The role of universities in the development of regional knowledge-based clusters:

The collective learning perspective

Stankeviciute, Jolanta; Jucevicius, Robertas

Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania

Institute of Business Strategy

Kaunas University of Technology
Donelaicio 20
Kaunas 3000
Lithuania
jolsta@ktu.lt
rjucev@ktu.lt

Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of

Hamburg, 17-20 September 2003

Abstract
The paper explores the role of universities in the development of regional clusters and their contribution to the collective
learning within regions. Referring to the contemporary theoretical discussion of the last decade, the notions and
characteristics of regional cluster, collective learning and its processes, as well as various mechanisms through which
universities participating in clusters can contribute to different collective learning processes at the regional level (e.g.
science parks, business incubators, spin-offs, informal personal contacts, consulting, research consortia, etc.) are
discussed. A reflection of the possible challenges to the traditional values of higher education – pursuit of objective
knowledge and truth, institutional autonomy, disinterestedness, equality of access, etc. – posed by universities’
involvement in clusters is offered. The theoretical discussion is supported by empirical evidence on the experience of a
number of regional clusters of the UK, Finland, Sweden and other developed countries. The paper ends with reflection on
the possibilities of using the experience of these countries to enhance collective learning in the countries in transition, in
particular in Lithuania, pointing out the specific context-related obstacles and the impact on the traditional HE values.

Key terms: regional collective learning, values of higher education, university-firm interaction, knowledge-based
clusters.

Introduction

In the emerging knowledge economy, it is the ability to learn which determines competitiveness and
successful development not only of organisations, but also of countries and regions. Collective
learning is regarded as one of the ways to ensure regional development and prosperity by taking
advantage of knowledge creation and dissemination among the key players of the regional scene
(firms, universities, government, and other institutions).

As suggested by various case studies (Lawson and Lorenz 1999; Keeble and Wilkinson 1999;
Sternberg and Tamasy 1999), collective learning processes are especially intensive in certain
geographical agglomerations of firms called clusters, in particular those involving firms and other
institutions, which produce, transfer and use knowledge in high volumes. A rather important role in
these agglomerations is normally played by universities, as they tend to be one of the key producers
and disseminators of knowledge through basic and applied research. Their contribution to cluster
development and in turn to collective learning can take different forms and mechanisms, such as
spin-offs, joint research projects with firms, etc. These mechanisms may have different effects on the
collective learning processes and affect different areas of collective knowledge. Furthermore,
university involvement in regional clusters may pose some challenges to the traditional values of
higher education. Therefore, the paper is aimed at exploring the contribution of universities to

1
collective learning in knowledge-based clusters and discussing possible value conflicts which can
emerge as a result of this process.

The theoretical analysis is supported by examples of knowledge-based clusters of the UK, Finland,
Sweden, France, Germany and other countries. The paper ends with reflection on the possibilities of
using their experience to enhance regional collective learning in the developing countries, in
particular in Lithuania.

1. The nature of collective learning and collective learning processes

Along with the attempts to define and explore organisational learning (March 1991; Argyris 1993;
Sproull and Cohen 1996), Camagni (1991), Lorenz (1992), and Lawson (1996) were among the first
to introduce and discuss a related concept of ‘collective learning’ addressing similar processes and
phenomena at the regional level.

It is worth beginning the review of the notions of collective learning with Lawson’s (2000)
distinction between the two senses in which the ‘collectiveness’ of learning is conceptualised in the
literature: between the ‘learning within an epistemic community’ and the ‘system learning’. Lawson
(2000, p. 183) points out that in the first case the focus is on the manner in which individuals learn in
virtue of being members of a particular community, i.e. through social interaction, by transforming
the existing ideas and conceptions with which they are confronted. Meanwhile in the second sense of
collective learning, system learning, the emphasis is not so much on what the individuals learn as on
the processes by which the successes and failures that individuals experience become (continuously)
encoded in into the routines and practices of the collectivity of which they are a part. According to
Lawson, this second sense of collective learning applies to regions, i.e. the region can be understood
as systems of competences. Only in the case of regions, instead of firm routines ‘knowledge is
embedded in the structure of the labour market, of localised inter-firm relations and the institutional
framework within which firms not only interact but come into being’. These structures become
repositories for knowledge which enable system learning at the regional scale (Lawson, 2000, p.
188).

