知识基础、学习场与技术创新
|
摘要
在知识经济时代，发展知识经济、不断增强创新能力已成为世界各国提高竞争优势、促进区域经济发展的关键举措。区域经济在全球化时代的复兴，美国硅谷、德国巴登—符腾堡、台湾新竹等一些创新高地的成功实践，使得构建区域创新环境与创新系统、增强本地根植性、实现跨区连接与全球互动等一系列促进区域创新与发展的政策成为后发地区与国家增强竞争力与创新能力的重要议题。在国际经济地理学界，区域技术学习创新已经成为研究和争论的一个前沿和热点领域，围绕技术学习、创新与空间、地方之间的关系，学者们从不同层面强调了地方网络与地方根植性、地理接近与空间集聚、跨国社区与跨区联系、全球网络及非本地关系与知识流动等对于创新发生的重要性，并认为创新是一个地方化力量和全球化力量相互作用的过程，是不同空间尺度上各个关键行动者之间持续的关系构建和战略协同的演化过程，具有强烈的时空异质性和敏感性的特征。另一方面，后发地区与国家的技术追赶绩效与创新模式在行业间差异明显，产业的技术体制有着不同的特征，并且有关产业知识基础的研究表明，产业中知识来源、组织和创新模式依知识基础的不同而存在明显的差异。因此，有关创新的理论讨论与政策设计，需要考察产业特殊性与技术/知识异质性。那些成功区域的创新政策与经验，并不能被后发地区不加改变的模仿和使用。
基于此，文章把知识/技术异质性纳入到空间化学习创新理论的建构中，试图形成一个技术/知识基础、产业、空间三位一体的分析框架，把技术/知识的属性、产业特征与空间异质性统一起来进行考虑，来研究不同的技术/知识属性、产业属性对创新的组织与地理模式的影响，并从知识基础的角度出发，结合“学习场”理论，探讨知识复杂性与学习场的理论构建。以此为基础，选择超硬材料产业作为案例，重点研究分析性知识基础与科学型学习场的创新机制、组织与地理模式。全文内容共分为八章。
第一章，引言。主要包括研究的背景、问题的提出、研究意义、研究思路与内容、研究方法与技术路线等。提高创新能力已成为增强区域竞争力的重要举措，一些成功地区有关构建区域创新环境与创新系统、增强本地的根植性、实现跨区连接与全球互动等创新政策日益被后发地区与国家推崇与模仿，而这些挑选赢者与最佳实践模式的区域创新理论和政策，实践中并没有在模仿者那里取得预期的成功。因此，有必要重新审视国际主流的空间化学习与创新的理论与政策。有关技术体制与知识基础的研究发现，由于技术体制与知识基础的差异，技术创新的机制、组织与地理模式在不同的产业具有很大差异。基于此，本文认为，有关创新机制与模式的理论与政策设计，需要结合具体的技术/知识特征来讨论，这对于构建更加综合和精细化的技术学习与创新的理论模型有十分重要的意义，同时也有助于改变不加区别的拷贝成功区域创新政策的实践误区，从而制定出量体裁衣的创新政策。
第二章：研究综述。围绕论文研究的理论与现实问题，从创新思想的演变、经济地理学技术学习与创新研究视角的变迁、技术体制与创新模式、知识基础与创新等角度，对相关文献进行了梳理和评述，得出以下结论：创新是科学研究、技术发明和经济活动内在紧密交织的复杂网络，是一个多元主体及其在多种空间尺度上战略协同的过程，具有较强的空间异质性；技术具有多元性与复杂性的特点，这种复杂性表现为技术机会、创新独占性与累积性等因素的特定组合——技术体制，而技术体制的不同影响着技术追赶与创新的绩效与模式；知识基础具有多元性，表现为编码与非编码知识的组合程度、知识正式化以及情景特殊的程度等，而产业知识基础的差异影响着技术创新的机制与组织、地理模式。由此，有关从地方与全球、内部与外部力量对于创新发生的影响因素和作用机制的各种空间学习创新理论，需要把技术/知识异质性考虑进去，这样才有助于我们更全面的理解学习创新的机理。
第三章，理论基础与分析框架。这一部分首先对新产业区理论、全球生产网络与价值链理论等各种空间化的学习创新理论进行梳理与评述。在此基础上，引入本研究的两个核心理论：学习场理论与知识基础理论。认为由于学习创新的空间异质性与知识技术复杂性，有必要把知识基础的复杂性纳入到空间化的学习创新理论中去，有关空间创新的理论研究需要从空间/关系、技术/知识两个角度，结合具体的产业进行讨论。基于此，文章设计了空间、产业、技术/知识三位一体的分析框架，强调把研究的焦点放在创新的主体、机制与地理模式三个方面。
第四章，知识基础与学习场理论建构。本章首先阐述了物理场-信息场-知识场-创造场-学习场的思想演变，并从关系的角度阐述了学习场的多元性与复杂性；其次，阐述了知识类型、知识基础与空间创新的研究脉络与逻辑；第三，从知识创造的角度，阐述了知识类型、知识转化与场的关系，特定的知识转化阶段与不同的场密切相关。基于这些研究，文章分析了知识基础与学习场的内在联系，区分了符号知识与创意型学习场、综合知识与根植型学习场、解析知识与科学型学习场以及复杂知识与混合型学习场等几种类型，并对相应类型的创新机制与组织模式进行了研究。
第五章，世界超硬材料行业的发展与技术创新。基于理论的研究，选取超硬材料行业为案例进行研究，首先在全球尺度上，探讨科学驱动型产业技术创新的一般特征，行业创新具有全球化的特征。本章主要介绍了超硬材料的行业特征、全球格局以及技术创新与发展。研究发现，超硬材料行业具有专业化分工程度高、对经济发展依赖性强以及各环节附加值、地理分布不同等特征。行业的发展与创新对基于know-what、 know-why的分析性知识基础具有较强的依赖性，科学技术与科学研究的不断进步是推动世界超硬材料行业的发展与创新的重要力量，如近代科学知识的发展促进了世界第一颗人造金刚石的合成，并推动了人造金刚石的工业化生产；化学气相沉积合成研究带来了“金刚石薄膜”的兴起，拓展了金刚石的应用领域；纳米科学与纳米技术促进了纳米金刚石的问世，使金刚石特殊性能得以发挥，引发了金刚石时代的到来。
第六章，中国超硬材料行业的发展与技术创新。国家尺度是学习场分析常用的尺度。中国金刚石行业发展与技术创新与科学研究密切相关，并且政府、国家重点实验室等国家力量的作用十分明显。中国第一个金刚石成功合成得益于早期学者、专家对超高压高温理论的研究与探索；对金刚石合成机理、工艺及相关原理等科学研究的全面展开，则引发了20世纪80、90年代我国金刚石行业的突破创新，并成为世界上第一大生产国；而随着20世纪90年代压机大型化与合成工艺的进步，更是引发了行业的突破发展，金刚石行业开始向超硬材料强国迈进。总体上，超硬材料行业的技术创新与发展十分依赖于科学研究与突破，行业创新具有科学驱动型特征，基于科学基础的分析性知识、一些重要的科学家及科研院所在其中发挥着重要作用。目前，中国已成为超硬材料生产第一大国，超硬材料工业体系初步形成，区域集聚与行业集中度较高。但整体上，国内产品同质化严重，还处于行业价值链的低端。
第七章，科学型学习场与郑州高新区超硬材料行业技术创新。选取郑州高新区超硬材料产业园为案例，对小尺度科学型学习场的创新组织与地理模式进行研究，得出以下结论：郑州超硬材料行业的发轫与形成得益于郑州磨料磨具磨削研究所这一技术极的力量，郑州磨料磨具磨削研究所从人才培养、技术溢出与扩散以及企业衍生等方面为郑州超硬材料行业的发展与壮大做出了重大贡献；产业园区的技术创新十分依赖于正式的研发，通过研发、技术进步来学习是企业实现创新的一个重要途径；大学、科研机构、行业知名专家（明星科学家）在企业的技术进步升级中发挥着关键作用；加强与大学、科研院以及行业的知识社区联系是这类行业企业技术创新的政策重点；产业园区的创新网络并不仅仅局限于本地，可以通过专家知识社区运行在更大的空间尺度上，企业研发的合作网络也具有跨越本地的特征；大学、科研机构的产学研与专利转让也不仅限于本地，在省外与国内都有分布，多尺度关系建构的特征十分显着。
第八章，结论及展望。通过研究，主要得出以下结论：（1）创新不仅具时空情景敏感性的特征，更具有技术知识异质性的特征，有关地理空间对于创新发生的机制影响的研究需要结合具体的知识基础进行讨论；创新政策的设计需要谨慎的根据不同的产业知识基础而进行；（2）从知识创造的视角出发，知识创造与具体的场紧密相连，不同的知识类型的转化过程与不同的场联系在一起；（3）不同的知识基础与多元学习场密切相关，不同的知识基础与不同的学习场一一对应。理论上，存在着符号知识与创意型学习场、综合性知识与根植型学习场、分析性知识与科学型学习场、复杂知识与混合型学习场等拓扑联系。（4）超硬材料行业的创新与发展较强的依赖于分析性知识，具有科学驱动型行业的特征；（5）科研院所等技术极是郑州（高新区）超硬材料行业创新与发展的关键力量，其在技术扩散、衍生企业、培训专业人才等方面发挥着重要作用；（6）郑州高新区超硬材料产业园属于一个以分析性知识基础为主导的科学驱动型学习场，正式研发、依托科研院所的成果并与其保持紧密联系是其技术创新的重要机制，并且创新的地理具有多尺度的特征。同时并针对论文中存在的不足，提出今后要开展的进一步研究工作。
In the era of knowledge economy, developing knowledge economy and continuously enhancing theinnovation capability have become the key steps to improve competitive advantage and promote regionaleconomic development in all countries around the world. The revival of regional economy in the era ofglobalization and successful experience of some innovative highland such as Silicon Valley in America,Baden-Wurttemberg in Germany and Hsin-chu in Taiwan have made a series of policies (such asconstructing regional innovation environment and innovation system, strengthening local embeddedness,realizing interregional connection and global interaction, etc.) to promote regional innovation anddevelopment become the important issue about strengthening competitiveness and innovation ability indeveloping regions and counties. In the field of international economic geography, regional technologylearning and innovation has become a leading edge and hotspot of research and debate. Around the issuesof technology learning, innovation and space, and the relationship between local places, scholars emphasizefrom different perspectives the importance to innovation of local network and local embeddedness,geographical proximity and spatial agglomeration, multinational community and the contact of inter-district,global network and the non-local relationships and knowledge flows and so on. Innovation is considered asa process of interaction between localization and globalization, an evolution of persistent relationshipconstruction and strategy coupling of key actors at different spatial scales. It is characterized by strongspatial and temporal heterogeneity and sensitivity. On the other hand, the technological catch-upperformance and innovation pattern have clear differences between industries in the developing regions andcountries, and the industrial technology regime has different characteristics. The study of industryknowledge base indicates that, the source of knowledge, organization and innovation pattern of the industryhave obvious differences according to the difference of the knowledge base. Therefore, the theoreticaldiscussion and policy design of innovation require considering industrial particularity and heterogeneity oftechnology/knowledge. The innovation policy and experience of successful regions cannot be imitated andused by developing regions without alteration.
Therefore, this article brings the heterogeneity of technology/knowledge into the construction ofspatial learning theory, and tries to form a trinitarian analyzing framework of technology/knowledge base,industry and space. The attributes of technology/knowledge, industrial characteristics and spatial heterogeneity are taken into consideration to study the influence of different attributes oftechnology/knowledge and industrial attributes on the organizational and geographic patterns of innovation.From the perspective of knowledge base and with resort to the "learning field" theory, the complexity ofknowledge and the theory construction of learning field are explored. Based on this, the article chooses thesuper-hard material industry as the case to study the analytical knowledge base and the innovationmechanism, organizational and geographic patterns of scientific learning field. The article is divided intoeight chapters.
