FARKLI BİLGİ TABANLARINA SAHİP SEKTÖRLERDE YAKINLIK TÜRLERİNİN BİLGİ, ÖĞRENME VE YENİLİK/İNOVASYON SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİ: ESKİŞEHİR ÖRNEĞİ

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 58 Sayı: 1, 844 - 881, 01.01.2018

Fatih Altuğ Mutlu Yılmaz

Öz

Bilgiyi üretme, bilgiye erişim ve öğrenme yenilik süreçlerinin temel faktörleridir. Firmaların bu faktörlere erişmesini sağlayan unsurlardan biri de yakınlıklardır. Hem coğrafi hem de ilişkisel boyuta sahip olan yakınlıklar firmaların bilgiye erişimini kolaylaştırarak onların yenilik performansını etkilemektedirler. Yakınlık türlerinin hangi sektörlerde daha etkili olduğu ya da bilgi tabanları birbirinden farklılaşmış sektörlerde hangi yakınlık türünün yenilik süreçlerini etkilediği ise henüz literatürde tam manasıyla yanıt bulamamıştır. Bu kapsamda araştırmanın amacı Eskişehir’de faaliyet gösteren ve bilgi tabanları birbirinden farklı olan sektörlerde yakınlık türlerinin bilgi, öğrenme ve yenilik süreçlerine etkisini incelemektir. Araştırmada nitel araştırma tekniklerinden derinlemesine görüşme tekniği uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgulara göre yakınlık türlerinin yenilik süreçlerine etkisi bilgi tabanı farklı olan sektörlere göre değişmektedir. Bu sonuçlar neticesinde araştırma hem literatüre katkı sağlamakta hem de yenilik ile ilgili politikalara yeni bir perspektif kazandırmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yenilik, Bilgi Tabanı, Coğrafi Yakınlık, Bilişsel Yakınlık, Sosyal Yakınlık, Kurumsal Yakınlık, Örgütsel Yakınlık

THE IMPACT OF PROXIMITY FORMS ON KNOWLEDGE, LEARNING AND INNOVATION PROCESSES IN SECTORS WITH DIFFERENT KNOWLEDGE BASES: A CASE STUDY OF ESKİŞEHİR

Öz

Knowledge generation, knowledge access and learning are key factors in innovation processes. One of the factors that enables firms to access these factors is their proximity. Proximities which have both geographical and relational dimensions facilitate firms' access to knowledge and affects their innovation performance. Which types of proximities are more effective in which sectors has not yet been fully met with an answer in the literature. In this context, the aim of the research is to investigate the effects of types of proximities on knowledge, learning and innovation processes in the sectors operating in Eskişehir and whose knowledge bases are different from each other. In this research, in-depth interviewing technique was applied from qualitative research techniques. According to the findings obtained, the effect of types of closeness on innovation processes varies according to the sectors whose knowledge base is different. Based on these results, this study contributes both to the literature and to a new perspective on innovation policy.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Innovation, Knowledge Base, Geographical Proximity, Cognitive Proximity, Social Proximity, Institutional Proximity, Organizational Proximity