Like many other authors concerned with the nature of collective learning at the regional level, in his
discussion Lawson (2000) refers to one of the first attempts to develop the concept of ‘collective
learning’ with emphasis on the regional scale which has been made by the Groupe de Recherche
Européen sur les Milieux Innovateurs (GREMI), and more specifically by Camagni (1991).
According to him, the concept of collective learning connotes a broad notion of the capacity of a
particular regional ‘innovative milieu’ to generate or facilitate innovative behaviour by the firms
which are members of that milieu (quoted in Keeble et al. 1999). More specifically, Camagni (1991)
defines the process of regional collective learning as being primarily concerned with regional
mechanisms which reduce the uncertainty faced by firms in a rapidly changing technological
environment, such as that associated with a ‘competence gap’ arising from the firm’s limited ability
to process and understand available information. Camagni (1991) claims that firms within the milieu
seek to cope with the problem of uncertainty, i.e. to reduce or eliminate this ‘competence gap’ by
developing the ‘transcoding functions’ for translating external information into a language which the
firm can understand. Crucial for this process is the emergence of common language and culture
which serve as preconditions for such transcoding to take place.

It should be noted that although Camagni (1991) and Lawson (2000) use different starting points for
their discussion, both authors agree on the mechanisms of collective learning. Camagni (1991)
conceptualises regional collective learning through ‘links-based’ and ‘non-links based’ mechanisms.
The former include supply chain linkages, movement of labour between firms, spin-off activities,

2
etc., whereas examples of non-links based mechanisms are imitation, emulation and reverse
engineering. Lawson (2000) points out similar elements of the regional environment (labour market,
inter-firm relations, institutional framework) which serve as repositories of collective knowledge and
through continuous development of which collective learning takes place.

Another rather general definition of collective learning at the regional level has been offered by
Lorenz (1996), whose starting point was research on organisational learning. According to Lorenz
(1996), regional collective learning involves the creation and further development of a base of
common or shared knowledge among individuals making up a productive system which allows them
to co-ordinate their actions in the resolution of the technological and organisational problems they
confront. In other words, regional collective learning can be understood as the emergence of basic
common knowledge and procedures across a set of geographically proximate firms which facilitates
co-operation and solutions to common problems (ibid).

Lorenz (1996) points out three areas in which firms need to develop shared knowledge:
(i) common language for discussing technological and organisational problems, which is closely
related to common standards of honesty and information sharing which in turn lead to the
gradual development of trust;
(ii) shared technological and engineering knowledge, especially that concerned with more down-
stream phase of innovation (e.g., product design, testing, production, etc.);
(iii) shared organisational knowledge (e.g., management of hierarchical relations, division of
responsibilities among different occupations and services, procedures for collective decision-
making, etc.).
Again, some common emphases can be noted in the concepts of collective learning suggested by
Lorenz (1996) and the two above-mentioned authors. Lorenz (1996) shares the view of the
importance of common language and culture with Camagni (1991) and with Lawson (2000, p. 193),
whose ‘institutional framework’ includes codes of behaviour and community norms in enforcing a
particular balance between co-operation and competition in the region.

1.1. Collective learning processes

For the purposes of this paper, we will adopt Lorenz’s (1996) definition of regional collective
learning, which serves well an attempt to single out a number of collective learning processes.
Although these processes often overlap, it is worth trying to specify them, not least because various
KM mechanisms may differ in their effectiveness in facilitating different collective learning
processes.

As it has been mentioned, in his definition Lorenz (1996) emphasises ‘creation and further
development of a base of common or shared knowledge’. It can be argued that doing it requires
constant upgrading of this base through acquisition of new knowledge (including the ‘transcoding’ of
external information) as well as creation of knowledge, e.g. through technological, product, process,
organisational and other innovation, which includes embedding knowledge in the final products.
Also, development of a base of common knowledge requires that actors who share this knowledge
base exchange their knowledge, i.e. it calls for knowledge dissemination between those involved in
collective learning within a local milieu.