Chapter one is introduction. This chapter deals with the research background, main thesis, researchsignificance, ideas and contents, research methods and the technical route and so on. Improving theinnovation ability has become the important measures to enhance regional competitiveness. Somesuccessful innovation policies related to construction of regional innovation environment and innovationsystem strengthen local embeddedness and realize interregional connection and global interaction and so on.These regional innovation theories and policies of picking winners and best practice models have beenincreasingly praised and imitated by developing regions, but they did not achieve success in the practice asthe imitators expected. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine the theory and policy of spatial learning andinnovation of the international mainstream. The study shows that, the mechanism, organization andgeographic patterns of technology innovation have great differences in different industries due todifferences in technology regime and knowledge base. Based on this, the article holds that, we need tocombine the specific characteristics of technology/knowledge to discuss the theory and policy design ofmechanism and pattern of innovation. This has vital significance in building a more comprehensive andsophisticated theoretical model of technology learning and innovation. It also helps to amend themisunderstanding of indiscriminate copy the practice of successful regional innovation policy, and to workout suitable innovation policy.
Chapter two is the research overview. Around the theory and practical problems of this research, fromthe angle of the evolution of the innovative ideas, the change of the research perspective of economicgeography in technology learning and innovation, technology regime and innovation pattern, knowledgebase and innovation and so on, this chapter reviews the related literatures and draws the followingconclusions: Innovation is a complex network tightly woven by scientific research, technical innovation and economic activities. It is the interaction and a strategic coupling process of multiple actors in a varietyof spatial scales, and has strong spatial heterogeneity. Technology has the characteristics of diversity andcomplexity. The complexity performs as the technology regime, ie., a particular combination oftechnological opportunities, appropriability and cumulativeness of of innovations, and the difference intechnology regime affects the performance and pattern of technological catch-up and innovation;knowledge base has diversity, characterized by the combination level of tacit and codified knowledgecontents, the degree of formalization and the context specificity of the knowledge and so on, and thedifference of industrial knowledge base affects the mechanism and organization and geographic patterns oftechnology innovation. Therefore, relevant theory about spatial learning innovation from local and global,internal and external forces to study the affecting factors and mechanism of innovation occur should takeinto account of the heterogeneity of technology/knowledge, so it can help us to understand the mechanismof learning innovation more comprehensively.
Chapter three, theoretical basis and analysis framework. After an overview of spatial learninginnovation theory such as new industrial district theory, the global production network and value chaintheory, etc., the author introduces two core theory of this study, learning field theory and knowledge basetheory. Because of the spatial heterogeneity of learning innovation and the complexity of knowledgetechnology, it is necessary to bring the complexity of the knowledge base into the spatial learninginnovation theory, and the theoretical research about space innovation needs to be studied from two angles:the space/relations and technology/knowledge, and discussed combining specific industry. Based on this,the paper designs a trinitarian framework of space, industry and knowledge, and focuses on three aspects:the subject of innovation, mechanism and geographic pattern.
Chapter four, the theoretical construction of knowledge base and learning field. This chapter firstlyelaborates the evolution of thought from physical field to information field, to knowledge field, to creativefield, and finally to learning field, and from the angle of relationship elaborates the diversity andcomplexity of learning field；Secondly, the author expounds the research context and logic of theknowledge type, knowledge base and spatial innovation; thirdly, the relationship between knowledge type,knowledge transformation and field is elaborated from the angle of knowledge creation, and find thatspecific knowledge transformation stage is closely related to different fields. Based on these research, this part analyzes the inner link of knowledge base and learning field, distinguishes several types of knowledgeand learning field, such as the symbolic knowledge and creative learning field, synthetic knowledge andembeddedness learning field, analytical knowledge and scientific learning field, complex knowledge andmixed learning field and so on, and studies the innovation mechanism and organization pattern of eachcorresponding type.
Chapter five, the development and technology innovation of the super-hard material industry aroundthe world. Based on the research of the theory, this chapter chooses the super-hard material industry as acase to explore the general characteristics of the scientific learning field in a global scale. This chaptermainly introduces the industrial characteristics, global development process and patterns, and thedevelopment history of technology of super-hard material industry. The study shows that, super-hardmaterial industry has characteristics of high degree of specialization, strong dependence on economicgrowth as well as differences in added value of each link and geographic distribution; the industrialdevelopment and innovation is highly dependent on analytical knowledge base which is based onknow-what and know-why, and the progress of science and technology and scientific research is theimportant force promoting the development and innovation of international super-hard material industry.For instance, the development of modern science promoted the synthesis of the world's first syntheticdiamond, and promote the industrialization production of the synthetic diamond; the research on thechemical vapor deposition synthesis promoted the rise of “diamond film” and extened the fieled ofdiamond application; the emergence of the nanoscience and nano-synthesis promoted the advent ofnanodiamond and prompted the special performance of the diamond, which resulted the arrival of the era ofthe diamond.
Chapter six, the development and technology innovation of the super-hard material industry in China.National scale is commonly used in the analysis of learning field. The development of China's diamondindustry is closely related to the technology innovation and scientific research. China's first successfulsynthetic diamond benefited from the research and exploration of super high-pressure and high-temperaturetheory made by the early scholars and experts; the full swing of scientific research on diamond synthesismechanism, process and the related principles and so on triggered the breakthrough innovation of China'sdiamond industry in80s and90s of the20th century, and China became the largest producer in the world; the research and extension of the method of powder synthesis in the1990s led to a breakthrough of theindustry, and the diamond industry began to stride forward to the powers of super-hard materials.Technology innovation and development of super-hard material industry is largely dependent on scientificresearch and breakthrough, and industry innovation has the characteristics of science driven. Analyticalknowledge based on science basis, some important scientists and academies are essentially significant inthe industrial innovation. At present, China has become the largest producer of super-hard materials, andthe super-hard material industry system has basically formed, and the degree of regional agglomeration andindustry concentration is relatively high. But on the whole, the domestic products are seriouslyhomogenized and the industry is still in the low end of the industry value chain.
Chapter seven, scientific learning field and technology innovation of super-hard material industry ofZhengzhou high-tech zone. This chapter selects the super-hard material industrial park in Zhengzhouhigh-tech zone as a case to studys the innovation organization and geographic pattern of the small scalescientific learning field, and draws the following conclusions: the super-hard material industry inZhengzhou began and formed benefited from the technology strength of the Zhengzhou Research Institutefor Abrasives and Grinding. From the aspects of the cultivation of talents, technology spillover anddiffusion, and enterprise derivative, etc, the institute made significant contribution to the development andprosperity of super-hard material industry of Zhengzhou. The technology innovation in the industrial parkis highly dependent on formal research and development. Learning through research and technologicalprogress is an important way to achieve innovation for the enterprises. Universities, research institutions,industry well-known experts (star scientists) play key roles in the progress and update of technology in theenterprises. Strengthening contacts with universities, academies and industrial knowledge communities arethe policy emphasis of this kind of enterprises in its technology learning and innovation. The innovationnetwork of the industrial park is not just limited to the local. It can run in a larger spatial scale through theexpert knowledge community, and the cooperation network of the enterprises’ R&D also has thecharacteristics of across local. Industry-university-research cooperation and patent transfer are also notlimited to local, while distributed outside the province and the country. The feature of multi-scalerelationship construction is very significant.
Chapter eight, conclusions and remarks. The thesis draws in the following conclusions:(1) Innovation has not only the sensitivity characteristics of space-time scenario, but also the characteristics of technologyand knowledge heterogeneity. The research on innovation mechanisms affected by geographic spacerequires a combination of specific knowledge bases. The designs of innovativation policy need to becautious, depending on the industry knowledge bases.(2) From the perspective of knowledge creation,knowledge creation is closely linked to specific fields, and the transformation process of different types ofknowledge is connected with different fields’ exercises.(3) Different knowledge bases are closely related tomultiple learning fields, and different knowledge bases are corresponded to different learning fieledsone-to-one. Theoretically, there are topological relations between symbolic knowledge and creativelearning field, synthetic knowledge and embedded learning field, analytical knowledge and scientificlearning field, complex knowledge and mixed learning field and so on.(4) The innovation and developmentof super-hard material industry strongly depend on analytical knowledge, with the characteristics of thescience-driven industry.(5) Technology poles such as research institutes and universities are key forces ofindustry innovation and development of Zhengzhou (High-tech Zone) super-hard material industry, in thatthey play important roles in technology diffusion, spin-off companies, and training professionals;(6)Zhengzhou High-tech Zone Super-hard Materials Industrial Park belongs to the science-driven learningfield based on analytical knowledge base. The formal R&D, research achievemens relying on scientificresearch of research institutes, and to maintain close contact with them are important mechanism fortechnological innovation, and the innovation geography has the characteristics of multi-scales. Besides, inview of the insufficiency of the paper, this chapter put forward the further research work to carry out in thefuture.
