regional Development in the Basque Country