Science, Technology and Innovation Parks: A
comparative analysis among scientific and
technical production on the theme
Marcelo Gonçalves do Amaral1 André Luiz Furtado da Hora1, Nathan Messias
Ribeiro1, Leandro de Andrade Cunha1 and Jéssica Souza Maia1
Triple Helix Research Group Brazil, Fluminense Federal University
Rua Desembargador Ellis Hermydio Figueira, 783, building B, room 105, 27213-145, Volta
Redonda (Brazil)
marceloamaral@id.uff.br
Abtract: This article analyzes the evolution of scientific publications, carried out by academic
researchers, and technical publications carried out by managers of the science, technology, and
innovation parks (STIP). The objective is to know the author’s origin and the most relevant
topics for comparisons. The study uses bibliometric techniques, to draw a comparison between
the academic output published in scientific journals, and the technical and professional output
carried out by professionals and published at conferences of the International Association of
Science Parks (IASP). The content search was conducted in the Web of Science database, and
for the IASP publication, a database was built based on the conference’s proceedings. The study
focused on the period between 2007 and 2018 and 177 papers and 572 conferences works were
treated. The bibliometric analysis made the identification of authors, countries, institution, and
the subjects of publication from the reading of titles, abstracts, and keywords. It was identified:
the growth in the recent interest of academic researchers on the subject (post-2015); the limited
number of academic publications (177 in 12 years); China, Taiwan, and Spain as the countries
with the highest academic output (40%) and Spain, Brazil, and the United States as the most
productive of technical publications (35%). In both cases the focus was on the
macroenvironment (linkages between the STIP, government, and society) and, as expected, the
academic authors also dealt with conceptual issues while managers emphasized themes related
to operations. The study has limitations associated with the methodological focus and data
sources. The work has implications. For the IASP it can serve as an evaluation of its events and
signalize themes to be incorporated, as well as allowing the building of bridges with the
academy. For the academy, it can flag new topics for research. For the parks and policymakers
enables a perception of the relevance of the theme in each country.
Keywords: Science, Technology and Innovation Parks, Triple Helix, management of
innovation habitats, bibliometric analysis, IASP.
1 Introduction
1
The globalization process that has been taking place in society has changed the
dynamics of economic and social relations around the world, resulting in greater
complexity in the market and demanding higher quality in products and services
(Zouain, 2003). This process has led the dilution of national barriers in business (Hitt
et al., 2013), and raised the competition level between countries and firms (Robbins,
2005). The commercial opening expands the number of competitors and intensifies
the rivalry among companies. This competitive environment also demands
considerable attention to economic performance (Vedovello, 2000). As time
progresses, new demands and opportunities arise, deepening the changes in relations
and in economic, production, and development systems (Spolidoro and Audy, 2008).
The end of the twentieth century witnessed the rise of the Knowledge and Information
Age, which transformed the capital-based society, with an industrial focus, into a
knowledge-based society, with a predominance of technological and informational
knowledge (Castells, 1999). With this scenario in mind, diffusions and acceleration of
technologies and innovations were witnessed worldwide, imparting new
characteristics to the economy and society as a whole (Archibugi et al., 1999). The
science and technology parks are innovative environments, based on the generation
and transmission of technical-scientific knowledge that plays an vital role in the
economic development of the regions in which they are located. These environments
emerge as a response to the globalization and competition movement of multinational
corporations (Fagerber and Srholec, 2008).
According to the International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation
(IASP), technology parks are highly specialized areas of innovation that add
dynamism and innovation in policies, programs, and physical space, as well as the
provision of specialized services in the region they are located. Etzkowitz and Zhou
(2017) understand the technological parks as spaces where economic and social
development objectives connect with science, market, and civil society, being one of
the best examples of the type III interactions of the Triple Helix approach. Thus,
technological parks, while innovative environments, add knowledge and dynamism to
the countries and regions, giving greater competitiveness in the national and world
scenario. The present work makes an effort to analyze the production of knowledge
related to science, technology, and innovation parks (STIP) based on bibliometric
analysis. The primary purpose is to understand who are the most active actors and the
subjects of interest, based on a comparison between scientific papers and technical
content on the subject. What is expected is that academic authors address more
conceptual issues (formal aspects of technology transfer, considerations for public
policy), while managers emphasize issues more related to operational management
and focus on case studies and reports of experience as a way of disseminating their
STIPs. In order to reach the proposed objective, a brief literature review was
performed, and it is presented throughout the text. Then, the methodological
procedures are reported, as well as the collected information, along with the discussion
regarding the findings and final considerations. No similar study was found in the
literature comparing academic researchers and STIP’s staff. Thus, it is an original
work that can contribute to both academia and managers of these innovation
environments and also to the development of public policies.