基于此，文章把知识/技术异质性纳入到空间化学习创新理论的建构中，试图形成一个技术/知识基础、产业、空间三位一体的分析框架，把技术/知识的属性、产业特征与空间异质性统一起来进行考虑，来研究不同的技术/知识属性、产业属性对创新的组织与地理模式的影响，并从知识基础的角度出发，结合“学习场”理论，探讨知识复杂性与学习场的理论构建。以此为基础，选择超硬材料产业作为案例，重点研究分析性知识基础与科学型学习场的创新机制、组织与地理模式。全文内容共分为八章。
第一章，引言。主要包括研究的背景、问题的提出、研究意义、研究思路与内容、研究方法与技术路线等。提高创新能力已成为增强区域竞争力的重要举措，一些成功地区有关构建区域创新环境与创新系统、增强本地的根植性、实现跨区连接与全球互动等创新政策日益被后发地区与国家推崇与模仿，而这些挑选赢者与最佳实践模式的区域创新理论和政策，实践中并没有在模仿者那里取得预期的成功。因此，有必要重新审视国际主流的空间化学习与创新的理论与政策。有关技术体制与知识基础的研究发现，由于技术体制与知识基础的差异，技术创新的机制、组织与地理模式在不同的产业具有很大差异。基于此，本文认为，有关创新机制与模式的理论与政策设计，需要结合具体的技术/知识特征来讨论，这对于构建更加综合和精细化的技术学习与创新的理论模型有十分重要的意义，同时也有助于改变不加区别的拷贝成功区域创新政策的实践误区，从而制定出量体裁衣的创新政策。
第二章：研究综述。围绕论文研究的理论与现实问题，从创新思想的演变、经济地理学技术学习与创新研究视角的变迁、技术体制与创新模式、知识基础与创新等角度，对相关文献进行了梳理和评述，得出以下结论：创新是科学研究、技术发明和经济活动内在紧密交织的复杂网络，是一个多元主体及其在多种空间尺度上战略协同的过程，具有较强的空间异质性；技术具有多元性与复杂性的特点，这种复杂性表现为技术机会、创新独占性与累积性等因素的特定组合——技术体制，而技术体制的不同影响着技术追赶与创新的绩效与模式；知识基础具有多元性，表现为编码与非编码知识的组合程度、知识正式化以及情景特殊的程度等，而产业知识基础的差异影响着技术创新的机制与组织、地理模式。由此，有关从地方与全球、内部与外部力量对于创新发生的影响因素和作用机制的各种空间学习创新理论，需要把技术/知识异质性考虑进去，这样才有助于我们更全面的理解学习创新的机理。
第三章，理论基础与分析框架。这一部分首先对新产业区理论、全球生产网络与价值链理论等各种空间化的学习创新理论进行梳理与评述。在此基础上，引入本研究的两个核心理论：学习场理论与知识基础理论。认为由于学习创新的空间异质性与知识技术复杂性，有必要把知识基础的复杂性纳入到空间化的学习创新理论中去，有关空间创新的理论研究需要从空间/关系、技术/知识两个角度，结合具体的产业进行讨论。基于此，文章设计了空间、产业、技术/知识三位一体的分析框架，强调把研究的焦点放在创新的主体、机制与地理模式三个方面。
第四章，知识基础与学习场理论建构。本章首先阐述了物理场-信息场-知识场-创造场-学习场的思想演变，并从关系的角度阐述了学习场的多元性与复杂性；其次，阐述了知识类型、知识基础与空间创新的研究脉络与逻辑；第三，从知识创造的角度，阐述了知识类型、知识转化与场的关系，特定的知识转化阶段与不同的场密切相关。基于这些研究，文章分析了知识基础与学习场的内在联系，区分了符号知识与创意型学习场、综合知识与根植型学习场、解析知识与科学型学习场以及复杂知识与混合型学习场等几种类型，并对相应类型的创新机制与组织模式进行了研究。
第五章，世界超硬材料行业的发展与技术创新。基于理论的研究，选取超硬材料行业为案例进行研究，首先在全球尺度上，探讨科学驱动型产业技术创新的一般特征，行业创新具有全球化的特征。本章主要介绍了超硬材料的行业特征、全球格局以及技术创新与发展。研究发现，超硬材料行业具有专业化分工程度高、对经济发展依赖性强以及各环节附加值、地理分布不同等特征。行业的发展与创新对基于know-what、 know-why的分析性知识基础具有较强的依赖性，科学技术与科学研究的不断进步是推动世界超硬材料行业的发展与创新的重要力量，如近代科学知识的发展促进了世界第一颗人造金刚石的合成，并推动了人造金刚石的工业化生产；化学气相沉积合成研究带来了“金刚石薄膜”的兴起，拓展了金刚石的应用领域；纳米科学与纳米技术促进了纳米金刚石的问世，使金刚石特殊性能得以发挥，引发了金刚石时代的到来。
第六章，中国超硬材料行业的发展与技术创新。国家尺度是学习场分析常用的尺度。中国金刚石行业发展与技术创新与科学研究密切相关，并且政府、国家重点实验室等国家力量的作用十分明显。中国第一个金刚石成功合成得益于早期学者、专家对超高压高温理论的研究与探索；对金刚石合成机理、工艺及相关原理等科学研究的全面展开，则引发了20世纪80、90年代我国金刚石行业的突破创新，并成为世界上第一大生产国；而随着20世纪90年代压机大型化与合成工艺的进步，更是引发了行业的突破发展，金刚石行业开始向超硬材料强国迈进。总体上，超硬材料行业的技术创新与发展十分依赖于科学研究与突破，行业创新具有科学驱动型特征，基于科学基础的分析性知识、一些重要的科学家及科研院所在其中发挥着重要作用。目前，中国已成为超硬材料生产第一大国，超硬材料工业体系初步形成，区域集聚与行业集中度较高。但整体上，国内产品同质化严重，还处于行业价值链的低端。
第七章，科学型学习场与郑州高新区超硬材料行业技术创新。选取郑州高新区超硬材料产业园为案例，对小尺度科学型学习场的创新组织与地理模式进行研究，得出以下结论：郑州超硬材料行业的发轫与形成得益于郑州磨料磨具磨削研究所这一技术极的力量，郑州磨料磨具磨削研究所从人才培养、技术溢出与扩散以及企业衍生等方面为郑州超硬材料行业的发展与壮大做出了重大贡献；产业园区的技术创新十分依赖于正式的研发，通过研发、技术进步来学习是企业实现创新的一个重要途径；大学、科研机构、行业知名专家（明星科学家）在企业的技术进步升级中发挥着关键作用；加强与大学、科研院以及行业的知识社区联系是这类行业企业技术创新的政策重点；产业园区的创新网络并不仅仅局限于本地，可以通过专家知识社区运行在更大的空间尺度上，企业研发的合作网络也具有跨越本地的特征；大学、科研机构的产学研与专利转让也不仅限于本地，在省外与国内都有分布，多尺度关系建构的特征十分显着。
第八章，结论及展望。通过研究，主要得出以下结论：（1）创新不仅具时空情景敏感性的特征，更具有技术知识异质性的特征，有关地理空间对于创新发生的机制影响的研究需要结合具体的知识基础进行讨论；创新政策的设计需要谨慎的根据不同的产业知识基础而进行；（2）从知识创造的视角出发，知识创造与具体的场紧密相连，不同的知识类型的转化过程与不同的场联系在一起；（3）不同的知识基础与多元学习场密切相关，不同的知识基础与不同的学习场一一对应。理论上，存在着符号知识与创意型学习场、综合性知识与根植型学习场、分析性知识与科学型学习场、复杂知识与混合型学习场等拓扑联系。（4）超硬材料行业的创新与发展较强的依赖于分析性知识，具有科学驱动型行业的特征；（5）科研院所等技术极是郑州（高新区）超硬材料行业创新与发展的关键力量，其在技术扩散、衍生企业、培训专业人才等方面发挥着重要作用；（6）郑州高新区超硬材料产业园属于一个以分析性知识基础为主导的科学驱动型学习场，正式研发、依托科研院所的成果并与其保持紧密联系是其技术创新的重要机制，并且创新的地理具有多尺度的特征。同时并针对论文中存在的不足，提出今后要开展的进一步研究工作。
In the era of knowledge economy, developing knowledge economy and continuously enhancing theinnovation capability have become the key steps to improve competitive advantage and promote regionaleconomic development in all countries around the world. The revival of regional economy in the era ofglobalization and successful experience of some innovative highland such as Silicon Valley in America,Baden-Wurttemberg in Germany and Hsin-chu in Taiwan have made a series of policies (such asconstructing regional innovation environment and innovation system, strengthening local embeddedness,realizing interregional connection and global interaction, etc.) to promote regional innovation anddevelopment become the important issue about strengthening competitiveness and innovation ability indeveloping regions and counties. In the field of international economic geography, regional technologylearning and innovation has become a leading edge and hotspot of research and debate. Around the issuesof technology learning, innovation and space, and the relationship between local places, scholars emphasizefrom different perspectives the importance to innovation of local network and local embeddedness,geographical proximity and spatial agglomeration, multinational community and the contact of inter-district,global network and the non-local relationships and knowledge flows and so on. Innovation is considered asa process of interaction between localization and globalization, an evolution of persistent relationshipconstruction and strategy coupling of key actors at different spatial scales. It is characterized by strongspatial and temporal heterogeneity and sensitivity. On the other hand, the technological catch-upperformance and innovation pattern have clear differences between industries in the developing regions andcountries, and the industrial technology regime has different characteristics. The study of industryknowledge base indicates that, the source of knowledge, organization and innovation pattern of the industryhave obvious differences according to the difference of the knowledge base. Therefore, the theoreticaldiscussion and policy design of innovation require considering industrial particularity and heterogeneity oftechnology/knowledge. The innovation policy and experience of successful regions cannot be imitated andused by developing regions without alteration.
Therefore, this article brings the heterogeneity of technology/knowledge into the construction ofspatial learning theory, and tries to form a trinitarian analyzing framework of technology/knowledge base,industry and space. The attributes of technology/knowledge, industrial characteristics and spatial heterogeneity are taken into consideration to study the influence of different attributes oftechnology/knowledge and industrial attributes on the organizational and geographic patterns of innovation.From the perspective of knowledge base and with resort to the "learning field" theory, the complexity ofknowledge and the theory construction of learning field are explored. Based on this, the article chooses thesuper-hard material industry as the case to study the analytical knowledge base and the innovationmechanism, organizational and geographic patterns of scientific learning field. The article is divided intoeight chapters.
Chapter one is introduction. This chapter deals with the research background, main thesis, researchsignificance, ideas and contents, research methods and the technical route and so on. Improving theinnovation ability has become the important measures to enhance regional competitiveness. Somesuccessful innovation policies related to construction of regional innovation environment and innovationsystem strengthen local embeddedness and realize interregional connection and global interaction and so on.These regional innovation theories and policies of picking winners and best practice models have beenincreasingly praised and imitated by developing regions, but they did not achieve success in the practice asthe imitators expected. Therefore, it is necessary to re-examine the theory and policy of spatial learning andinnovation of the international mainstream. The study shows that, the mechanism, organization andgeographic patterns of technology innovation have great differences in different industries due todifferences in technology regime and knowledge base. Based on this, the article holds that, we need tocombine the specific characteristics of technology/knowledge to discuss the theory and policy design ofmechanism and pattern of innovation. This has vital significance in building a more comprehensive andsophisticated theoretical model of technology learning and innovation. It also helps to amend themisunderstanding of indiscriminate copy the practice of successful regional innovation policy, and to workout suitable innovation policy.
Chapter two is the research overview. Around the theory and practical problems of this research, fromthe angle of the evolution of the innovative ideas, the change of the research perspective of economicgeography in technology learning and innovation, technology regime and innovation pattern, knowledgebase and innovation and so on, this chapter reviews the related literatures and draws the followingconclusions: Innovation is a complex network tightly woven by scientific research, technical innovation and economic activities. It is the interaction and a strategic coupling process of multiple actors in a varietyof spatial scales, and has strong spatial heterogeneity. Technology has the characteristics of diversity andcomplexity. The complexity performs as the technology regime, ie., a particular combination oftechnological opportunities, appropriability and cumulativeness of of innovations, and the difference intechnology regime affects the performance and pattern of technological catch-up and innovation;knowledge base has diversity, characterized by the combination level of tacit and codified knowledgecontents, the degree of formalization and the context specificity of the knowledge and so on, and thedifference of industrial knowledge base affects the mechanism and organization and geographic patterns oftechnology innovation. Therefore, relevant theory about spatial learning innovation from local and global,internal and external forces to study the affecting factors and mechanism of innovation occur should takeinto account of the heterogeneity of technology/knowledge, so it can help us to understand the mechanismof learning innovation more comprehensively.
Chapter three, theoretical basis and analysis framework. After an overview of spatial learninginnovation theory such as new industrial district theory, the global production network and value chaintheory, etc., the author introduces two core theory of this study, learning field theory and knowledge basetheory. Because of the spatial heterogeneity of learning innovation and the complexity of knowledgetechnology, it is necessary to bring the complexity of the knowledge base into the spatial learninginnovation theory, and the theoretical research about space innovation needs to be studied from two angles:the space/relations and technology/knowledge, and discussed combining specific industry. Based on this,the paper designs a trinitarian framework of space, industry and knowledge, and focuses on three aspects:the subject of innovation, mechanism and geographic pattern.
Chapter four, the theoretical construction of knowledge base and learning field. This chapter firstlyelaborates the evolution of thought from physical field to information field, to knowledge field, to creativefield, and finally to learning field, and from the angle of relationship elaborates the diversity andcomplexity of learning field；Secondly, the author expounds the research context and logic of theknowledge type, knowledge base and spatial innovation; thirdly, the relationship between knowledge type,knowledge transformation and field is elaborated from the angle of knowledge creation, and find thatspecific knowledge transformation stage is closely related to different fields. Based on these research, this part analyzes the inner link of knowledge base and learning field, distinguishes several types of knowledgeand learning field, such as the symbolic knowledge and creative learning field, synthetic knowledge andembeddedness learning field, analytical knowledge and scientific learning field, complex knowledge andmixed learning field and so on, and studies the innovation mechanism and organization pattern of eachcorresponding type.
Chapter five, the development and technology innovation of the super-hard material industry aroundthe world. Based on the research of the theory, this chapter chooses the super-hard material industry as acase to explore the general characteristics of the scientific learning field in a global scale. This chaptermainly introduces the industrial characteristics, global development process and patterns, and thedevelopment history of technology of super-hard material industry. The study shows that, super-hardmaterial industry has characteristics of high degree of specialization, strong dependence on economicgrowth as well as differences in added value of each link and geographic distribution; the industrialdevelopment and innovation is highly dependent on analytical knowledge base which is based onknow-what and know-why, and the progress of science and technology and scientific research is theimportant force promoting the development and innovation of international super-hard material industry.For instance, the development of modern science promoted the synthesis of the world's first syntheticdiamond, and promote the industrialization production of the synthetic diamond; the research on thechemical vapor deposition synthesis promoted the rise of “diamond film” and extened the fieled ofdiamond application; the emergence of the nanoscience and nano-synthesis promoted the advent ofnanodiamond and prompted the special performance of the diamond, which resulted the arrival of the era ofthe diamond.