Kaynakça

• Algan, Ertuğrul, “Eskişehir’de Lületaşı.” Anadolu Üniversitesi Sanat ve Tasarım Dergisi 5.8 (2015): 1-31.
• Asheim, Bjorn. “The Changing Role of Learning Regions In The Globalizing Knowledge Economy: A Theorical Re-Examination.” Regional Studies 46. 8 (2012): 993-1004.
• Asheim, Bjorn ve diğerleri. “Regional Innovation System Policy: A Knowledge-Based Approach.”Regional Studies 45. 7 (2007): 875-891.
• Asheim, Bjorn ve Lars Coenen. “Knowledge Bases and Regional Innovation Systems: Comparing Nordic Clusters.” Research Policy 34. 8 (2005): 1173–1190.
• Asheim, Bjorn, Lars Coenen ve Jan Vang. “Face-to-Face, Buzz and Knowledge Bases: Socio-Spatial Implications for Learning and Innovation Policy.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 25 (2007): 655-670.
• Asheim, Bjorn ve Meric S. Gertler. “The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems.” The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Ed. Jan Fagerber ve David. C. Mowery. New York: Oxford Universy Press, 2005. 291-318.
• Balland, P. Alexander, Ron Boschma ve Koen Frenken. “Proximity and Innovation: From Statics to Dynamics.” Regional Studies 49. 6 (2015): 907-920.
• Bilim, Cahit. “Deniz Köpüğü, Lületaşı.” Ankara Üniversitesi Osmanlı Tarihi Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi Dergisi (OTAM) 8 (1997): 89-130.
• Boschma, Ron, P. Alexander Balland ve Mathijs de Vaan. (2014). “The Formation of Economic Networks: A Proximity Approach.” Regional Development and Proximity Relations. Ed. Andre Torre and Frédéric Wallet. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar 2014. 243-267.
• Boschma, Ron. A. “Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment.” Regional Studies 39. 1 (2005), 61–74.
• Broekel, Tom ve Ron Boschma. “Knowledge Networks in The Dutch Aviation Industry The Proximity Paradox.” Journal of Economic Geography 12 (2012): 409-433.
• Duru, Serdar. Kimya Sanayiinde Kümelenme: Kimya Parkları. Kalkınma Bakanlığı İktisadi Sektörler ve Koordinasyon Genel Müdürlüğü, 2014. Web. 26 Kasım 2015
• Ertek, Esin, Kimya Sektörü Raporu. İstanbul: Türkiye Sınai Kalkınma Bankası, 2014.
• ESO (Eskişehir Sanayi Odası). Eskişehir Ekonomisinin Genel Yapısı. Eskişehir: ESO, 2014.
• Feldman, P. Maryann ve Dieter F. Kogler. “Stylized Facts in the Geography of Innovation.” The Handbook of Economics of Innovation 1 (2010): 381-404.
• Foray, Dominique ve Bengt-äke Lundvall. “The Knowledge-Based Economy: From the Economics of Knowledge to the Learning Economy.” The Economic Impact of Knowledge. Ed. Dale Neef, G. Anthony Siesfield ve Jacquelyn Cefola. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1998. 115-123.
• Gertler, Meric, S. “Tacit Knowledge and The Economic Geography of Context or The Undefinable Tacitness of Being (There)” Journal of Economic Geography 3 (2003): 75-99.
• Grimaldi, Rosa ve Salvatore Torrisi. “CodiŞed-Tacit and General-SpeciŞc Knowledge in The Division of Labour Among Firms a Study of The Software Industry.” Research Policy 30 (2001): 1425–1442.
• Gümüşdaş, Emine. Türkiye’de Savunma Sanayii ve Savunma Harcamalarının Ekonomideki Yeri. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Niğde Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, 2010.
• Holste, J. Scott ve Dail Fields. “Trust and Tacit Knowledge Sharing and Use.” Journal of Knowledge Management 14. 1 (2010): 128 – 140.
• Howell, Anthony. Inside China’s “Growth Miracle:” A Structural Framework of Firm Concentration, Innovation and Performance with Policy Distortions. University of California, San Francisco, 2014. Doctoral Thesis: Full-Text. ProQest. Web. 1 Ocak 2015.
• Howells, Jeremy H. L. “Tacit Knowledge, Innovation and Economic Geography.” Urban Studies 39. 5-6 (2002): 871-884.
• Huber, Franz. “On The Role and Interrelational of Spatial, Social and Cognitive Proximity: Personal Knowledge Relationships of R&G Workers in the Cambridge Information Technology Cluster.” Regional Studies 46. 9 (2012): 1169-1182.
• Knoben, Joris ve Leon Oerlemans. “Proximity and Inter-Organizational Collaboration: A Literature Review.” International Journal of Management Reviews 8. 2 (2006): 71-89.
