Knowledge Transfer in the Cultural and Creative Sector: Institutional Aspects and Perspectives from Actors in Selected Atlantic Regions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article entitled "Knowledge Transfer in the Cultural and Creative Sector: Institutional Aspects and Perspectives from Actors in Selected Atlantic Regions" deals with a topic of particular interest and relevance. In general, the topic is well approached, and the paper is easily read. However, some suggestions that the authors could address are noted.

Abstract

There may be an error: "the entrepreneurial structure and organization of CCS; ii) the type of knowledge, innovation, and motivations of firms; and their connections to HEI”

Introduction

There may be an error: "The last years of the 21st century was marked by a transition in the industrial models."

2. The Cultural and Creative Sector: Some Specificities

2.1. Cultural and Creative Sector Definition

Explain the reason why the decision is made to include the sectors: "Abstaining from such a debate, for the article purposes we consider the sector noted in Table 1 - including some subsectors which do not normally figure in the idea of "industry," given its social and cultural actions."

2.2. Organizational and Entrepreneurial Structure in the Cultural and Creative Sector

What kind of industries are you referring to? "Such a factor ties directly to the informal and territorially bounded nature of the CCS in ways similar to other industries."

2.3. Motivations and Innovation in the Cultural and Creative Sector

What does the expression "simple economic dimension" refer to?

2.4. Connections of the Cultural and Creative Sector with Higher Education Institutions

The authors can expose some more disconnect factor between Culture and Creative Sector with Higher Education Institutions.

3. Policy on Cultural and Creative Industries

3.1. Institutional and Political Outline of the Selected Atlantic Regions

The authors could indicate the Table number mentioned in the first paragraph of this point.

The "Smart Specialization Strategies" should be explained more thoroughly

3.2. Flows from the HEI to the CCS

In the first paragraph of this point should include some reference to the ideas that are exposed.

3.3. Flows within the Cultural and Creative Sector

In the last paragraphs of page 9, some reference should be included that corroborates the ideas expressed by the authors, or a greater explanation of the events that are narrated.

3.4. Flows within Higher Education Institutions

As with the previous points, a greater contribution of reference or some justification of what is indicated would be needed.

4. Cultural and Creative Actors' Perspectives on Knowledge Transfer

4.1. Methodological Notes

The authors should include some reference or an explanation and foundation of the ideas that are proposed.

4.1. Methodological Notes

You can see a word in Spanish ("Andalucía," "Astúrias," etc.)

5. Conclusion

The authors should address the conclusions more broadly, beyond a summary of the work, should discuss the research problem and the challenges they face.

Author Response

Dear Editors of Social Sciences and Peer Reviewers,

First of all we would like to thank both reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which made significant contributions for the improvement of our manuscript.

A detailed list of answers to every point both reviewers made in their reports is present below.

In respect to Reviewer 1's comments:

-Abstract: Corrections regarding phrasing were made.

Section 2.1

-An explanation was included as to why these subsectors were chosen

Section 2.2 and Section 2.3

-These terms were clarified.

Section 2.4

The points related to the connections (or lack thereof) between HEI and CCS were briefly expanded.

Section 3.1

The table number was included and, alongside further explanations owing to reviewer 2, Smart specialisation strategies were better contextualised

Section 3.2, Section 3.3 and 3.4

The perspectives were further justified and references were included from the previous sections to justify why these perspectives are considered necessary and adequate for public actors seeking to promote HEI dealing with CCS

Section 4.1

-Methodological Notes: Corrections regarding spelling mistakes were made. A more extensive contextualisation was included, as well as justifications for the choice of the type of company, as well as justifying the absence of Ireland from the results.

-Conclusion: We made substantial changes to the conclusion, especially in light of the changes to the text, which sought to better frame the conclusions of the paper. We stated the research issue and approach more clearly. In particular, we gave more emphasis to the conclusions on the insufficiency of policy undertaken by public actors, as well as to the links between the proposed lines of intervention, serving as a preliminary policy model, and the perceptions of the actors. More context and nuance was given, by noting some research areas left to explore, the difficulties associated with the field, as well as the implications of future lines of research.