Chapter six, the development and technology innovation of the super-hard material industry in China.National scale is commonly used in the analysis of learning field. The development of China's diamondindustry is closely related to the technology innovation and scientific research. China's first successfulsynthetic diamond benefited from the research and exploration of super high-pressure and high-temperaturetheory made by the early scholars and experts; the full swing of scientific research on diamond synthesismechanism, process and the related principles and so on triggered the breakthrough innovation of China'sdiamond industry in80s and90s of the20th century, and China became the largest producer in the world; the research and extension of the method of powder synthesis in the1990s led to a breakthrough of theindustry, and the diamond industry began to stride forward to the powers of super-hard materials.Technology innovation and development of super-hard material industry is largely dependent on scientificresearch and breakthrough, and industry innovation has the characteristics of science driven. Analyticalknowledge based on science basis, some important scientists and academies are essentially significant inthe industrial innovation. At present, China has become the largest producer of super-hard materials, andthe super-hard material industry system has basically formed, and the degree of regional agglomeration andindustry concentration is relatively high. But on the whole, the domestic products are seriouslyhomogenized and the industry is still in the low end of the industry value chain.
Chapter seven, scientific learning field and technology innovation of super-hard material industry ofZhengzhou high-tech zone. This chapter selects the super-hard material industrial park in Zhengzhouhigh-tech zone as a case to studys the innovation organization and geographic pattern of the small scalescientific learning field, and draws the following conclusions: the super-hard material industry inZhengzhou began and formed benefited from the technology strength of the Zhengzhou Research Institutefor Abrasives and Grinding. From the aspects of the cultivation of talents, technology spillover anddiffusion, and enterprise derivative, etc, the institute made significant contribution to the development andprosperity of super-hard material industry of Zhengzhou. The technology innovation in the industrial parkis highly dependent on formal research and development. Learning through research and technologicalprogress is an important way to achieve innovation for the enterprises. Universities, research institutions,industry well-known experts (star scientists) play key roles in the progress and update of technology in theenterprises. Strengthening contacts with universities, academies and industrial knowledge communities arethe policy emphasis of this kind of enterprises in its technology learning and innovation. The innovationnetwork of the industrial park is not just limited to the local. It can run in a larger spatial scale through theexpert knowledge community, and the cooperation network of the enterprises’ R&D also has thecharacteristics of across local. Industry-university-research cooperation and patent transfer are also notlimited to local, while distributed outside the province and the country. The feature of multi-scalerelationship construction is very significant.
Chapter eight, conclusions and remarks. The thesis draws in the following conclusions:(1) Innovation has not only the sensitivity characteristics of space-time scenario, but also the characteristics of technologyand knowledge heterogeneity. The research on innovation mechanisms affected by geographic spacerequires a combination of specific knowledge bases. The designs of innovativation policy need to becautious, depending on the industry knowledge bases.(2) From the perspective of knowledge creation,knowledge creation is closely linked to specific fields, and the transformation process of different types ofknowledge is connected with different fields’ exercises.(3) Different knowledge bases are closely related tomultiple learning fields, and different knowledge bases are corresponded to different learning fieledsone-to-one. Theoretically, there are topological relations between symbolic knowledge and creativelearning field, synthetic knowledge and embedded learning field, analytical knowledge and scientificlearning field, complex knowledge and mixed learning field and so on.(4) The innovation and developmentof super-hard material industry strongly depend on analytical knowledge, with the characteristics of thescience-driven industry.(5) Technology poles such as research institutes and universities are key forces ofindustry innovation and development of Zhengzhou (High-tech Zone) super-hard material industry, in thatthey play important roles in technology diffusion, spin-off companies, and training professionals;(6)Zhengzhou High-tech Zone Super-hard Materials Industrial Park belongs to the science-driven learningfield based on analytical knowledge base. The formal R&D, research achievemens relying on scientificresearch of research institutes, and to maintain close contact with them are important mechanism fortechnological innovation, and the innovation geography has the characteristics of multi-scales. Besides, inview of the insufficiency of the paper, this chapter put forward the further research work to carry out in thefuture.
引文
[1] Allen J. Lost geographies of power[M].Oxford,U. K.: Blackwell,2003.
[2] Allen,John and Cochrane, Allan.‘Beyond the territorial fix: regional assemblages, politics and power’[J]. Regional Studies,2007,41(9):1161-1175.
[3] Amin, Joanne Roberts, Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice [J]. Research Policy,2008,37(2):353-369
[4] Amin A,and Thrift N.(ed.) Globalization,institution, and regional development in Europe [M]. Oxford:Orford university press,1994.
[5] Amin A,Cohendet, P.Architectures of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2004.
[6] Amin A,Thrift N.Neo-Marshallian node in global networks[J].International Journal of Urban andRegional Research,1992,(4):571-587.
[7] Amin A.An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development [J].International Journal ofUrban and Regional Studies,1999,(2):365-378.
[8] Arrow K.J.The Economic Implication of Learning by Doing[J].Review of Economic Studies,1962,(29):155-173.
[9] Asheim B,Lars Coenen.Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems:Comparing Nordicclusters[J].Research Policy,2005,(34):1173-1190.
[10] Asheim B,Ron Boschma,Philip Cooke.Constructing regional advantage:Platform policies based onrelated variety and differentiated knowledge bases,2009workingpaper.
[11] Asheim B.‘Learning regions’ in a globalised world economy: towards a new competitive advantage ofindustrial districts? In S Conti and M Taylor,eds. Interdependent and uneven development:global-local perspectives. London: Avebury:1997,143-176.
[12] Asheim B,H.K. Hansen.Knowledge Bases,Talents and Contexts: On the Usefulness of the Creative Class Approach in Sweden[J]. Economic Geography,2009,85(4):425-442.
[13] Asheim B,M.S. Gertler.The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, ed. J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery,R.R. Nelson,291-317. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2005.
[14] Asheim B. Industrial districts as ‘learning regions’: A condition for prosperity[J].European Planning Studies,1996,(4):379-400.
[15] Aydalot Ph,eds, Milieux innovateurs en Europe. GREMI,Paris,1986:5-28.
[16] Aydalot Ph,Keeble D,eds.High Technology industry and innovative environments:the Europeanexperience. London:Routledge,1988:11-39.
[17] Bair J,Gereffi G. Local clusters in global chains: The cases and consequences of export dynamism inTorreon’s blue jeans industry [J].World Development,2001,29(11):1885-1903.
[18] Barro R.Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth[J].Journal of PoliticalEconomy,1990,98(5):103—125.
[19] Bathelt H,Malmberg A,Maskell P.Clusters and knowledge:Local buzz,global pipelines and the processof knowledge creation[J].Progress in Human Geography,2004,28(1):31–56.
[20] Bathelt H.The re-emergence of a media-industry cluster in Leipzig[J].European Planning Studies,2002:583–611.
[21] Boschma R.A.,Frenken K.The spatial evolution of innovation networks:a proximity Perspective[J/OL].Papers in evolutionary economic geography,no.2009.05.http://ideas.repec.org/s/egu/wpaper.html.
[22] Bourdieu P. Practical Reasons: On the Theory of Action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.1998.
[23] Burton R. Clark, Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in ModernUniversities,1995,26.
[24] Camagni R,eds. Innovation networks: Spatial perspectives[M].London: Belhaven press,1991:3-10.
[25] Camagni.Global network and local milieu: towards a theory of economic space. In SergioConti,Edward J.1997.
[26] Castells M.The Information City:Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and theUrban-regional Process[M].Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1989.
[27] Chang-Hong Miao,Yehua Dennis Wei, Haitao Ma.Technological Learning and Innovation in China inthe Context of Globalization[J].Eurasian Geography and Economics,2007,48(6):1-20.
[28] Chao Zhao.Global knowledge linkages and the innovativeness of local clusters: Evidence from theGuangzhou software cluster in China [J].Ibima business review,2009(1):22-31.
[29] Coe D.,Helpman E.. International R&D spillovers[J]. European Economic Review.1995,39:859-87.
[30] Coe N,Hess M,Yeung H et al.Globalizing regional development:A global production networksperspective.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,2004,29:468-484.
[31] Coe N., Dicken P.,Hess M.Global production networks: realizing the potential[J].Journal of EconomicGeography2008,(8):271-295.
[32] Coenen,Moodysson,Asheim.Comparing a pharmaceutical and an agro-food bioregion on theimportance of knowledge bases for socio-spatial patterns of innovation[J].Industry andinnovation,2006,13(4):393-414.
[33] Cohendet P, Llerna P.“Routines and the theory of the firm: the role of communities”[A].Druidconference paper[C].2001.http://www.druid.dk
[34] Cooke, P., M. Heidenreich, H.J. Braczyk. Regional innovation systems: the role of governance in aglobalized world[M]. New York: Routledge,Press,2004:46-74,132-177.
[35] D. Mackinnon, A. Cumbers, K. Chapman.Learning, innovation and regional development: a criticalappraisal of recent debates[J]. Progress in Human Geography,2002(3):293-311.
[36] Dicken P,Thrift N.The organization of production and the production of organization:Why businessenterprises matter in the study of geographical industrialization.Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers,New Series,1992,17(3):279-291.
[37] Dicken P. et al. Chains and Networks, Territories and Scales: towards a Relational Framework forAnalyzing the Global Economy [J].Global Networks,2001,(2):89-112.
[38] Dicken P. Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic in the21Century [M].London: SAGEPublications Ltd.,2003.
[39] Dicken P.Tangled webs:Transnational production networks and regional integration[A].Spatial AspectsConcerning:Spatial Aspects Concerning Economic Structures[C].2005-04.
[40] Dicken, Peter. The multiplant business enterprise and geographical space: some issues in the study ofexternal control and regional development [J].Regional Studies,1976,10:401-412.
[41] Dicken,Peter.Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy[M]. Fifth Edition,London: Sage,2007.
[42] Dosi G.Technical Change and Industrial Transformation[M].London:The MacMillan Press,1984.
[43] Dosi G.Technological paradigms and technological trajectories[J].Research policy,1982(11):147–162.
[44] Drucker, P. F. Post-capitalist society[M]. London: Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann, Harper Business,1993.
[45] Edquist C,eds. System of innovation: technologies, institutions and organizations. London: PinterPublishers.1997.
[46] Ernst D,Kim L.Global production networks,knowledge diffusion,and local capabilityformation[J].Research Policy,2002,(31):1417-1429.
[47] Ernst D.The New mobility of Knowledge: Digital Information Systems and Global FlagshipNetworks.In: latham R., Sassen.,S.(eds.).Cooperation and Conflict in a Connected World[M].Routledge, London,in Press,2002.
[48] Feldman M. P.The Geography of Innovation[M]. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.1994
[49] Fl ysand A and Jakobsen S-E Commodification of rural places:Anarrative of social fields, ruraldevelopment, and football[J].Journal of Rural Studies,2007,23:206–21.
[50] Fl ysand,Stig-Erik Jakobsen.The complexity of innovation:A relational turn[J].Progress in HumanGeography,2010,35(3):328–344
[51] Gr nhaug R.Micro-macro relations: Social organization in Antalya, Southern Turkey. OccasionalPaper7, Department of Social Anthropology[M]. University of Bergen, Norway.1974
[52] Freeman C. National System of Innovation: the Case of Japan. In Technology Policy and EconomicPerformance: Lessons from Japan[M].London: Pinter Publishers,1987.
[53] Fulvio Castellacci.Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories Manufacturing and serviceindustries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation[J].researh policy,2008,3778-994.
[54] Gereffi G. International Trade and Industrial Upgrading in the Apparel Commodity Chains[J].Journalof International Economics,1999,48:37-70.
[55] Gereffi G.Global production systems and third world development[M].Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,2000.
[56] Gereffi,G.A commodity chains framework for analyzing global industries[Z].Duke UniversityWorking Paper,1999.
[57] Gertler, M.S. Buzz without being there? Communities of practice in context. In Community, Economic Creativity, and Organization, ed. A. Amin and J. Roberts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2008,203-226
[58] Gertler, M.S., Y.M. Levitte.Local Nodes in Global Networks: The Geography of Knowledge Flows inBiotechnology Innovation[J]. Industry&Innovation,2005,(12):487-507.