• Lagendijk, Arnound ve Anne Lorentzen. “Proximity, Knowledge and Innovation in Peripheral Regions. On The Intersection between Geographical and Organizational Proximity.” European Planning Studies 15. 4 (2007): 457-466.
• Lundvall, Bengt-äke ve Björn Johnson. “The Learning Economy.” Journal of Industry Studies 1. 2 (1994): 23-42.
• Manniche, Jesper. “Combinational Knowledge Dynamics: On the Usefulness of the Differentiated Knowledge Bases Model.” European Planing Studies 20. 11 (2012): 1823-1841.
• Martin, Roman. Knowledge Bases and The Geography of Innovation. Lund University Middelanden Fran Institutionen För Kulturgeografi och Ekonomisk Geografi Avhandlingar, 2012. Phd. Thesis: Full Text. Lund University. Web.17 Mart 2015.
• Martin, Roman ve Jerker Moodysson. “Comparing Knowledge Bases: On the Geography and Organization of Knowledge Sourcing in the Regional Innovation System of Scania, Sweden.” European Urban and Regional Studies 20. 2 (2011): 170-187.
• Matney, Susan ve diğerleri. “Philosophical Approaches to the Nursing Informatics Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom Framework.” Advances in Nursing Science 34. 1 (2011): 6-18.
• Mattes, Jannika. “Dimensions of Proximity and Knowledge Bases: Innovation between Spatial and Non-Spatial Factors.”Regional Studies 46.8 (2012): 1085– 1099.
• Miles, B. Matthew ve A. Michael Huberman. Nitel Veri Analizi. Çev. Ed. Sadegül Akbaba Altun ve Ali Ersoy. Ankara: Pegem Akademi, 2015.
• Nelson, Richard ve Siydney Winter. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.
• OECD. The Knowledge-Based Economy. Paris: OECD,1996.
• ORAN (Orta Anadolu Kalkınma Ajansı). TR72 Bölgesi (Kayseri, Sivas, Yozgat) Savunma Sanayine Yönelik İmalat Sanayi Raporu. Ankara: Türkiye Kalkınma Bankası, 2013.
• Özelçi, Tanyel. Technology Change in Industry and Regional Development Case Study: Determination of Eskişehir’s Regional Indigenous of Potential for Technological Chgange and Industrial Development. Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi. Ortadoğu Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, 1994.
• Polanyi, Michael. Tacit Dimension. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966.
• Punch, Keith F. Sosyal Araştırmalara Giriş Nicel ve Nitel Yaklaşımlar. Çev. Dursun Bayrak, H. Bader Arslan ve Zeynep Akyüz. Ankara: Siyasal Kitabevi, 2011.
• Ranucci, R. Ann ve David Souder. "Facilitating Tacit Knowledge Transfer: Routine Compatibility, Trustworthiness, and Integration in M & As.” Journal of Knowledge Management 19. 2 (2015): 257 – 276.
• Scott, Allen. Geography and Economy. London: Clarendon Press, 2006.
• Sen, Arup. Innovation, Collaboration, and Outsourcing: An Exploratory Study of the U.S. Biopharmaceutical Sector. The State University of New York at Buffalo, 2007. Doktoral Thesis: Full-Text, ProQuest. Web. 29 Ocak 2015.
• Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. SIPRI Military Expenditure Database 2017. Web: 21 Mayıs 2017.
• Stover, Mark. “Making Tacit Knowledge Explicit: The Ready Reference Database as Codified Knowledge.” Reference Services Review 32. 2 (2004): 164 – 173.
• Taşlıgil, Nuran ve Güven Şahin. “Doğal ve Kültürel Özellikleri ile Lületaşı.” Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi 4. 16 (2011): 436-452.
• Tether, Cher Li ve Andrea Mina. “Knowledge-Bases, Places, Spatial Configurations and the Performance of Knowledge-Intensive Professional Service Firm.” Journal of Economic Geography 12 (2012): 969–1001.
• Torre, Andre ve Allain Rallet. “Proximity and Localization.” Regional Studies 39. 1 (2005): 47-59.
• Torre, Andre ve Jean Pierre Gilly. “On the Analytical Dimensions of Proximity Dynamics.” Regional Studies 34. 2 (2000): 169-180.
• Tunçdilek, Necdet. “Lületaşı.” Türk Coğrafya Dergisi 12. 13-14 (1955): 91-106.
• Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. Dış Ticaret İstatistikleri, 2017. Web. 17 Mayıs 2017.
• Vissers, Geert ve Ben Dankbaar. “Knowledge and Proximity.” European Planning Studies 21.5 (2013): 700-721.
• Vizyon 2023 Projesi Savunma, Havacılık ve Uzay Paneli. Ankara: TÜBİTAK, 2003.