Please feel free to request any further explanations regarding these corrections as you deem fit.

Our best regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is relevant considering that the CCS developed considerably in the past decades and it has a growing impact on economy. The innovative side of creativity also has increased. These are additional arguments for more relationships with the HEI. On the other hand, a significant part of the CCS (at least in number of organizations) is formed by (small and local) NGOs operating in cultural sector. Please, consider also this aspect. The paper concentrates on larger companies which are part of CCS. This could be a valid option, but it has to be specified and argued in the paper.

The paper mentions the extension to the Quadruple Helix, which includes the NGOso even Quintuple Helix – very relevant, as mentioned, when referring to CCS. We recommend a more extended reference to this framework because it is influential in the case of CCR.

Considering the actors of the Q-Helix, there are some mismatches to be considered. The abstract and the first part of the introduction speak about the relationship of CCS members and HEI. At the of the introduction- the focus is on public actors and policy issues.

Section  2.2.  please have in mind the following

-                                  Even if many members are small organizations, a part is composed by larger organizations – theaters, museums, media etc. Pay attention to generalizations – the sector very complex,  as observed in the paper.

-                                  A significant part is composed by NGOs – these organizations connect and operate differently from firms

-                                  Access to resources (mostly financial but not only) and know-how are also relevant aspects for at least some sectors

Policy research

-          A more detailed presentation of the methodology is relevant for understanding the results. The items used could be also presented systemically.

-          The policy-related investigation is quite interesting. Some more discussions could be related to the implications for the CCS organizations in the regions. It is not clear/discussed the connection of thus research and the knowledge transfer aspects or the connection with HEIs, which is the main focus of the research.

Section 3.2 - A more structured approach, maybe identifying possible typologies/patterns, is welcomed.

Section 3.3 seems to a component / proposal connected to the 3.2 relationship

Section 4

-          The sample /typology of the responding organizations is not clear

-          Discussions to be considered

1.       How wide is the variance inside each geographic cluster

2.       Could some other relevant clusters to be considered (for instance related to type of organizations responding)

3.       What are the causes of the geographic differences

4.       in which way if it occurs, the policy framework influences the CCS-HEI relationships

5.       To what extent the profile (not the geographic one) influences the HEI relationship

Conclusions section

-          Ireland is not included in the HEI relationship analysis

-          Discuss the limits

-          Stress if specific new aspects of the knowledge transfer pattern in CCS are idenfified-   

Some additional references to consider

– Cacciatori, E., Tamoschus, D. and Grabher, G. (2012). Knowledge transfer across projects: Codification in creative, high-tech and engineering industries, Management Learning, 43(3), pp. 309-331.

- Dovey, J., Moreton, S., Sparke, S., & Sharpe, B. (2016). The practice of cultural ecology: Network connectivity in the creative economy. Cultural Trends, 25(2), 87-103.

- Ketikidis, P., Solomon, A., Siavalas, F., & Bota, E. (2016). Quintuple Helix co-creation as a pillar for responsible (environmentally and socially) entrepreneurship. In Responsible Entrepreneurship Vision, Development and Ethics, 379.

- Kimpeler, S., & Georgieff, P. (2009). The roles of creative industries in regional innovation and knowledge transfer–The case of Austria. In Measuring creativity. Conference “Can creativity be measured” 2009. Proceedings (pp. 207-219).

- Moreton, S. (2016). Rethinking ‘knowledge exchange’: new approaches to collaborative work in the arts and humanities. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 22(1), 100-115.

- 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.

- Stadler, R., & Fullagar, S. (2016). Appreciating formal and informal knowledge transfer practices within creative festival organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20(1), 146-161.

- Zbuchea, A., & Leon, R. (2015). Knowledge sharing barriers in cultural organizations. Proceedings IFKAD 2015 (pp.1716-1727), Bari.