[59] GertlerM.Manufacturing culture:the institutional geography of industrial practice[M].Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2004.46-74,132-177.
[60] Granovetter M.Eeonomic action and social structure:the problem of embeddedness[J].AmericanJournal of Soeiology,1985,91(3):481-510.
[61] Gr nhaug R.Scale as a variable in analysis: Field in social organisation in Herat, northwestAfghanistan. In Barth F (ed.) Scale and Social Organisation[M]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget,1978,78–121.
[62] Grossman, G. M., Helpman, E.“Innovation and Growth in the Theory”[M]. MIT Press,1991.
[63] Hansen, T.,L. Winther. Innovation, regional development and relations between high-and low-techindustries.In8th European Urban and Regional Studies Conference. Vienna, Austria,2010.
[64] Harrison J. From competitive regions to competitive city-regions: a new orthodoxy, but some oldmistakes[J].Journal of Economic Geography,2007,(7):311-332
[65] Henderson J. Danger and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific [A].In: Thompson G (eds).Economicdynamism in the Asia Pacific[C]. London: Routledge,1998.
[66] Henderson J,Dicken P,Hess M et al.Global production networks and the analysis of economicdevelopment[J].Review of International Political Economy,2002,3:436-464.
[67] Henry Etzkowitz,Chunyan Zhou.Triple Helix Twins[J].Science and Public Policy,2006,33(1):78-83.
[68] Henry Etzkowitz.MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science[M].Routledge,2002.
[69] Hess, Henry Wai-Chung Yeung.Whither global production networks in economic geography? Past,present, and future [J]. Environment and Planning A,2006,38(7):1193-1204.
[70] Hess.Spatial relationship?Towards a reconceptualization of embeddedness[J].Progress of HumanGeography,2004,28(2):165-186.
[71] Howells J. The location and organization of research and development: new horizons[J]. ResearchPolicy,1990,19:33-46.
[72] Hudson R. Conceptualizing economies and their geographies:spaces,flows and circuits [J].Progress inHuman Geography,2004,28:447-471.
[73] HUDSON R. Region and place: devolved regional government and regional economic success?[J].Progress in Human Geography,2005,29,618–625.
[74] HUDSON R. Regional devolution and regional economic success: enabling myths and illusions aboutpower [J].Geogfrafiska Annaler B,2006,88:159–171.
[75] Hudson R.Regions and regional uneven development forever?Some reflective comments upon theoryand practice [J].Regional Studies,2007,41(9):1149–1160.
[76] Humphrey J,Schmitz H. How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading industrialclusters?[J].Regional Studies,2002,36(9):1017-1027.
[77] Johnson, B.,E. Lorenz, B‐. Lundvall. Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge? Jerker Moodysson, Coenen,Lars, Bj rn Asheim.Explaining spatial patterns of innovation: analytical and synthetic modes ofknowledge creation in the Medicon Valley life-science cluster[J].Environment and PlanningA,2008,(40):1040-1056
[78] Keun Lee,Chaisung Lim.Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging:findings from theKorean industries[J].Research Policy,2001(30):459–483.
[79] Kline S J, Rosenberg N. An overview of innovation. In Landau R and Rosenberg N. eds. The positivesum game[M].Washington: National Academy Press.1986.
[80] Laestadius, S. Biotechnology and the Potential for a Radical Shift of Technology in Forest Industry[J].Technology Analysis&Strategic Management,2000,(12):193-212.
[81] Lash S., Urry, J. Economies of Signs&Space[M].London: Sage,1994.
[82] Lars Hakanson, Epistemic Communities and Cluster Dynamics: On the Role of Knowledge inIndustrial Districts [J].Industry and Innovation,2005,12(4):433-463.
[83] Latour B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory[M]. New York:Oxford University Press.2006.
[84] Lee C.K.,A. Saxenian.Coevolution and coordination:a systemic analysis of t he Taiwaneseinformation technology industry[J].Journal of Economic Geography,2008,(8).
[85] Lorentzen A.Global and local knowledge networks in innovation:A case study of Polish manufacturingenterprises[A].European network on industrial policy International conference University ofLimerick[C]. Ireland,2006:20-22
[86] Lucas R.On the mechanics of economic development[J].Journal of Monetary Economics,1988,(7):4-14.
[87] Lundvall B. A. National Systems of Innovation[M].Frances Pinter,London.1993.
[88] Lundvall B-A.Innovation as an Interactive Process: from User-Producer Interaction to the NationalSystem of Innovation.In Dosi G et al. Technical Change and Economic Theory[M].London: PinterPublishers.1988.
[89] Mackinnon,A.Cumbers and K.Chapman.Learning,innovation and regional development:a criticalappraisal of recent debates[J].Progress in Human Geography,2002(3):293–311.
[90] Malerba,Orsenigo.Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology—specific[J].ResearchPolicy,1996,25(3):451–478.
[91] Malerba,Orsenigo.Technological Regimes and Firm Behavior[J].Industrial&CorporateChange,1993,2(1):45-72.
[92] Malerba,Orsenigo.Technological regimes and patterns of innovation:a theoretical and empiricalinvestigation of the Italian case.Evolving Technologies and Market Structure[M].Ann Arbor:MichiganUniversity Press,1990:283-306.
[93] Martin R.,Sunley P.Slow convergence?The new endogenous growth theory and regional development[J].Economic Geography,1998:201-227.
[94] Maskell P.Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster.Industrial and CorporateChange,2001,10:213-237.
[95] Massey D. Spatial divisions of labour [M]. London: Macmillan,1984.
[96] Morgan K.The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies,1997,(31):491-503.
[97] Moulaert.Sekia.Territorial innovation models:a critical survey[J].RegionalStudies,2003,(37):289-302.
[98] Nelson R.National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis[M]. New York and Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1993.
[99] Nelson,Winter.An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change[M].Cambridge MA:Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press,1982.
[100] Nelson,Winter.In search of a useful theory of innovation[J].Research Policy,1977(6):36–76.
[101] Nonaka, I., R. Toyama,N. Konno. SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation[J].Long Range Planning,2000,(33):5-34.
[102] OECD. Innovative clusters: drivers of national innovation system [M].Paris: OECD Publications,2001.
[103] Orietta, M.Technological regimes and sources of entrepreneurship[J].Small Business Economics,2002,19(3):217.
[104] Park,K.H.Lee,K. Linking the Technological Regime to the Technological Catch—up:AnalyzingKorea and China's Taiwan Region Using the US Patent Data [C],Proceedings of The2nd GlobelicsConference,Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2004.
[105] Pavitt K.The social shaping of the national science base[J]. Research Policy,1998,(27):793-805.
[106] Pavitt.Sectoral patterns of technical change:Towards a taxonomy and a theory[J].ResearchPolicy,1984,13(6):343-373.
[107] Pavitt.The size distribution of innovation firms in the UK:1945-1983[J].Journal of IndustrialEconomics,1987(35):297-316.
[108] Peck J,Yeung HWC(eds.)Remaking the Global Economy:Economic-GeographicalPerspectives[M].London:Sage,2003.
[109] Pike, Andy (ed.)Special issue: Wither regional studies?[J].Regional Studies,2007,41(9):1143-1270.
[110] Piore M.,Sable C.The second industrial divide [M].NewYork:Basic Brooks,1984.
[111] Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension[M]. New York: Doubleday.1967.
[112] Polanyi,K.The great transformation:The political and economic origins of Our time[M].NewYork:Beacon Press,l944:45.
[113] Pred A. The Spatial Dynamics of US Urban Industrial Growth,1800-1914: Interpretative andTheoretical Essays[M].MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.1966.
[114] Rip.A.,Kemp,R.Technological change.In:Rayner,S.,Malone,E.L.(Eds.) Human Choice and ClimateChange.Resources and Technology,1998,2:327-399.
[115] Roman Martin,Jerker Moodysson,Elena Zukauskaite.Regional Innovation Policy Beyond ‘BestPractice’:Lessons from Sweden[J].J Knowl Econ,2011,(2):550-568.
[116] Roman Martin,Jerker Moodysson.Comparing knowledge bases: on the organisation and geographyof knowledge flows in the regional innovation system of Scania, southern Sweden [J].EuropeanUrban and Regional Studies,2011.
[117] Roman Martin,Jerker Moodysson.Innovation in symbolic industries:the geography and organizationof knowledge sourcing[J].Paper to be presented at the Summer Conference,2010.
[118] Schumpeter J A.The Theory of Economic Development[M]. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress,1934.
[119] Scott A. J. The Cultural Economy: Geography and the Creative Field[J].Culture,Media andSociety,1999,(21):807-817.
[120] Scott A.J. Entrepreneurship,Innovation and Industrial Development:Geography and the CreativeField Revisited [J].Small Business Economics,2006,(26):1-24.
[121] Scott A.J. New industrial spaces: flexible production organization and regional development in NorthAmerican and Western Europe [M].London: Pion,1988.
[122] Scott A.J.Regions and the World Economy:the Coming Shape of Global Production,Competition andPolitical Order[M].Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998.
[123] Smith K.What is ‘the knowledge economy’? Knowledge-intensive industries and distributedknowledge bases[A].Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference on‘The learningeconomy-firms, regions and nation specific institutions’[C]. Aalborg, June2000.
[124] Stefano Breschi.The Geography of Innovation:A Cross-sector Analysis[J].RegionalStudies,2000,34(3):213-229.
[125] Sternberg, R. Innovation networks and regional development.Evidence from the European RegionalInnovation Survey (ERIS): theoretical concepts, methodological approach, empirical basis andintroduction to the theme issue[J]. European Planning Studies,2000,8:389-407.
[126] Stoper M.The regional world: territorial development in a global economy [M].New York: TheGuilford Press,1997:1-338.
[127] Uzzi B.The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance oforganizations: the network effect [J]. American Sociological Review,1996,61:674-698.
[128] Van De Poel, I.The transformation of technological regimes[J].Research Policy,2003,32(1):49-68.
[129] Van den Ende,J,Kemp,R.Technological transformations in history:how the computer regime grew outof existing computing regimes[J].Research Policy,1999,28(8):833-851.
[130] Yeung H W C. Rethinking Relational Economic Geography[J].Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers NS,2005,30:37-51.
[131] Yeung,Henry Wai-chung.Regional Development and the Competitive Dynamics of GlobalProduction Networks: An East Asian Perspective[J]. Regional Studies,2009(43).
[132][奥]卡林诺尔－塞蒂纳.制造知识:建构主义与科学的与境性[M].
[133][德]鲍尔生.德国教育史[M].滕大春等译,北京:人民教育出版社,1986,125.
[134] B.Kosko着,黄崇福译.模糊工程.西安:西安交通大学出版社,1999.
[135] OECD.研究与发展调查手册[M].北京:新华出版社,2000,75.
[136]艾少伟,苗长虹.技术学习的区域差异:学习场视角——以北京中关村与上海张江为例[J].科技政策与管理,2009,(5):40-46.
[137]艾少伟,苗长虹.经济地理学研究视角的变迁及进展[J].人文地理.2009,(4):6-12.
[138]艾少伟.中国开发区技术学习通道研究——以苏州工业园区为例[D].河南大学研究生博士学位论文,2009.
[139]别格尔.控制论的方法论观点[J].外国自然科学哲学,1974.
[140]蔡秀玲.“硅谷”与“新竹”区域创新环境形成机制比较与启示[J].亚太经济.2004(6):61-64.
[141]曾刚,丰志勇,林兰.科技中介与技术扩散研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2007.
[142]曾刚,林兰.跨国公司技术溢出与溢出地技术区位研究——以上海浦东新区为例[J].世界地理研究,2007,16(4):98-105.
[143]方啸虎,温简杰,杨烨.中国六面顶压机大型化的快速发展及相关问题[J].超硬材料工程,2011,23(1):42-45
[144]何荣利.知识场的考证与知识场的生成及场效应分析[J].图书情报工作,2008,10:48-50.