2
2 Innovation Environments
Since the emphasis of innovation as a promoter of economic development, the theme
of innovation environments (IE) has been at the center of discussions in academia and
the market. Technological changes associated with transformation in the political,
social, and economic spheres have been contributing to an implosion of the economic
borders, with the social, political, and economic processes, producing a wave of
globalization (Hoffmann et al., 2010). Even with the recent tightening of this process,
the volume of international trade and the diffusion of new technologies embedded in
new business models based on the Internet environment continue to grow. The
organizations are looking at these changes and, in this sense, a diverse set of
environments can be considered as promoters of generating knowledge and
technology for innovation, with distinct and complementary roles in the process, such
as companies, universities, research centers, development agencies, business
incubators, technology parks, among others (Hoffmann et al., 2010). In this context,
Cabral and Dahab (1996) report the emergence of these strategic IEs in terms of
competitive advantage and knowledge transfer, which emerge as alternatives to
overcome existing barriers in the innovation trajectory. In the sense of promoting
technology development and diffusion, the cooperation of economic agents can be
understood as a network of innovation, defined by Tidd and Bessant (2014) as a
complex and interconnected group or system. In this prism, directed efforts,
aggregated at specific locations, are classified as IE. Amaral et al. (2016) define these
structures as physical spaces where relationships occur among knowledge producer
and consumers agents, having as output the production of goods, services, processes
and businesses, with a high impact on the economy. Different terminologies are found
in the literature to define IEs, such as business incubators, technology parks,
technopoles, science parks, among others, as well as concepts similar to IE, such as
areas of innovation, innovation habitats, habitats for innovation, and innovation
districts (Amaral et al., 2016).
Regarding specifically to technological parks, the Brazilian Association of Entities
Promoting Innovative Enterprises (ANPROTEC) defines them as:
An enterprise that promotes the culture of innovation, competitiveness and
the enhancement of entrepreneurial capacity, based on the knowledge and
technology transfer, to increase the wealth production (ANPROTEC, 2012,
p.19).
Spolidoro and Audy conceptualize more broadly:
A technological park has as the purpose of the relationship between the
scientific and the business communities, allowing the union of specific
knowledge and skills to provide the following results: (i) to develop a culture
of innovation and competitiveness of companies and institutions of intensive
in knowledge associated with the park; (ii) facilitate the technology and
entrepreneurial skills transfer between academia and the industry; (iii)
stimulate the creation and development of technology-based companies
through incubators and spin-off;, (iv) promote the development of scientific
and technological research; and (v) promote the sustainable development of
3
the community and region in which it is inserted" (Spolidoro and Audy, 2008:
36).
Technological parks studies have been growing in the last sixty years (Giugliani,
2011). Its concept has already reached the interest of policymakers, entrepreneurs, and
industry, crossing the borders of the academy, focusing on the challenge of generating
development in cities, states, and countries.
In the literature, there is no consensus within the terminologies, referring to these IEs.
The terms technological parks, science parks, parks of innovation, etc., are confused
and merged with others, according to the view of scholars (Giugliani, 2011, Amaral et
al., 2016). This text prefers the term STIP (science, technology, and innovation parks)
for its coverage and understands that the definitions presented by the leading
associations are sufficient to understand the function of the IEs.
3 Methodological procedures
The present research is applied, descriptive, and analytical. It can still be characterized
as qualitative, due to this use of procedures for selecting and sorting papers for analysis
under the author's bias (although it is considered quantitative by several authors). It is
descriptive and has a longitudinal profile, covering eleven years (2007-2018). The
collection, selection, and analysis are activities of the three stages of the study
performed over two distinct sets of publications. Then, bibliometric analysis
techniques were applied. These techniques allow the analysis of authors production
and citations related, especially papers and other academic content (Araújo, 2006).