Author Response

Dear Editors of Social Sciences and Peer Reviewers,

First of all we would like to thank both reviewers for their comments and suggestions, which made significant contributions for the improvement of our manuscript.

A detailed list of answers to every point both reviewers made in their reports is present below.

In respect to Reviewer 2's comments:

-Abstract, Introduction:

The abstract was edited to better reflect the focus of the research, namely in focusing on the policy implications and on the role of public actors. This was done to remove ambiguity about the matter of research. The aspect of NGO's and the quintuple helix were included in order to better reflect the complexity of the CCS.

The choice of focusing the discussion on small and medium sized companies was justified at the end of the introduction and beginning of the second section.

In that light, we think the source of confusion mentioned may have become less prevalent.

Section 2.2:

We have included references to the broader context of cultural organisations and some of the issues that affect them.

Section 3:

We have shifted the organisation as per the reviewers comments to better structure the presentation, bridging two subsections and giving a more streamlined presentation of the model types as well as the possible regional implications.

Section 4.1:

-Methodological notes: we corrected a previous typo regarding the number of documents, and we described more explicitly the process of obtaining the documents, as well as the categories used. Concretely, a table was added to appendix A, where all the documents used for the content analysis are identified by authorship, by year of publication, by geographic scope, by country/region analysed, and by type of document

Section 4.2:

Point 1 - there is consistence regarding the organisations in each geographical cluster. Anyway, we agree that a further expansion of the study (with a larger sample than the one we were able to get in this particular research) could try to understand the varieties of organisations within each geographical cluster.

Point 2 - Indeed this could very well be the case, however, we focused here exclusively on the perceptions of small and medium sized companies in order to make the issue tractable, and have edited the manuscript to reflect that choice.

Point 3 - The goal of our research was not to discern inherent causes - the research was intended to be qualitative, given the field is not very well understood to begin with. As such, we did not look into specific factors that conditioned the geographic differences, but mostly relied on the association made with the policy previously discussed. As such we were not able to address this issue.

Point 4 - Unfortunately we could not proceed with this line of inquiry. Initial tests with the surveys noted that questions related to the engagement with policy frameworks were deemed by respondents to be too abstract, since respondents mostly understood them to mean specific projects undertaken directly by public actors. Questions related to it were ultimately dropped. A brief mention of these aspects, as well as calling attention to the fact that we are discussing the perceptions of CCS actors about policy as it translates in the actions undertaken by HEI actors - that is, considering that the perceived weakness, when they add to the lack of policy actions previously noted, says more about the public actors than about HEI. This is indeed an explicit choice, and we added a justification for it on the text.

Point 5 - Due to the characteristics of the sample, which are indeed share the structure as it is often presented in statistical analysis of the CCI, company size could not be considered, as around 78% of companies had less than 5 employees and another 19% had between 5 and 10. In terms of the subsector, we had identified a typology of subsectors connected with the type of content handled that had previously been excluded from the article. Owing to the reviewers notes we included it and provided some discussion of the implications and connections between subsectors, the HEI and public policy.

Conclusions - The conclusions were retailored to better suit the current discussion, as a broader approach was given. Corrections pointed out were undertaken.

Please feel free to request any further explanations regarding these corrections as you deem fit.

Our best regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is one of the few concentrated on the creative sector and the associate knowledge management processes. Therefore, it is very relevant for better understanding this topic, especially that the approach is systemic and the geographic span in wide. 

My only recommendation at this point is to pinpoint during the discussions related to the results of the investigations undergone the practical implications for each of the member of the quadruple helix. 

Author Response

Dear Editors of Social Sciences and Peer Reviewers,

We would like to thank again the reviewers for their suggestions for the improvement of our manuscript.

Regarding the comment of reviwer 2:

"My only recommendation at this point is to pinpoint during the discussions related to the results of the investigations undergone the practical implications for each of the member of the quadruple helix."

A paragraph was added to the conclusion of the article in order to make clear the implications for the different types of actors of the quadruple helix.

Please feel free to request any further explanations regarding these corrections as you deem fit.

Our best regards,