[145]贺灿飞,刘洋,产业地理集聚与外商直接投资的产业选择—以北京市为例[J].地理学报,2006,61(12):1259-1270.
[146]贺巷超.图书馆信息场初论[J].图书馆理论与实践,2007,1:1-3.
[147]胡恩良,陶知耻.我国第一颗人造金刚石的诞生[J].超硬材料工程,2009,21(6):45-47.
[148]胡晓军,黎明发,孙振亚,等.人造纳米金刚石研究现状与展望[J].武汉理工大学学报·信息与管理工程版,2009,31(2):301-305.
[149]贾嘉,嵇登科,魏国平.韩国技术追赶范式研究及对我国的借鉴[J].科学管理研究,2006,24(1):117-120
[150]李健,宁越敏,汪明峰.计算机产业全球生产网络分析:兼论其在中国大陆的发展.地理学报,2008,63(4):437-448.
[151]李伟.市场化改革与产业技术创新的阶段性演进——兼析中国产业技术追赶的绩效差异[J].2008,11:54-70.
[152]李郇,丁行政.空间集聚与外商直接投资的区位选择——基于珠江三角洲地区的实证分析[J],地理科学,2007,27(5):636-641.
[153]李志宏,李亮.超硬材料产业前途无量[J].中国科技投资,2012,4:31-34
[154]李志宏,赵博.借宏观经济向好东风,超硬材料行业超常规发展[J].2011.
[155]刘志高,王缉慈.共同演化及其空间隐喻[J].中国地质大学学报(社会科学版),2008(4):85-91.
[156]卢照田.我国超硬材料行业发展历程回顾及未来展望[J].工业金刚石,2003,(4-5):1-10
[157]苗长虹,艾少伟.“学习场”结构与空间中的创新[J].人文地理.2009,29(7):1057-1063.
[158]苗长虹,艾少伟.空间中的创新:“学习场”的结构与演化[A].第七届产业集群与区域发展国际学术会议论文集[C].2008:85-95.
[159]苗长虹,樊杰,张文忠.西方经济地理学区域研究的新视角:论“新区域主义”的兴起[J].经济地理,2002,22(6):644-650.
[160]苗长虹,魏也华,吕拉昌.新经济地理学[M].北京:科学出版社,2011.
[161]苗长虹,魏也华.分工深化、知识创造与产业集群成长——河南鄢陵县花木产业的案例研究[J].地理研究,2009,28,(4):853-864
[162]苗长虹,魏也华.技术学习与创新:经济地理学的视角[J].人文地理,2007,97(5):1-9.
[163]苗长虹,魏也华.西方经济地理学理论建构的发展与论争[J].地理研究,2007,26(6):1233-1246.
[164]苗长虹.“产业区”研究的主要学派与整合框架:学习型产业区的理论建构[J].人文地理,2006,(6):103-109.
[165]苗长虹.从区域地理学到新区域主义:20世纪西方地理学区域主义的发展脉络[J].经济地理,2005,25(5):593-599.
[166]苗长虹.马歇尔产业区理论的复兴及其理论意义[J].地域研究与开发,2004,23(1):1-6.
[167]苗长虹.全球-地方联结与产业集群的技术学习——以河南许昌发制品产业为例[J].地理学报,2006,61(4):425-434.
[168]牛盼强,李本干,陈德金.产业知识基础与区域创新体系构建研究述评[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2011,32(2):96-103.
[169]牛盼强,谢富纪.综合型知识基础与解析型知识基础的比较研究[J].科学学研究,2011,29(1):26-30.
[170]谈耀麟.国际工业金刚石行业发展形势与动态[J].超硬材料工程,2005,17(2):35-40
[171]谭文柱,王缉慈.论外部知识联系对发展中国家产业集群的重要性[J].地域研究与开发.2006,25(3):6-9.
[172]唐春晖,唐要家.产业技术模式下的产品出口竞争力及升级对策研究[J].经济与管理研究,2009,(12):24-28.
[173]唐春晖,唐要家.技术模式与中国产业技术追赶[J].中国软科学,2006,(4):59-65.
[174]童昕,王缉慈.硅谷—新竹—东莞:透视信息技术产业的全球生产网络[J].科研管理,1999(9):14-16.
[175]汪少华,汪佳蕾.浙江产业集群高级化演进与区域创新网络研究[J].科学学研究.2007,25(6):1244-1248.
[176]王光祖,郭留希,赵清国,等.高速发展的中国超硬材料[J].金刚石与磨料磨具工程,2003,138(6):1-6
[177]王光祖,汪静,陶刚.不断发展的金刚石合成与应用技术[J].超硬材料与宝石,2002,(3):1-4.
[178]王光祖.人造金刚石合成技术开拓创新的50年[J].金刚石与磨料磨具工程,2004,144(6):73-77
[179]王光祖.我国第一颗人造金刚石的诞生[J].超硬材料工程,2008,(20):45-47
[180]王光祖.中国超硬材料发展30年——纪念我国人造金刚石诞生30周年[J].磨料磨具与磨削，1994,1(79):25-30,38-41.
[181]王国红,邢蕊,唐丽艳.基于知识场的产业集成创新研究[J].中国软科学,2010,9:96-107.
[182]王缉慈.创新的空间[D].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
[183]王秦生.超硬材料及制品[M].郑州:郑州大学出版社,2006:165
[184]文嫮,曾刚.嵌入全球价值链的地方产业集群发展[J].中国工业经济,2004(6):36-42.
[185]谢伟,吴贵生.彩电产业的技术学习过程[J].科技管理,2000(1):67-70.
[186]谢伟.技术学习过程的新模式[J].科研管理,1999,20(4):1-7.
[187]徐辉,王浣尘,张祥建.上海浦东新区电子信息与生物医药企业创新合作网络比较研究[J].地域研究与开发,2005,24(5):34-37.
[188]薛捷,张振刚.基于知识基础、创新网络与交互式学习的区域创新研究综述[J].中国科技论坛,2011,(1):104-111.
[189]薛捷.产业集群的知识基础与创新网络研究———以东莞石龙电子信息产业集群为例[J].科技进步与对策,2009,26(16):66-70.
[190]薛捷.产业集群中企业的知识基础与交互式学习研究——以东莞虎门服装产业集群为例[J].工业技术经济,2009,28(7):59-63.
[191]薛捷.东莞大朗毛织产业集群的知识基础、创新网络与交互式学习研究[J].科技管理研究,2009,(7):415-417,432.
[192]杨光繁.超硬材料的发展及前景[J].材料产业,2005(9):60-64.
[193]姚裕成.中国人造金刚石诞生纪事[J].超硬材料工程,2007,19(6):45-46
[194]袁健红,马岳红.本地化互动、跨区域管道的连结与基于综合性知识基础的产业集群知识合作的关系——以长三角汽车产业集群为例[J].科技进步与对策,2011,28(21):64-68
[195]詹·法格博格等着.柳御林等译.牛津创新手册[M].北京：知识产权出版社，2009，372.
[196]赵晓庆.技术学习的模式[J].科研管理,2003,24(3):39-44.
[197]赵晓庆.企业技术学习的模式与技术能力积累途径的螺旋运动过程[D].浙江大学博士学位论文,2001.
[198]郑丽,赵文东,宋月清,等.金刚石工具的现状与发展趋势[J].石材,2009,(1):33-37
[199]郑州磨料磨具磨削研究所.郑州磨料磨具磨削研究所所史(1958-1988)[M].
[200]中国超硬材料发展30年——纪念我国人造金刚石诞生30周年.磨料磨具与磨削,1994,1(79):25-30
[201]中国机床工具工业协会超硬材料分会.中国磨料磨具超硬材料及制品厂商名录[M].2011.
[202]中国机床工具工业协会超硬材料分会.中国磨料磨具工业年鉴[M].2011.
[203]朱伟民.河南超硬材料产业集群形成与发展研究[J].工业技术经济,2008,27(4):41-45
[2] Allen,John and Cochrane, Allan.‘Beyond the territorial fix: regional assemblages, politics and power’[J]. Regional Studies,2007,41(9):1161-1175.
[3] Amin, Joanne Roberts, Knowing in action: Beyond communities of practice [J]. Research Policy,2008,37(2):353-369
[4] Amin A,and Thrift N.(ed.) Globalization,institution, and regional development in Europe [M]. Oxford:Orford university press,1994.
[5] Amin A,Cohendet, P.Architectures of knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2004.
[6] Amin A,Thrift N.Neo-Marshallian node in global networks[J].International Journal of Urban andRegional Research,1992,(4):571-587.
[7] Amin A.An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development [J].International Journal ofUrban and Regional Studies,1999,(2):365-378.
[8] Arrow K.J.The Economic Implication of Learning by Doing[J].Review of Economic Studies,1962,(29):155-173.
[9] Asheim B,Lars Coenen.Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems:Comparing Nordicclusters[J].Research Policy,2005,(34):1173-1190.
[10] Asheim B,Ron Boschma,Philip Cooke.Constructing regional advantage:Platform policies based onrelated variety and differentiated knowledge bases,2009workingpaper.
[11] Asheim B.‘Learning regions’ in a globalised world economy: towards a new competitive advantage ofindustrial districts? In S Conti and M Taylor,eds. Interdependent and uneven development:global-local perspectives. London: Avebury:1997,143-176.
[12] Asheim B,H.K. Hansen.Knowledge Bases,Talents and Contexts: On the Usefulness of the Creative Class Approach in Sweden[J]. Economic Geography,2009,85(4):425-442.
[13] Asheim B,M.S. Gertler.The Geography of Innovation: Regional Innovation Systems. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, ed. J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery,R.R. Nelson,291-317. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2005.
[14] Asheim B. Industrial districts as ‘learning regions’: A condition for prosperity[J].European Planning Studies,1996,(4):379-400.
[15] Aydalot Ph,eds, Milieux innovateurs en Europe. GREMI,Paris,1986:5-28.
[16] Aydalot Ph,Keeble D,eds.High Technology industry and innovative environments:the Europeanexperience. London:Routledge,1988:11-39.
[17] Bair J,Gereffi G. Local clusters in global chains: The cases and consequences of export dynamism inTorreon’s blue jeans industry [J].World Development,2001,29(11):1885-1903.
[18] Barro R.Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth[J].Journal of PoliticalEconomy,1990,98(5):103—125.
[19] Bathelt H,Malmberg A,Maskell P.Clusters and knowledge:Local buzz,global pipelines and the processof knowledge creation[J].Progress in Human Geography,2004,28(1):31–56.
[20] Bathelt H.The re-emergence of a media-industry cluster in Leipzig[J].European Planning Studies,2002:583–611.
[21] Boschma R.A.,Frenken K.The spatial evolution of innovation networks:a proximity Perspective[J/OL].Papers in evolutionary economic geography,no.2009.05.http://ideas.repec.org/s/egu/wpaper.html.
[22] Bourdieu P. Practical Reasons: On the Theory of Action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.1998.
[23] Burton R. Clark, Places of Inquiry: Research and Advanced Education in ModernUniversities,1995,26.
[24] Camagni R,eds. Innovation networks: Spatial perspectives[M].London: Belhaven press,1991:3-10.
[25] Camagni.Global network and local milieu: towards a theory of economic space. In SergioConti,Edward J.1997.
[26] Castells M.The Information City:Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and theUrban-regional Process[M].Oxford: Basil Blackwell,1989.
[27] Chang-Hong Miao,Yehua Dennis Wei, Haitao Ma.Technological Learning and Innovation in China inthe Context of Globalization[J].Eurasian Geography and Economics,2007,48(6):1-20.
[28] Chao Zhao.Global knowledge linkages and the innovativeness of local clusters: Evidence from theGuangzhou software cluster in China [J].Ibima business review,2009(1):22-31.
[29] Coe D.,Helpman E.. International R&D spillovers[J]. European Economic Review.1995,39:859-87.
[30] Coe N,Hess M,Yeung H et al.Globalizing regional development:A global production networksperspective.Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,2004,29:468-484.
[31] Coe N., Dicken P.,Hess M.Global production networks: realizing the potential[J].Journal of EconomicGeography2008,(8):271-295.