In other words, it can be argued that collective learning within an ‘innovative milieu’ is enabled by
three processes: knowledge acquisition, creation and dissemination. These processes cover all three
above-mentioned domains:

3
  cultural knowledge: social norms, codes of conduct, values (especially trust), beliefs,
conventions, common language;
 technological (engineering) knowledge, covering technologies, design, production, etc.;
 organisational knowledge: related to management of organisations, processes, division of
responsibilities, procedures of collective decision-making, etc.

Crucial for cluster development and survival is cultural knowledge, in particular trust, common
language and social norms supporting cooperation, which stimulate collective learning processes
through interaction of their participants. In the absence of these elements of cultural knowledge,
collective learning is limited to non-links based mechanisms, such as imitation, emulation or reverse
engineering, which can hardly result in creation of new knowledge.

In the third section, we will try to explore the role of universities in the three collective learning
processes taking place within regional knowledge-based clusters.

2. The notion of cluster

In the academic literature, it was M. Porter (1990) who used the notion of cluster in an attempt to
answer the question why some countries prosper while others lag behind. His fundamental work was
a turning point in the studies of competition between the large systems, i.e. those operating at the
national and regional levels. According to Porter (1998), a cluster is a geographically proximate
group of interconnected companies and associated institutions in a particular field, linked by
commonalities and complementarities. In this definition, a clear emphasis is placed on
geographical concentration and links in the value/ cost chain. A similar approach is adopted by many
other authors and by OECD (OECD, 1999, 2001; OECD-DATAR, 2001), although the latter focuses
primarily on the clusterisation phenomenon.

The main features of the clusters:

 Proximity and reliability of the business partners increases the competitive security in the
market and gives competitive advantage over non-clustered firms. This is primarily achieved
by lower than the average operating costs in the market.
 Favourable conditions are created to specialise in those activities which reflect firm’s core
competencies. Members of the cluster inevitably specialise because in other case they would
not be able to achieve the professionalism and efficiency which makes them attractive to
other members.
 In the region of the industrial cluster, a certain ‘knowledge cluster’ emerges, where a specific
know-how is created and a large number of professionals concentrate. This makes it easier
for firms not only to find and recruit necessary specialists, but also to educate them and
upgrade their skills through joint effort.
 Easier access to specialised information. This information is expensive, which makes it
difficult for a single firm to access and to use it to one’s benefit. Since cluster is one of the
forms of the network organisation whose functioning is based on trust, co-operation and
information dissemination, it solves this problem with relative ease.
 High growth opportunities. One of the important features of any network-based or similar
systems of co-operation is joining the efforts for implementing large-scale projects whose
initiators and co-ordinators can be any member of the network or cluster. This makes it easier
for firms to enter new markets and to develop systemic products better meeting customer
needs.

4
  Mature clusters provide favourable conditions for innovation. Since clusters involve not only
businesses, but also educational and research institutions, they become partly similar to the
classical innovation system with clearly defined boundaries.
Integration into a cluster provides firm with the following opportunities:
 Proximity and reliability of the business partners increases the competitive security in the
market and gives competitive advantage over non-clustered firms. This is primarily achieved
by lower than the average operating costs in the market.
 Favourable conditions are created to specialise in those activities which reflect firm’s core
competencies. Members of the cluster inevitably specialise because in other case they would
not be able to achieve the professionalism and efficiency which makes them attractive to
other members.
 In the region of the industrial cluster, a certain ‘knowledge cluster’ emerges, where a specific
know-how is created and a large number of professionals concentrate. This makes it easier
for firms not only to find and recruit relevant specialists, but also to educate them and upgrade
their skills by joint effort.
 Easier access to specialised information. This information is expensive, which makes it
difficult for a single firm to access and to use it to one’s benefit. Since cluster is one of the
forms of the network organisation whose functioning is based on trust, co-operation and
information dissemination, it solves this problem with relative ease.
 High growth opportunities. One of the important features of any network-based or similar
systems of co-operation is joining the efforts for implementing large-scale projects whose
initiators and co-ordinators can be any member of the network or cluster. This makes it easier
for firms to enter new markets and to develop systemic products better meeting customer
needs.
 Mature clusters provide favourable conditions for innovation. Since clusters involve not only
businesses, but also science and research institutions, they become partly similar to the
classical innovation system with clearly defined boundaries.

