Different Modes of Innovation and the Challenge of Connecting Universities and Industry: Case Studies of Two Regional Industries in Norway

The paper argues that no single formula exists for how universities can stimulate innovation activity and industrial development in a particular region. The type of university–industry cooperation must be fined-tuned according to the knowledge base of the university and to the dominant mode of innovation in the regional industry. This article discusses two different modes of innovation: science, technology, innovation (STI) and doing, using, interacting (DUI). The unit of analysis is innovation and cooperation with universities in two regional industries in Norway, which are dominated by the two modes of innovation: STI (marine biotechnology in Tromsø) and DUI (oil and gas equipment suppliers in Agder). The empirical analyses demonstrate the different roles that universities play in these two regional industries. The University of Tromsø is the main organization behind the development of the marine biotechnology industry in Tromsø and is an important knowledge node and source of biotechnology spin-offs. Equipment suppliers in Agder have become world leaders in some niches, almost without research cooperation with universities. A general lesson is that the dominant mode of innovation in a regional industry makes a difference to the role universities can play in stimulating the development of the industry.     

A new technique for archaeological field measuring

Bente Magnus and Bj?rn Myhre: Forhistorien. Fra jegergruppe til h?vdingsamfunn. Norges Historie, Bind 1 (Prehistory. From hunting groups to a society of chieftainships. The History of Norway, Vol. 1). J. W. Cappelens Forlag A.S., Oslo 1976. 448 pp., 233 Figs.

Anders Hagen: Norges oldtid. Ny utgave. (Norway in Ancient Times. New edition.) J. W. Cappelens Forlag A.S., Oslo 1977. 332 pp., 86 Figs.     

Networking Europe

The paper explores processes of transnational network building in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. The first section reviews several relevant literatures. It concludes that historiographies of Europe often recognize the pivotal importance of transnational network building, but fail to analyse network developments as well as their entanglement with wider historical processes. Specialized infrastructure studies exist in economic and technological history, but have a distinct (sub)national focus. The networking of Europe has not been investigated. The second section presents a preliminary narrative of transnational network building in the 19th and 20th century. It highlights the relationship between network building and political events in different eras, as well as different types of ambiguities or tensions. The conclusion suggests a number of topics for further research.