[32] Coenen,Moodysson,Asheim.Comparing a pharmaceutical and an agro-food bioregion on theimportance of knowledge bases for socio-spatial patterns of innovation[J].Industry andinnovation,2006,13(4):393-414.
[33] Cohendet P, Llerna P.“Routines and the theory of the firm: the role of communities”[A].Druidconference paper[C].2001.http://www.druid.dk
[34] Cooke, P., M. Heidenreich, H.J. Braczyk. Regional innovation systems: the role of governance in aglobalized world[M]. New York: Routledge,Press,2004:46-74,132-177.
[35] D. Mackinnon, A. Cumbers, K. Chapman.Learning, innovation and regional development: a criticalappraisal of recent debates[J]. Progress in Human Geography,2002(3):293-311.
[36] Dicken P,Thrift N.The organization of production and the production of organization:Why businessenterprises matter in the study of geographical industrialization.Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers,New Series,1992,17(3):279-291.
[37] Dicken P. et al. Chains and Networks, Territories and Scales: towards a Relational Framework forAnalyzing the Global Economy [J].Global Networks,2001,(2):89-112.
[38] Dicken P. Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic in the21Century [M].London: SAGEPublications Ltd.,2003.
[39] Dicken P.Tangled webs:Transnational production networks and regional integration[A].Spatial AspectsConcerning:Spatial Aspects Concerning Economic Structures[C].2005-04.
[40] Dicken, Peter. The multiplant business enterprise and geographical space: some issues in the study ofexternal control and regional development [J].Regional Studies,1976,10:401-412.
[41] Dicken,Peter.Global Shift: Mapping the Changing Contours of the World Economy[M]. Fifth Edition,London: Sage,2007.
[42] Dosi G.Technical Change and Industrial Transformation[M].London:The MacMillan Press,1984.
[43] Dosi G.Technological paradigms and technological trajectories[J].Research policy,1982(11):147–162.
[44] Drucker, P. F. Post-capitalist society[M]. London: Oxford, Butterworth Heinemann, Harper Business,1993.
[45] Edquist C,eds. System of innovation: technologies, institutions and organizations. London: PinterPublishers.1997.
[46] Ernst D,Kim L.Global production networks,knowledge diffusion,and local capabilityformation[J].Research Policy,2002,(31):1417-1429.
[47] Ernst D.The New mobility of Knowledge: Digital Information Systems and Global FlagshipNetworks.In: latham R., Sassen.,S.(eds.).Cooperation and Conflict in a Connected World[M].Routledge, London,in Press,2002.
[48] Feldman M. P.The Geography of Innovation[M]. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht.1994
[49] Fl ysand A and Jakobsen S-E Commodification of rural places:Anarrative of social fields, ruraldevelopment, and football[J].Journal of Rural Studies,2007,23:206–21.
[50] Fl ysand,Stig-Erik Jakobsen.The complexity of innovation:A relational turn[J].Progress in HumanGeography,2010,35(3):328–344
[51] Gr nhaug R.Micro-macro relations: Social organization in Antalya, Southern Turkey. OccasionalPaper7, Department of Social Anthropology[M]. University of Bergen, Norway.1974
[52] Freeman C. National System of Innovation: the Case of Japan. In Technology Policy and EconomicPerformance: Lessons from Japan[M].London: Pinter Publishers,1987.
[53] Fulvio Castellacci.Technological paradigms, regimes and trajectories Manufacturing and serviceindustries in a new taxonomy of sectoral patterns of innovation[J].researh policy,2008,3778-994.
[54] Gereffi G. International Trade and Industrial Upgrading in the Apparel Commodity Chains[J].Journalof International Economics,1999,48:37-70.
[55] Gereffi G.Global production systems and third world development[M].Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,2000.
[56] Gereffi,G.A commodity chains framework for analyzing global industries[Z].Duke UniversityWorking Paper,1999.
[57] Gertler, M.S. Buzz without being there? Communities of practice in context. In Community, Economic Creativity, and Organization, ed. A. Amin and J. Roberts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.2008,203-226
[58] Gertler, M.S., Y.M. Levitte.Local Nodes in Global Networks: The Geography of Knowledge Flows inBiotechnology Innovation[J]. Industry&Innovation,2005,(12):487-507.
[59] GertlerM.Manufacturing culture:the institutional geography of industrial practice[M].Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2004.46-74,132-177.
[60] Granovetter M.Eeonomic action and social structure:the problem of embeddedness[J].AmericanJournal of Soeiology,1985,91(3):481-510.
[61] Gr nhaug R.Scale as a variable in analysis: Field in social organisation in Herat, northwestAfghanistan. In Barth F (ed.) Scale and Social Organisation[M]. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget,1978,78–121.
[62] Grossman, G. M., Helpman, E.“Innovation and Growth in the Theory”[M]. MIT Press,1991.
[63] Hansen, T.,L. Winther. Innovation, regional development and relations between high-and low-techindustries.In8th European Urban and Regional Studies Conference. Vienna, Austria,2010.
[64] Harrison J. From competitive regions to competitive city-regions: a new orthodoxy, but some oldmistakes[J].Journal of Economic Geography,2007,(7):311-332
[65] Henderson J. Danger and opportunity in the Asia-Pacific [A].In: Thompson G (eds).Economicdynamism in the Asia Pacific[C]. London: Routledge,1998.
[66] Henderson J,Dicken P,Hess M et al.Global production networks and the analysis of economicdevelopment[J].Review of International Political Economy,2002,3:436-464.
[67] Henry Etzkowitz,Chunyan Zhou.Triple Helix Twins[J].Science and Public Policy,2006,33(1):78-83.
[68] Henry Etzkowitz.MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science[M].Routledge,2002.
[69] Hess, Henry Wai-Chung Yeung.Whither global production networks in economic geography? Past,present, and future [J]. Environment and Planning A,2006,38(7):1193-1204.
[70] Hess.Spatial relationship?Towards a reconceptualization of embeddedness[J].Progress of HumanGeography,2004,28(2):165-186.
[71] Howells J. The location and organization of research and development: new horizons[J]. ResearchPolicy,1990,19:33-46.
[72] Hudson R. Conceptualizing economies and their geographies:spaces,flows and circuits [J].Progress inHuman Geography,2004,28:447-471.
[73] HUDSON R. Region and place: devolved regional government and regional economic success?[J].Progress in Human Geography,2005,29,618–625.
[74] HUDSON R. Regional devolution and regional economic success: enabling myths and illusions aboutpower [J].Geogfrafiska Annaler B,2006,88:159–171.
[75] Hudson R.Regions and regional uneven development forever?Some reflective comments upon theoryand practice [J].Regional Studies,2007,41(9):1149–1160.
[76] Humphrey J,Schmitz H. How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading industrialclusters?[J].Regional Studies,2002,36(9):1017-1027.
[77] Johnson, B.,E. Lorenz, B‐. Lundvall. Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge? Jerker Moodysson, Coenen,Lars, Bj rn Asheim.Explaining spatial patterns of innovation: analytical and synthetic modes ofknowledge creation in the Medicon Valley life-science cluster[J].Environment and PlanningA,2008,(40):1040-1056
[78] Keun Lee,Chaisung Lim.Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging:findings from theKorean industries[J].Research Policy,2001(30):459–483.
[79] Kline S J, Rosenberg N. An overview of innovation. In Landau R and Rosenberg N. eds. The positivesum game[M].Washington: National Academy Press.1986.
[80] Laestadius, S. Biotechnology and the Potential for a Radical Shift of Technology in Forest Industry[J].Technology Analysis&Strategic Management,2000,(12):193-212.
[81] Lash S., Urry, J. Economies of Signs&Space[M].London: Sage,1994.
[82] Lars Hakanson, Epistemic Communities and Cluster Dynamics: On the Role of Knowledge inIndustrial Districts [J].Industry and Innovation,2005,12(4):433-463.
[83] Latour B. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory[M]. New York:Oxford University Press.2006.
[84] Lee C.K.,A. Saxenian.Coevolution and coordination:a systemic analysis of t he Taiwaneseinformation technology industry[J].Journal of Economic Geography,2008,(8).
[85] Lorentzen A.Global and local knowledge networks in innovation:A case study of Polish manufacturingenterprises[A].European network on industrial policy International conference University ofLimerick[C]. Ireland,2006:20-22
[86] Lucas R.On the mechanics of economic development[J].Journal of Monetary Economics,1988,(7):4-14.
[87] Lundvall B. A. National Systems of Innovation[M].Frances Pinter,London.1993.
[88] Lundvall B-A.Innovation as an Interactive Process: from User-Producer Interaction to the NationalSystem of Innovation.In Dosi G et al. Technical Change and Economic Theory[M].London: PinterPublishers.1988.
[89] Mackinnon,A.Cumbers and K.Chapman.Learning,innovation and regional development:a criticalappraisal of recent debates[J].Progress in Human Geography,2002(3):293–311.
[90] Malerba,Orsenigo.Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology—specific[J].ResearchPolicy,1996,25(3):451–478.
[91] Malerba,Orsenigo.Technological Regimes and Firm Behavior[J].Industrial&CorporateChange,1993,2(1):45-72.
[92] Malerba,Orsenigo.Technological regimes and patterns of innovation:a theoretical and empiricalinvestigation of the Italian case.Evolving Technologies and Market Structure[M].Ann Arbor:MichiganUniversity Press,1990:283-306.
[93] Martin R.,Sunley P.Slow convergence?The new endogenous growth theory and regional development[J].Economic Geography,1998:201-227.
[94] Maskell P.Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster.Industrial and CorporateChange,2001,10:213-237.
[95] Massey D. Spatial divisions of labour [M]. London: Macmillan,1984.
[96] Morgan K.The learning region: Institutions, innovation and regional renewal. Regional Studies,1997,(31):491-503.
[97] Moulaert.Sekia.Territorial innovation models:a critical survey[J].RegionalStudies,2003,(37):289-302.
[98] Nelson R.National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis[M]. New York and Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1993.
[99] Nelson,Winter.An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change[M].Cambridge MA:Belknap Press ofHarvard University Press,1982.
[100] Nelson,Winter.In search of a useful theory of innovation[J].Research Policy,1977(6):36–76.
[101] Nonaka, I., R. Toyama,N. Konno. SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation[J].Long Range Planning,2000,(33):5-34.
[102] OECD. Innovative clusters: drivers of national innovation system [M].Paris: OECD Publications,2001.
[103] Orietta, M.Technological regimes and sources of entrepreneurship[J].Small Business Economics,2002,19(3):217.
[104] Park,K.H.Lee,K. Linking the Technological Regime to the Technological Catch—up:AnalyzingKorea and China's Taiwan Region Using the US Patent Data [C],Proceedings of The2nd GlobelicsConference,Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2004.
[105] Pavitt K.The social shaping of the national science base[J]. Research Policy,1998,(27):793-805.
[106] Pavitt.Sectoral patterns of technical change:Towards a taxonomy and a theory[J].ResearchPolicy,1984,13(6):343-373.
[107] Pavitt.The size distribution of innovation firms in the UK:1945-1983[J].Journal of IndustrialEconomics,1987(35):297-316.
[108] Peck J,Yeung HWC(eds.)Remaking the Global Economy:Economic-GeographicalPerspectives[M].London:Sage,2003.
[109] Pike, Andy (ed.)Special issue: Wither regional studies?[J].Regional Studies,2007,41(9):1143-1270.
[110] Piore M.,Sable C.The second industrial divide [M].NewYork:Basic Brooks,1984.
[111] Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension[M]. New York: Doubleday.1967.
[112] Polanyi,K.The great transformation:The political and economic origins of Our time[M].NewYork:Beacon Press,l944:45.
[113] Pred A. The Spatial Dynamics of US Urban Industrial Growth,1800-1914: Interpretative andTheoretical Essays[M].MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.1966.
[114] Rip.A.,Kemp,R.Technological change.In:Rayner,S.,Malone,E.L.(Eds.) Human Choice and ClimateChange.Resources and Technology,1998,2:327-399.
