Cluster evolution and the change of knowledge bases: the development of a design cluster

Most studies portray cluster knowledge bases as a given resource, tied to specific industries and locations. However, this paper challenges that view and uncovers their dynamic nature by identifying endogenous and exogenous triggering events that influence and change the cluster knowledge base mix over time. This is done by building on the theoretical concepts of pre-existing conditions, triggering events and knowledge bases and by drawing on a case study of the design cluster located in the Triangle Area of Denmark. The paper concludes that the design cluster has changed its mix of knowledge bases several times during its evolution. Starting out as a firm-driven cluster with a dominant synthetic knowledge base, it then evolved into an artistic and creative cluster with a prevailing symbolic knowledge base. In the last few years, the cluster has increasingly adopted an analytical knowledge base at the expense of other knowledge bases. These developments have caused numerous changes in both knowledge building and the sources of knowledge in and around the cluster. These findings have implications for the framing of cluster knowledge bases, considering how they emerge, change and combine, as well as how that affects clusters’ composition of actors, activities and resources.     

The development of ∂/interconsonantal laryngeal in Iranian

Conclusion The examination of the material has shown that the only indisputable counter-example against Meillet's theory is Av. (p)tar- and its derivatives -fr and tirya-. All the other examples have been shown to be wrong, or at least to have other and in my opinion better explanations. Other theories beside Meillet's have been rejected, either because they are based upon such presuppositions as make them objectionable from a methodological point of view, or because they do not explain the actual facts as they stand. Even though no convincing explanation has been found to make ptar- fit in with Meillet's theory, I do not think that this word alone is justification enough for abandoning this otherwise well-founded theory and replace it with one which can perhaps account for this word, but is in other respects inferior to Meillet's.This article is an adaption of a part of my thesis for the degree of Magister Artium in Comparative Indo-European linguistics at the University of Oslo. I thank Professor F. O. Lindeman and Research fellow P. Skjærvø for their assistance in the preparation, and Professor F. B. J. Kuiper for valuable comments on some points in the article.