In the search and selection of scientific papers, the Web of Science (WOS) platform,
from Clarivate Analytics, was accessed. The bibliometric analysis procedure was
divided into three steps, as shown in Figure 1 and summarized in Table 1. In step one,
the search term ("scien* park" OR "tech* park") was used in WOS to have all the
searches contained in the title, in the keywords or the abstracts. The terms "science
park", "technology park" or similar, such as "scientific park" and "technological park"
were covered. As the concepts related to the theme are similar, and several authors use
different terms, we added the terms "innovation park", "university research park", and
"research park".
The string "scien* park" OR "tech* park" returned 621 results, which 254 of them are
proceeding papers, 8 reviews, 6 new items, 6 editorial materials, 1 meeting abstract
and 352 indexed papers. The term "innovation park" returned 23 results, which 11 are
proceeding papers, 1 is a new paper, 1 review and 10 indexed papers. The search for
the term "research park" has reported 93 results, with 27 proceeding papers, 3 new
items, 2 editorial materials, 1 review, and 64 indexed papers. The term "university
research park" returned 4 results. One of them is a proceeding paper, and 3 others are
indexed papers. Altogether, in this first stage were found 429 articles of periodicals.
In step two, the titles and abstracts of all selected articles were read, to assess
publications compatibility with the theme "technological park and/or science park",
"innovation park" and "research park", "University research park". Eventually, in
4
addition to titles and abstracts, to the analysis of the results of some content, a more
detailed reading was made, motivated by an inaccuracy to decide if the document was
part or not of the sample.
From 182 academic works, five were found both in the search results by the string
"scien* park" OR "tech* park", and in the results of "innovation park". The 177 papers
were selected for the bibliometric analysis. From the entire amount of documents
found in WOS (741 results) 429 are scientific papers (57.89% of the total). Of these
document, 177 (41.25%) were kept for step 3, and the others, discarded. Step three
comprises the classification of papers, which was analyzed in most prolific authors,
countries, most relevant institutions in the research of the themes, and classification of
documents by themes.
Step1
•WOS research with search strings
(429 papers found)
Step 2
•Reading of the abstracts and/or
discussion of the results (177 papers
selected)
Step 3
•Papers selection,
classification, and
tabulation.
Fig. 1 Steps of work development
Table 1 Research Methodology
Realization period:
Search Platforms:
Search Strings (Web of Science):
Search period:
Content assessment method:
Criteria for analysis selection:
August/2017 – February/2019
Web of Science (main collection)
IASP publications database
“scien* park” OR “tech* park”
“innovation park”
“university research parks”
“research park”
2007-2018
Titles reading, abstracts, and discussions.
Related studies with STIPs and its impacts
About the search and classification of papers presented at IASP conferences, the same
analysis method and classification used for scientific papers was adopted. However,
the publications were not fully organized. It was necessary to build a second MS Excel
database containing the output presented at the annual congresses.
The IASP, founded in 1984, is the leading international entity related to STIPs and
IEs. It is a non-profit association with a purpose to enable business and opportunities
linkages among their members, as well as supporting the entities in
internationalization activities (IASP, 2019). The organization brings together 350
members from all parts of the globe. Annually, IASP organizes an event in which
5
STIPs managers, academics, businesspeople, and governments representatives
presents and discuss themes related to the evolution of IEs. The events are also a space
of training and exchange of experiences among managers and workers of this segment.
In terms of configuration, the scientific production is essentially composed by reports
of managers' experiences. A total of 588 articles were submitted in the period 20072017 (the studies presented in 2018 were still not available), 572 (97.27%) are directly
related to the theme, according to the form of classification adopted in this study (some
papers were excluded due to their content, not related directly to STIPs, such as human
resources and others issues).
4 Results and Discussion
This section presents and discusses the research results. For a better bibliometric
analysis understanding of two publications' sets, it contains four parts and its analysis.
4.1 Publications analysis by year
This research identified 177 papers in indexed journals, from which it is possible to
verify the increase of interest in the topic, given the growth of the volume of output
(Figure 2). In 2007, only three articles related to STIP were found (1.69%). In the next
two years, the output was 20 articles (5.65%). The scientific production fluctuates over
the years, but since 2015 it grows consistently (19 items, 10.73%), reaching the top in
2017 with 30 published papers (16.94%). These results indicate that the interest and
relevance of the theme have been growing in the academic community around the
world. Although, in general, the volume of output is low. After 2015, the production
is seen to follow an upward trend, indicating growing interest and efforts dedicated to
studies in the area. Most of this output is in applied social sciences and Engineering.