[115] Roman Martin,Jerker Moodysson,Elena Zukauskaite.Regional Innovation Policy Beyond ‘BestPractice’:Lessons from Sweden[J].J Knowl Econ,2011,(2):550-568.
[116] Roman Martin,Jerker Moodysson.Comparing knowledge bases: on the organisation and geographyof knowledge flows in the regional innovation system of Scania, southern Sweden [J].EuropeanUrban and Regional Studies,2011.
[117] Roman Martin,Jerker Moodysson.Innovation in symbolic industries:the geography and organizationof knowledge sourcing[J].Paper to be presented at the Summer Conference,2010.
[118] Schumpeter J A.The Theory of Economic Development[M]. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress,1934.
[119] Scott A. J. The Cultural Economy: Geography and the Creative Field[J].Culture,Media andSociety,1999,(21):807-817.
[120] Scott A.J. Entrepreneurship,Innovation and Industrial Development:Geography and the CreativeField Revisited [J].Small Business Economics,2006,(26):1-24.
[121] Scott A.J. New industrial spaces: flexible production organization and regional development in NorthAmerican and Western Europe [M].London: Pion,1988.
[122] Scott A.J.Regions and the World Economy:the Coming Shape of Global Production,Competition andPolitical Order[M].Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998.
[123] Smith K.What is ‘the knowledge economy’? Knowledge-intensive industries and distributedknowledge bases[A].Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference on‘The learningeconomy-firms, regions and nation specific institutions’[C]. Aalborg, June2000.
[124] Stefano Breschi.The Geography of Innovation:A Cross-sector Analysis[J].RegionalStudies,2000,34(3):213-229.
[125] Sternberg, R. Innovation networks and regional development.Evidence from the European RegionalInnovation Survey (ERIS): theoretical concepts, methodological approach, empirical basis andintroduction to the theme issue[J]. European Planning Studies,2000,8:389-407.
[126] Stoper M.The regional world: territorial development in a global economy [M].New York: TheGuilford Press,1997:1-338.
[127] Uzzi B.The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance oforganizations: the network effect [J]. American Sociological Review,1996,61:674-698.
[128] Van De Poel, I.The transformation of technological regimes[J].Research Policy,2003,32(1):49-68.
[129] Van den Ende,J,Kemp,R.Technological transformations in history:how the computer regime grew outof existing computing regimes[J].Research Policy,1999,28(8):833-851.
[130] Yeung H W C. Rethinking Relational Economic Geography[J].Transactions of the Institute of BritishGeographers NS,2005,30:37-51.
[131] Yeung,Henry Wai-chung.Regional Development and the Competitive Dynamics of GlobalProduction Networks: An East Asian Perspective[J]. Regional Studies,2009(43).
[132][奥]卡林诺尔－塞蒂纳.制造知识:建构主义与科学的与境性[M].
[133][德]鲍尔生.德国教育史[M].滕大春等译,北京:人民教育出版社,1986,125.
[134] B.Kosko着,黄崇福译.模糊工程.西安:西安交通大学出版社,1999.
[135] OECD.研究与发展调查手册[M].北京:新华出版社,2000,75.
[136]艾少伟,苗长虹.技术学习的区域差异:学习场视角——以北京中关村与上海张江为例[J].科技政策与管理,2009,(5):40-46.
[137]艾少伟,苗长虹.经济地理学研究视角的变迁及进展[J].人文地理.2009,(4):6-12.
[138]艾少伟.中国开发区技术学习通道研究——以苏州工业园区为例[D].河南大学研究生博士学位论文,2009.
[139]别格尔.控制论的方法论观点[J].外国自然科学哲学,1974.
[140]蔡秀玲.“硅谷”与“新竹”区域创新环境形成机制比较与启示[J].亚太经济.2004(6):61-64.
[141]曾刚,丰志勇,林兰.科技中介与技术扩散研究[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2007.
[142]曾刚,林兰.跨国公司技术溢出与溢出地技术区位研究——以上海浦东新区为例[J].世界地理研究,2007,16(4):98-105.
[143]方啸虎,温简杰,杨烨.中国六面顶压机大型化的快速发展及相关问题[J].超硬材料工程,2011,23(1):42-45
[144]何荣利.知识场的考证与知识场的生成及场效应分析[J].图书情报工作,2008,10:48-50.
[145]贺灿飞,刘洋,产业地理集聚与外商直接投资的产业选择—以北京市为例[J].地理学报,2006,61(12):1259-1270.
[146]贺巷超.图书馆信息场初论[J].图书馆理论与实践,2007,1:1-3.
[147]胡恩良,陶知耻.我国第一颗人造金刚石的诞生[J].超硬材料工程,2009,21(6):45-47.
[148]胡晓军,黎明发,孙振亚,等.人造纳米金刚石研究现状与展望[J].武汉理工大学学报·信息与管理工程版,2009,31(2):301-305.
[149]贾嘉,嵇登科,魏国平.韩国技术追赶范式研究及对我国的借鉴[J].科学管理研究,2006,24(1):117-120
[150]李健,宁越敏,汪明峰.计算机产业全球生产网络分析:兼论其在中国大陆的发展.地理学报,2008,63(4):437-448.
[151]李伟.市场化改革与产业技术创新的阶段性演进——兼析中国产业技术追赶的绩效差异[J].2008,11:54-70.
[152]李郇,丁行政.空间集聚与外商直接投资的区位选择——基于珠江三角洲地区的实证分析[J],地理科学,2007,27(5):636-641.
[153]李志宏,李亮.超硬材料产业前途无量[J].中国科技投资,2012,4:31-34
[154]李志宏,赵博.借宏观经济向好东风,超硬材料行业超常规发展[J].2011.
[155]刘志高,王缉慈.共同演化及其空间隐喻[J].中国地质大学学报(社会科学版),2008(4):85-91.
[156]卢照田.我国超硬材料行业发展历程回顾及未来展望[J].工业金刚石,2003,(4-5):1-10
[157]苗长虹,艾少伟.“学习场”结构与空间中的创新[J].人文地理.2009,29(7):1057-1063.
[158]苗长虹,艾少伟.空间中的创新:“学习场”的结构与演化[A].第七届产业集群与区域发展国际学术会议论文集[C].2008:85-95.
[159]苗长虹,樊杰,张文忠.西方经济地理学区域研究的新视角:论“新区域主义”的兴起[J].经济地理,2002,22(6):644-650.
[160]苗长虹,魏也华,吕拉昌.新经济地理学[M].北京:科学出版社,2011.
[161]苗长虹,魏也华.分工深化、知识创造与产业集群成长——河南鄢陵县花木产业的案例研究[J].地理研究,2009,28,(4):853-864
[162]苗长虹,魏也华.技术学习与创新:经济地理学的视角[J].人文地理,2007,97(5):1-9.
[163]苗长虹,魏也华.西方经济地理学理论建构的发展与论争[J].地理研究,2007,26(6):1233-1246.
[164]苗长虹.“产业区”研究的主要学派与整合框架:学习型产业区的理论建构[J].人文地理,2006,(6):103-109.
[165]苗长虹.从区域地理学到新区域主义:20世纪西方地理学区域主义的发展脉络[J].经济地理,2005,25(5):593-599.
[166]苗长虹.马歇尔产业区理论的复兴及其理论意义[J].地域研究与开发,2004,23(1):1-6.
[167]苗长虹.全球-地方联结与产业集群的技术学习——以河南许昌发制品产业为例[J].地理学报,2006,61(4):425-434.
[168]牛盼强,李本干,陈德金.产业知识基础与区域创新体系构建研究述评[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2011,32(2):96-103.
[169]牛盼强,谢富纪.综合型知识基础与解析型知识基础的比较研究[J].科学学研究,2011,29(1):26-30.
[170]谈耀麟.国际工业金刚石行业发展形势与动态[J].超硬材料工程,2005,17(2):35-40
[171]谭文柱,王缉慈.论外部知识联系对发展中国家产业集群的重要性[J].地域研究与开发.2006,25(3):6-9.
[172]唐春晖,唐要家.产业技术模式下的产品出口竞争力及升级对策研究[J].经济与管理研究,2009,(12):24-28.
[173]唐春晖,唐要家.技术模式与中国产业技术追赶[J].中国软科学,2006,(4):59-65.
[174]童昕,王缉慈.硅谷—新竹—东莞:透视信息技术产业的全球生产网络[J].科研管理,1999(9):14-16.
[175]汪少华,汪佳蕾.浙江产业集群高级化演进与区域创新网络研究[J].科学学研究.2007,25(6):1244-1248.
[176]王光祖,郭留希,赵清国,等.高速发展的中国超硬材料[J].金刚石与磨料磨具工程,2003,138(6):1-6
[177]王光祖,汪静,陶刚.不断发展的金刚石合成与应用技术[J].超硬材料与宝石,2002,(3):1-4.
[178]王光祖.人造金刚石合成技术开拓创新的50年[J].金刚石与磨料磨具工程,2004,144(6):73-77
[179]王光祖.我国第一颗人造金刚石的诞生[J].超硬材料工程,2008,(20):45-47
[180]王光祖.中国超硬材料发展30年——纪念我国人造金刚石诞生30周年[J].磨料磨具与磨削，1994,1(79):25-30,38-41.
[181]王国红,邢蕊,唐丽艳.基于知识场的产业集成创新研究[J].中国软科学,2010,9:96-107.
[182]王缉慈.创新的空间[D].北京:北京大学出版社,2001.
[183]王秦生.超硬材料及制品[M].郑州:郑州大学出版社,2006:165
[184]文嫮,曾刚.嵌入全球价值链的地方产业集群发展[J].中国工业经济,2004(6):36-42.
[185]谢伟,吴贵生.彩电产业的技术学习过程[J].科技管理,2000(1):67-70.
[186]谢伟.技术学习过程的新模式[J].科研管理,1999,20(4):1-7.
[187]徐辉,王浣尘,张祥建.上海浦东新区电子信息与生物医药企业创新合作网络比较研究[J].地域研究与开发,2005,24(5):34-37.
[188]薛捷,张振刚.基于知识基础、创新网络与交互式学习的区域创新研究综述[J].中国科技论坛,2011,(1):104-111.
[189]薛捷.产业集群的知识基础与创新网络研究———以东莞石龙电子信息产业集群为例[J].科技进步与对策,2009,26(16):66-70.
[190]薛捷.产业集群中企业的知识基础与交互式学习研究——以东莞虎门服装产业集群为例[J].工业技术经济,2009,28(7):59-63.
[191]薛捷.东莞大朗毛织产业集群的知识基础、创新网络与交互式学习研究[J].科技管理研究,2009,(7):415-417,432.
[192]杨光繁.超硬材料的发展及前景[J].材料产业,2005(9):60-64.
[193]姚裕成.中国人造金刚石诞生纪事[J].超硬材料工程,2007,19(6):45-46
[194]袁健红,马岳红.本地化互动、跨区域管道的连结与基于综合性知识基础的产业集群知识合作的关系——以长三角汽车产业集群为例[J].科技进步与对策,2011,28(21):64-68
[195]詹·法格博格等着.柳御林等译.牛津创新手册[M].北京：知识产权出版社，2009，372.
[196]赵晓庆.技术学习的模式[J].科研管理,2003,24(3):39-44.
[197]赵晓庆.企业技术学习的模式与技术能力积累途径的螺旋运动过程[D].浙江大学博士学位论文,2001.
[198]郑丽,赵文东,宋月清,等.金刚石工具的现状与发展趋势[J].石材,2009,(1):33-37
[199]郑州磨料磨具磨削研究所.郑州磨料磨具磨削研究所所史(1958-1988)[M].
[200]中国超硬材料发展30年——纪念我国人造金刚石诞生30周年.磨料磨具与磨削,1994,1(79):25-30
[201]中国机床工具工业协会超硬材料分会.中国磨料磨具超硬材料及制品厂商名录[M].2011.
[202]中国机床工具工业协会超硬材料分会.中国磨料磨具工业年鉴[M].2011.
[203]朱伟民.河南超硬材料产业集群形成与发展研究[J].工业技术经济,2008,27(4):41-45
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |