Main Article Content

Giuseppe Calignano
Kari Jøsendal


Our study contributes to a limited body of literature and aims to examine the type and frequency of linkages between creative industries and higher education institutions (HEIs). The objective of our study is to investigate the extent to which various types of linkages contribute to enhanced innovative capabilities in creative industries. Based on a qualitative research design and a case study carried out in a peripheral south-western Norwegian county, our empirical analysis shows that HEIs are generally not very relevant partners and that other actors are mainly involved in innovation dynamics. As clarified and discussed in the paper, this finding largely depends on some specific characteristics of HEIs, the form of knowledge primarily employed by creative firms (symbolic knowledge base), and the cultural divergence between the two spheres.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite


  1. Asheim B.T., Gertler M.S., 2005. The geography of innovation: Regional innovation systems. In: Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R. (eds), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 291–317.
  2. Bakhshi H., Freeman A., Higgs P., 2013. A dynamic mapping of the UK’s creative industries. Nesta, London.
  3. Baker S.E., Edwards R., 2012. How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research. National Centre for Research Methods Review Paper. http://eprints.ncrm., (accessed: 21 November 2018)
  4. Bengtsson B., Hertting N., 2014. Generalization by mechanism: Thin rationality and ideal-type analysis in case study research. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 44(6): 707– 732. DOI: 10.1177/0048393113506495
  5. Bush V., 1945. Science – The endless frontier. A report to the president on a program for postwar scientific research. National Science Foundation, Washington.
  6. Cappetta R., Cillo P., Ponti A., 2006. Convergent designs in fine fashion: An evolutionary model for stylistic innovation. Research Policy 35(9): 1273–1290. DOI 10.1016/j.respol.2006.02.009.
  7. Carayannis E.G., Campbell D.F.J., 2009. “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management 46: 201–234. DOI: 10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374
  8. Carayannis E.G., Grigoroudis E., Campbell D.F.J., Meissner D., Stamati D., 2018. The ecosystem as helix: An exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models. R&D Management 48(1): 148–162. DOI: 10.1111/radm.12300
  9. Castañer X., Campos L., 2002. The determinants of artistic innovation: Bringing in the role of organizations. Journal of Cultural Economics 26(1): 29–52. DOI 10.1023/A:1013386413465.
  10. Chapain C., Cooke P., de Propris L., Macneil S., Mateo Garcia J., 2010. Creative clusters and innovation. Putting creativity on the map. NESTA, London, UK.
  11. Chesbrough H., 2006. Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. In: Chesbrough H., Vanhaverbeke W., West J. (eds), Open innovation, researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 1–12.
  12. Cohen W.M., Levinthal D.A., 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 128–152. DOI 10.2307/2393553.
  13. DCMS, 1998. Creative industries mapping document. Department of Culture Media and Sport UK Government, London.
  14. Ekeland A., 2017. Sysselsetting i petroleumnæringene og relaterte næringer (Employment in the oil industry and related industries) 2016. Statistics Norway 2017/27.
  15. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L., 1997. Universities in the global economy: A triple helix of academic-industry-government relations. Croom Helm, London.
  16. Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L., 2000. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29: 109–123. DOI: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
  17. European Commission, 2006. The new SME definition. User guide and model declaration. European Commission, Brussels.
  18. European Commission, 2010. European competitive report 2010. European Commission, Brussels.
  19. Ferguson M., 2014. Knowledge exchange between universities and the creative industries in the UK: A case study of current practice. Industry and Higher Education 28(3): 177–183.
  20. Fitjar R.D., Rodríguez-Pose A., 2015. Networking, context and firm-level innovation: Cooperation through the regional filter in Norway. Geoforum 63: 25–35. DOI 10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.05.010.
  21. Florida R., 2004. The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books, New York.
  22. Florida R., Gates G., Knudsen B., Stolarick K., 2006. The university and the creative economy. George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
  23. George G., Zahra S.A., Wood D.R., 2002. The effects of business–university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing 17(6): 577–609. DOI 10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00069-6.
  24. Guest G., Bunce A., Johnson L., 2006. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1): 59–82. DOI: 10.1177/1525822X05279903
  25. Hawkins R.W., Langford C., Sidhu K., 2007. University research in an ‘innovation society’. In: OECD, Science, technology and innovation indicators in a changing world: Responding to policy needs. Paris: 171–192.
  26. Jensen M.B., Johnson B., Lorenz E., Lundvall B.Å., 2007. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy 36(5): 680–693. DOI 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006.
  27. Jøsendal K., Berg C., Solheim A., Stevenson B., 2008. Kreative næringer i Rogaland 2008 (Creative Industries in Rogaland 2008). Stavanger. IRIS Report 2009/004.
  28. Jøsendal K., Berg C., Westnes P., Claussen T., 2004. Kreative næringer i Rogaland (Creative Industries in Rogaland). Stavanger. Rogalandsforskning Report 2004/169.
  29. Kaufmann A., Tödtling F., 2001. Science–industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy 30(5): 791– 804. DOI 10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00118-9.
  30. Laursen K., Reichstein T., Salter A., 2011. Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies 45(4): 507–523. DOI 10.1080/00343400903401618.
  31. Laursen K., Salter A., 2006. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal 27(2): 131–150.
  32. Lawson B., Samson D., 2001. Developing innovation capability in organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of Innovation Management 5(3): 377–400.
  33. Lazeretti L., Boix R., Capone F., 2013. Why do creative industries cluster? In: Lazzeretti L. (ed.), Creative industries and innovation in Europe. Concepts, measures and comparative case studies. Routledge: Regional Studies Association.
  34. Maclaurin W.R., 1953. The sequence from invention to innovation and its relation to economic growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 67(1): 97–111.
  35. Martin R., Moodysson J., 2011. Innovation in symbolic industries: The geography and organization of knowledge sourcing. European Planning Studies 19(7): 1183–1203. DOI 10.1080/09654313.2011.573131.
  36. Moodysson J., Coenen L., Asheim B., 2008. Explaining spatial patterns of innovation: Analytical and synthetic modes of knowledge creation in the medicon valley life-science cluster. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 40(5): 1040–1056. DOI 10.1068/a39110.
  37. Mould O., Vorley T., Roodhouse S., 2009. Realizing capabilities—academic creativity and the creative industries. Creative Industries Journal 1(2): 137–150. DOI 10.1386/ cij.1.2.137_1.
  38. Mowery D.C., Sampat B.N., 2005. Universities in national innovation systems. In: Fagerberg J., Mowery D.C., Nelson R.R. (eds), The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford: 209–239.
  39. OECD, 2005. Oslo manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. OECD Publishing, Paris.
  40. Plum O., Hassink R., 2014. Knowledge bases, innovativeness and competitiveness in creative industries: The case of Hamburg’s video game developers. Regional Studies, Regional Science 1(1): 248–268. DOI 10.1080/21681376.2014.967803.
  41. Potts J., 2011. Creative industries and economic evolution. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
  42. Rajapathirana R.P.J., Hui Y., 2018. Relationship between innovation capability, innovation type, and firm performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 3(1): 44–55. DOI 10.1016/j.jik.2017.06.002.
  43. Taylor C., Comunian R., Smith D.N., 2014. The role of universities in the regional creative economies of the UK: Hidden protagonists and the challenge of knowledge transfer. European Planning Studies 22(12): 2456–2476. DOI 10.1080/09654313.2013.790589.
  44. Teece D.J., 2000. Managing intellectual capital: Organizational, strategic, and policy dimensions. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
  45. UNCTAD, 2008. Creative economy report 2008. The challenge of assessing the creative economy: towards informed policy-making. United Nations, New York, NY.
  46. UNCTAD, 2010. Creative economy report 2010. Creative economy: A feasible development option. United Nations, New York, NY.
  47. Yin R.K., 2011. Qualitative research from start to finish. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.