All these factors which increase competitiveness of the specific firms - members of the clusters, have
a similar effect on the competitiveness of the entire economy. For this reason, clusters play an
important role in enhancing competitiveness of the country, region, and economic sectors.

It can be argued that cluster is a territorial configuration which is most likely to enhance learning
processes because clustered firms face lower cost of identifying, accessing and exchanging
information and converting it into knowledge as well as creating and disseminating new knowledge.

3. Contribution of universities to collective learning processes within knowledge-based clusters

The ‘associated institutions’ in the cluster definition by Porter (1998) include universities which are
often a part of the ‘knowledge-based’ clusters. In this paper, by ‘knowledge-based’ we mean clusters
involving firms which use advanced technology, employ sophisticated methods and continuously
innovate, i.e. generate and exploit new knowledge, which enables them to offer unique products and
services. As long as they meet these criteria, firms from any industry can be regarded as ‘knowledge-
based’, i.e. our approach is not limited to traditional ‘high-tech’ industries (IT, biotechnology, etc.).

5
By getting actively involved in clusters and acting as agents of cluster development, universities can
assume the key role in regional development, taking it from the state, i.e. replacing or supplementing
regional development policies with ‘bottom-up’ initiative.

3.1. The changing mission of the university

Universities as institutions producing knowledge through basic and applied research come to play an
increasingly important role in ‘knowledge-based’ clusters, particularly in terms of contribution to
collective learning processes taking place within such clusters. As a result, close links with industry
and business reflect changes in the traditional university mission.

According to Etzkowitz et al. (2000), contemporary university faces the second revolution, i.e. the
assumption of a role in economic development by extending its mission from dissemination to
capitalisation of knowledge, becoming an ‘entrepreneurial’ university. In other words, university
becomes one of the key elements of the innovation system as a provider of human capital, a seed-bed
of new firms and a supplier of technological and managerial expertise, i.e. it participates in the
development of all three areas of collective knowledge (technological, organisational and cultural).

However, at the same time it is important for universities to maintain certain crucial aspects of ‘the
value background of higher education’ (Barnett, 1990). The following values of higher education
emphasised in the literature are relevant to the current discussion:

 The pursuit of truth, including the challenging of existing tenets and practices (Barnett, 1990;
Schuller, 1991);
 Equality of access for students (Clark, 1983);
 Institutional autonomy (Barnett, 1990);
 A neutral and open forum for debate (ibid.);
 Critical thinking (ibid.);
 Disintrestedness, i.e. the expectation that scientific knowledge would be freely distributed
(Merton, 1973).

Involvement of universities in the regional clusters can not only reinforce, but also challenge these
traditional values of higher education.

3.2. University-firm links and collective learning processes

Universities’ contribution to collective learning processes within knowledge-based clusters is

reflected in various links with firms (Table 1). Real world examples of such links in various clusters
are taken from Keeble et al. (1999), Lawson and Lorenz (1999), Etzkowitz (2000), Lawton Smith
and de Bernardy (2000), Sternberg and Tamasy (1999).