Publications
35
30
30
25
26
20
24
19
15
16
10
5
10
3
10
12
10
8
9
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fig. 2 Papers published in indexed journals per year (2007-2018)
6
The technical works and professional studies presented at the IASP events during the
analyzed period exhibited a constant growth between 2007 and 2010, showing a drop
of almost 47% in 2011. From 2012 onwards, there is a resurgence of increase in output,
to again decline in 2015. The following years indicate a trend of resumption of the
volume of the publication.
In the period from 2007 to 2010 is the productivity peak of the sample analyzed (2010,
with 67 articles, 11.7% of the total). The year of lower output is 2011, with 32 technical
works at the conference held in Denmark. In the subsequent years, there was a new
growth curve, with an interruption in 2015 (at the Beijing Conference in China). It
assumed that these oscillations are due to issues related to the configuration of the
events (location, the format of the call for papers and presentations) than a greater or
lesser interest in the theme. It is important to note that the IASP conducts the events
with local partners (in general STIP) and that despite some standardization in
operation, there are more successful events than others. Table 2 shows the location of
the events, and Figure 3 shows the distribution of technical output per year.
Table 2 IASP Conferences Locations
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Place
Barcelona (Spain)
Johannesburg (South Africa)
Raleigh (United States)
Daedong (South Korea)
Copenhagen (Denmark)
Tallinn (Estonia)
Recife (Brazil)
Doha (Qatar)
Beijing (China)
Moscow (Russia)
Istanbul (Turkey)
Publications
80
60
59
40
20
64
67
58
51
47
60
44
46
48
32
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Fig. 3 Publication of IASP conferences (2007-2017)
7
The figures indicate similarities between the two publications groups. In both cases,
there is a trend of increase in the first four years of the period analyzed. The last three
years in each graph similarly present a second growth line, indicating that the output
of studies and articles for the following years may continue to grow. However, in the
case of the IASP, this publications volume is lower than the peaks reached in 2010 and
2014. It speculated that the location of the conference, as well as issues related to the
host countries' economies and the financial health of the STIPs, affects the presence at
the meetings. This work doesn't evaluate these factors.
4.2 Publications analysis by authors
In the scientific output analysis, we found 378 authors, 2.1 authors per papers on
average. The Spanish researcher Isabel Diez-Vial (Complutense University of
Madrid), the Taiwanese Grace T.R. Lin (National Chiao Tung University) and the Thai
Jarunee Wonglimpiyarat (Thammasat University) were the most productive, with five,
four and four published papers, respectively. Then there are the other authors, each
with three and two technical works. Table 3 presents the top authors’ list. The countries
were assigned according to affiliation declared. There are co-authorship cases not
excluded (double counting), but in the group of more productive authors, no coauthorship were found among them.
Table 3 Authors output in Journals
Author
Diez-Vial, Isabel
Lin, Grace T.R.
Wonglimpiyarat, Jarunee
Nagano, Marcelo Seido
Chan, Kai-Ying A.
Fernandez-Olmos, Marta
Lee, Jaegul
Link, Albert N.
Li, Xibao
Macadam, Maura
Macadam, R.
Link, Albert N.
Oerlemans, L.A.G.
Pretorious, M.W.
Sun, Chia Chi
Vick, Te
Ai, Chi Han
Albahari, Alberto
Barge-Gil Andres
Cantu, Chiara
Chien, K.M.
Corsaro, Daniela
Eftkhari, H.
Frone, D.
Country
Spain
Taiwan
Thailand
Brazil
Hong Kong
Spain
United States
United States
China
Ireland
Ireland
United States
Netherlands
South Africa
Taiwan
Brazil
China
Spain
Spain
Italy
Taiwan
Italy
Iran
Romania
Papers
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
Concerning the output of the IASP conferences, the most prolific author is the
Brazilian Francisco Saboya (Recife’s Porto Digital), with thirteen technical works
presented in several event editions. After that, the Spanish Juan Antonio Bertolin
(Espaitec Park) and the English Malcolm Parry (Surrey Technology Park) appears in
the rank, both with ten technical works. Another twenty-three authors complete the
listing according to Table 4. From the total of 957 authors, that presented technical
works in the period analyzed, 773 did in one opportunity, and 26 at least three times.