As illustrated in the Table 1, it can be argued that various forms of university-firm links within
knowledge-based clusters have different impact in terms of knowledge areas involved and collective
learning processes affected. The more sustained link between universities and firms is, the greater
effect it has on those collective learning processes which require more continuous interaction. For
example, creation of new knowledge, e.g. developing new technology or product may require a long-
term collaboration between academic and industrial researchers providing a necessary mix of
different competencies. Likewise, developing trust, new social norms or common language requires
long-term interaction. Meanwhile, although knowledge acquisition is never-ending by its nature as
knowing is never complete, cluster members normally acquire new knowledge individually. Although
interaction with each other helps to identify and ‘transcode’ external information (this is especially

6
the case with universities for which helping to acquire new knowledge is an important part of their
mission), in case of knowledge acquisition sustainable links are less important than in case of
knowledge creation. Finally, dissemination of the new knowledge requires little sustained effort: even
though it can be a continuous process, it may end or be significantly weakened by a new innovation.

In terms of knowledge areas involved, the more sustained university-firm interaction is the greater
effect it has on the shared tacit knowledge within the cluster. It can be argued that the most sustained
effort is required to affect shared cultural knowledge (common language, values, beliefs, codes of
conduct, conventions, etc.) similarly to organisations, where cultural change takes a lot of time and
effort. Technological knowledge can be developed most rapidly out of the three, especially through
radical innovations and technological breakthroughs. Meanwhile it can be argued that organisational
knowledge is somewhere in-between, since it can involve both elements which can be changed quite
rapidly (division of labour patterns, procedures, processes) and those which require more time due to
their culturally embedded nature (e.g., organisational structures).

There is a number of university-firm links which due to their sustainability can be regarded as
affecting, in one way or another, all collective learning processes and all knowledge areas. Such links
include (Table 1):

(1) supply of highly skilled labour by universities through (continuing) education of specialists:
 new competencies acquired through education enable technological and managerial
innovations, whereas the academic culture can influence emergence of social norms, codes of
conduct, collaboration methods, etc.; for example, according to survey, University of
Cambridge is regarded as a source of regional code of conduct (Keeble et al. 1999, p. 322);
(creation of technological, organisational and cultural knowledge);
 universities help to get insights into the future trends in the area of technology and organising
and acquire new knowledge seeking to reduce the constant ‘competence gap’ in an uncertain
environment (acquisition of technological and organisational knowledge);

 spreads technological and managerial expertise as well as certain values, social norms and
language, e.g. for describing new competencies (dissemination of technological,
organisational and cultural knowledge).

(2) science parks and incubators, one of the key functions of which is commercialisation of the
science base:
 bring together different firms and universities, which may give rise to new collaborative R&D
projects, innovative managerial practices, helps to build trust, common language and
community norms (creation of technological, organisational and cultural knowledge);
 links with university and networking with other firms enable firms located in the science
parks to identify ‘competence gaps’ and to seek technological and managerial knowledge,
which may in turn motivate university to acquire lacking knowledge (acquisition of
technological and organisational knowledge);
 help firms to exploit university research results and competences when developing products,
services and processes; spread values and norms of the academic community (dissemination
of technological, organisational and cultural knowledge).

(3) informal personal contacts and networks involving university researchers and business
community:
 informal links are often more important than formal contacts in creating the atmosphere of co-
operation and information exchange (Lawton Smith and de Bernardy 2000, p. 104), thus
7
 contributing to building trust, common language and social norms; through access to
innovative people, ideas and technologies they enable technological and organisational
innovations (creation of cultural, technological and organisational knowledge);
 informal contacts give cluster members an opportunity to get new information and upgrade
their knowledge (acquisition of technological and organisational knowledge);
 one of the key mechanisms of exchanging information and knowledge, ‘who knows what’,
dominating values, norms and developments in common language (dissemination of
technological, organisational and cultural knowledge).

8
 Table 1. University contribution to collective learning processes

Collective
learning Knowledge areas
processes
DISSEMINATION Technological Technological Technological Technological Technological Technological Technological Technological
Organisationa Organisationa Organisationa Organisationa Organisational Organisational
l l l l
Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural
ACQUISITION Technological Technological Technological Technological Technological Technological
Organisationa Organisationa Organisationa Organisationa Organisational
l l l l

CREATION Technological Technological Technological Technological Technological Technological Technological Technological

Organisationa Organisationa Organisationa Organisationa Organisational Organisational Cultural Cultural
l l l l
Cultural Cultural
Cultural Cultural Cultural Cultural

Supply of Science parks, Informal Labour Consortia for University Direct Technology Consulting of
highly skilled incubators personal mobility/ development of spin-offs, spin- research links transfer firms by
labour (Cambridge, contacts and mobility of new outs, start-ups (Munich, offices / university staff
(Munich, Grenoble, networks research and technologies by university Grenoble, industrial
Grenoble, Oxford, (Sophia- professional staff Cambridge) liaison offices
Göteborg) Helsinki) Antipolis, staff (Göteborg, (Barcelona,
Grenoble, (Cambridge, Helsinki, Cambridge,
Cambridge) Sophia- Cambridge, Oxford,
Antipolis) Oxford, Helsinki,
Sophia- Grenoble)
Antipolis)
Various forms of university-firm interaction

9
Sustainability of interaction 

10
(4) Labour mobility:
 such mobility enables bridging firm needs and competences of the research and
professional staff, which may result in technological and organisational innovations
(creation of technological and organisational knowledge); although it has a potential
to build trust, understanding (common language) and collaboration, sometimes it may
cause hostility between the two sectors when treated as ‘loss’ of expertise, in any case
influencing the cultural identity of the cluster (creation of cultural knowledge);
 may expose firms and universities to the new external information and motivate to
upgrade their knowledge (acquisition of technological and organisational knowledge);
 moving between academic and business environments, research and professional staff
spread the information about the latest and forthcoming technological developments,
the new forms and methods of organising, values and norms (dissemination of
technological, organisational and cultural knowledge).

A number of university-firm links are characterised by lower sustainability, therefore they

affect only a number of collective learning processes and knowledge areas. These links
include (Table 1):

(5) Consortia for development of new technologies (involving academic research groups,
corporate labs, start-up firms, government laboratories):
 in addition to developing new technologies, such consortia help to build new methods
of inter-organisational co-operation as well as trust, collaborative culture and common
language (creation of technological, organisational and cultural knowledge);
 collaborative development of new technologies demands acquiring new knowledge in
the area of both technology and organising (acquisition of technological and
organisational knowledge).

(6) university spin-offs, spin-outs, start-ups by university staff:

 their close contact with university, e.g. having access to university equipment and
knowledge base, leads to technological and organisational innovations, whereas
encouragement of direct and indirect university spin-offs helps to build a collaborative
culture within the region (creation of technological, organisational and cultural
knowledge);
 they serve as a source of dissemination of technological and managerial expertise,
transferring research results to production (dissemination of technological and
organisational knowledge).
(7) Direct research links (industrial sponsorship of academic research):
 in addition to technological, product, process and other innovations, they help to build
trust, collaborative culture and common language (creation of technological and
cultural knowledge);
 research findings benefit the broader business community within the region via labour
mobility, personal contacts and networks (dissemination of technological knowledge).
(8) Technology transfer/ industrial liaison offices:
 by helping to contact specific researchers and research groups, may initiate new
technology/ product development projects; help to build collaborative culture
(creation of technological and cultural knowledge). On the other hand, recent studies
(Lawton Smith and de Bernardy 2000) showed that in some knowledge-based clusters

11
 firms regard their customers as more important external sources of innovation than
universities and public research institutes.
 transfer research results to production, applying them to specific needs of the
companies (dissemination of technological knowledge);
(9) Consulting of firms by university staff:
 stimulates acquisition of new knowledge in the above areas on the part of university
staff to be able to offer new solutions to firms (acquisition of technological and
organisational knowledge).
 helps to spread knowledge and competence in business community, e.g. on
implementing new technologies, modernisation of operating firms and start-ups,
including cross-organisational and cross-institutional entities (dissemination of
technological and organisational knowledge);

Out of the discussed nine forms of university-firm links the most sustainable first four affect
all collective learning processes and knowledge areas. In particular, they enable both creation
and dissemination of shared cultural knowledge, therefore they can be regarded as the most
important for the development of knowledge-based cluster.

4. University involvement in clusters: possible conflicts with the values of higher

education

While universities’ involvement in clusters contributes to regional development through

collective learning processes, it may pose some threats to the traditional values of higher
education (Table 2). Some of these values were pointed out in section 3.1.

Table 2
Possible conflicts with HE values raised by university involvement in regional clusters

HE values Possible conflicts

The pursuit of truth and
objective knowledge
Equality of access
Institutional autonomy
A neutral and open forum for
debate
Critical thinking
Disinterestedness
Firms might not support radical innovation (basic research)
which invalidates the existing knowledge, skills,
competencies, suppliers, infrastructure, etc.
Cluster firms may influence HE institutions to admit more
students to certain fields of study.
Institutional autonomy and in turn the objectivity in search of
truth may be restrained through increasing dependence on
funding from business and industry.
Continuous close interaction with other players of the cluster
may result in developing mental models and group think.
Free distribution of scientific knowledge may be restrained
by contracts or other mechanisms demanded by firms.

12
Maintaining these traditional values of higher education becomes increasingly difficult in the
current interconnected world, where universities are compelled to take up the ‘entrepreneurial
mission’. It seems, this challenge is even greater in so-called regional knowledge-based
clusters, where university research is even more driven by industry, i.e. economic, interests.
As a result, their role in the collective learning processes is not easy and uncontroversial.
Moreover, these processes go both ways: not only firms develop various domains of their
knowledge through interaction with universities – the latter are also influenced by firms.
While in the two domains (organisational and technological knowledge), this influence can be
regarded as mostly positive, it may have negative or at least controversial effects on the third
domain – cultural knowledge, especially where beliefs, norms, values and codes of conduct
are concerned. It can be claimed, therefore, that while universities play an important role in
collective learning through mostly positive effect on its other participants, they themselves
sometimes suffer in the process, losing a part of their autonomy.

5. Promoting regional development through university involvement in clusters in a

developing country?

So far discussion has been based on the examples of knowledge-based clusters from
developed countries. So-called developing countries, namely those which are about to join the
EU, are regarding cluster development as one of the key instruments for their economic
development. However, historical and cultural circumstances of these countries often serve as
obstacles to the emergence of viable clusters and in turn to collective learning. For example,
recent study revealed the following barriers to cluster development in Lithuania (Jucevicius
2002):

 Poor collaborative culture;

 Difficulties related to retraining the highly skilled labour force;
 Low labour mobility;
 Inability of the education system to adjust to the changing environment;
 Lack of entrepreneurial spirit;
 Lack of horizontal links between firms;
 Lack of informal business networks.

These barriers make it difficult to achieve such intensity of university-firm collaboration as

can be observed in more developed European countries. However, it can be argued that most
of the discussed university-firm links can serve as an effective tool, first of all to develop the
collaborative culture which is a primary precondition for the development of clusters. In other
words, universities can act as creators and disseminators of the collaborative culture in their
regions, as suggested, for example, by the Cambridge Phenomenon. At the same time, the
threat to the traditional values of higher education in these countries remains and may be even
heightened by the historical circumstances of the post-Soviet era, characterised by decreased
funding from the state and the pressure on universities to get more external funding.

Conclusions
1. Regional collective learning can be understood as the creation and further development of
a base of common or shared knowledge across a set of geographically proximate firms
which facilitates co-operation and solutions to common problems.

13
2. Collective learning within an ‘innovative milieu’ is enabled by the three processes:
knowledge acquisition, creation and dissemination. These processes cover cultural
knowledge, technological (engineering) knowledge and organisational knowledge.
3. Cluster is the territorial configuration which is most likely to enhance collective learning.
4. While the traditional mission of university is changing and it is assuming a role in
economic development, it is important for universities to maintain the traditional values of
higher education.
5. Universities contribute to collective learning processes within knowledge-based clusters
through various links with firms: supply of highly skilled labour, science parks and
incubators, labour mobility, direct research links, etc. Various forms of university-firm
links within knowledge-based clusters have different impact in terms of knowledge areas
involved and collective learning processes affected.
6. Active involvement of universities in the regional clusters can result in some conflicts
with the traditional values of higher education. It can be claimed, therefore, that while
universities play an important role in collective learning through mostly positive effect on
its other participants, they themselves sometimes suffer in the process, losing a part of
their autonomy.

References:

Argyris C. (1993) On Organizational Learning, Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Mass.

Barnett R. (1990). The Idea of Higher Education, The Society for Research into Higher Education.
Camagni R. (1991) Local ‘Milieu’, Uncertainty and Innovation Networks: Towards a New Dynamic Theory of
Economic Space, In Camagni R. (Ed.) Innovation Networks: Spatial Perspectives, Belhaven, London, pp 121-
142.
Clark B. (1983). The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective,
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Etzkowitz H., Webster A., Gebhardt C., Terra B. (2000) “The Future of the University and the University of the
Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm”, Research Policy, Vol 29, pp 313-330.
Hedberg B. (1981) How Organizations Learn and Unlearn. In Handbook of Organizational Design, pp 3-27.
Jucevicius R. (2002) “Strategic Possibilities for Accelerating Cluster Development”, Social Sciences, Vol 5, No
37, pp 36-41.
Keeble D. and Wilkinson F. (1999) “Collective Learning and Knowledge Development in the Evolution of
Regional Clusters of High Technology SMEs in Europe”, Regional Studies, Vol 33 No. 4, pp 295-303.
Keeble D., Lawson C., Moore B., Wilkinson F. (1999) “Collective Learning Processes, Networking and
‘Institutional Thickness’ in the Cambridge Region”, Regional Studies, Vol 33, No. 4, pp 319-332.
Lawson C. (2000) Collective Learning, System Competences and Epistemically Significant Moments, In Keeble
D. and Wilkinson F. (Eds.), High-technology Clusters, Networking and Collective Learning in Europe, Ashgate,
pp 182-197.
Lawson C. and Lorenz E. (1999) “Collective Learning, Tacit Knowledge and Regional Innovative Capacity”,
Regional Studies, Vol 33, No. 4, pp 305-317.
Lawton Smith H. and de Bernardy M. (2000) University and Public Research Institute Links with Regional
High-Technology SMEs, In Keeble D. and Wilkinson F. (Eds.), High-technology Clusters, Networking and
Collective Learning in Europe, Ashgate, pp 91-117.
Lorenz E. (1992) Trust, Community and Co-operation: Toward a Theory of Industrial Districts, In Storper M.
and Scott A. J. (Eds.), Pathways to Industrialisation and Regional Development, Routledge, London.

14
Lorenz E. (1996) Collective Learning Processes and the Regional Labour Market. Unpublished Research Note,
European Network on Networks, Collective Learning and RTD in Regionally-Clustered High Technology SMEs.
March J. G. (1991) “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning”, Organization Science, Vol 2, No.
1, pp 71-87.
Merton R. (1973). The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
OECD (1999), Managing National Innovation Systems, Paris.
OECD (2001), Innovative Clusters - Drivers of Innovation System. In Hertog P., Bergman E., Charles D.,
Creating and Sustaining Innovative Clusters: Towards a Synthesis.
OECD-DATAR (2001) World Congress on Local Clusters - Local Networks of Enterprises in the World
Economy, Paris.
Porter M.E. (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Free Press, New York.
Porter M.E. (1998) “Clusters and the New Economics of Competition”, Harvard Business Review, November-
December.
Schuller T. (Ed.) (1991). The Future of Higher Education, The Society for Research into Higher Edrucation.
Sproull L. S. and Cohen M. D. (1996) Organizational Learning, Sage, London.
Stankeviciute J. (2002) Methodology for Development of Organisational Knowledge, Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Kaunas University of Technology.
Sternberg R. and Tamasy C. (1999) “Munich as Germany’s No. 1 High Technology Region: Empirical Evidence,
Theoretical Explanations and the Role of Small Firm/ Large Firm Relationships”, Regional Studies, Vol 33, No.
4, pp 367-377.

15