Cases of co-authorship identified, but this research decided to count a publication for
each one of the authors (the number of authors is higher than the total of technical
works). The authors' affiliation of Table 4 was verified, and there was no academic
researcher presence among those listed the most proficient, only STIP staff, mostly
managers.
Table 4 Authors productivity (IASP)
Author
Saboya, Francisco
Bertolin, Juan A.
Parry, Malcolm
Calheiros, Guilherme
Negre, Paco
Targino, Polyana
Gouveia, Cidinha
Neumann, Helge
Giugliani, Eduardo
Chen, Chun Wei
Díaz, Soledad
Prikladnicki, Rafael
Hermosa, Jaime de Castilho
Piqué, Josep Miguel
Yazdianpoor, Mozghan
Neves, Sonia Palomo
Ávila, Jaime Parada
Ibarrondo, Marian
Huang, Bol Wei
Westling, Bjorn
Urarte, Cristina Andrés
Feliu, Esteve Juanloa
Samitier, Josep
Leal-González, Martha
Spaeth, Mary Shepard
Brinkhoff, Sascha
Country
Brazil
Spain
England
Brazil
Spain
Brazil
Brazil
Germany
Brazil
Taiwan
Spain
Brazil
Spain
Spain
Iran
Spain
Mexico
Spain
Taiwan
Sweden
Spain
Spain
Spain
Mexico
Sweden
Germany
Technical Works
13
10
10
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4.3 Publications analysis by institutions
Regarding the scientific productivity per institution, in the WOS database, between
2007 and 2018, the Complutense Universities of Madrid, Spain (with seven papers),
the National Chiao Tung University in Taiwan, and the University of São Paulo, in the
Brazil (with a total of six publications each) were the most profitable institutions. Next,
9
there is the Chinese university Tsinghua, with five papers published by affiliates
authors.
As shown in Table 5, among the ten most prolific organizations, the prevalence in
scientific output related to the subject is in Taiwanese organizations (four universities
and fifteen papers) and Spanish organizations (two universities and eleven papers).
Also, note the presence of universities from Brazil (two universities and nine papers)
and the United States (two universities and eight papers) in this list of the twenty most
productive organizations. Since Taiwan is internationally recognized as a member of
China, it is the leading research production on the subject, with six universities
represented and a total of twenty-two papers (12% of 177 papers). In any case, there
is a dispersion of the theme by the countries. In total, it was found 231 organizations
from 43 countries.
Table 5 Most productive organizations (journals)
Organization
Complutense University of Madrid
National Chiao Tung University
Sao Paulo University
Tsinghua University
National Central University
University of Tehran
University of London
Thammasat University
North Carolina State University
UCLA
Zaragoza University
National Applied Research Laboratories Taiwan
Vale do Rio dos Sinos University (Unisinos)
Manchester University
Pretoria University
Tokyo University
Twente University
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart
Chang Jung Christian University
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Country
Publications
Spain
Taiwan
Brazil
China
Taiwan
Iran
England
Thailand
United States
United States
Spain
Taiwan
Brazil
England
South Africa
Japan
Netherlands
Italy
Taiwan
China
7
6
6
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
The IASP publications database reveals a diversified and distributed output across the
organizations. Altogether, 353 organizations were involved in publications, and 45
had three or more papers. Companies, incubators, technology parks, and universities
are some examples of organizations with the authors’ affiliation.
As show in Table 6, the Brazilian technological park Porto Digital, based in the city
of Recife, is the most present organization among the content analyzed, with twentyone technical works. Followed, by the Brazilian Technological Park of the Pontifical
Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (Tecnopucrs), with thirteen technical works;
succeeded by the German STIP Wista-Management GMBH, installed in Berlin, with
eleven technical works.
Analyzing the country’s origin of the authors 39 technical works came from three
Brazilian organizations, 31 from four Spanish organizations, 15 from two English
10
organizations, 13 from two Chinese organizations (with Taiwan adds more 20
publications), and 12 from two American organizations.
Table 6 Most productive organizations (IASP)
Organization
Porto Digital
Tecnopucrs
Wista-Management GMBH
Espaitec Science and Tecnhnology Park
Surrey Research Park
ISTT- Isfahan Technology Town
Tsinghua Science Park -Tuspark
Andalusia Science and Technology Park
Tallin Science Park Technopol
APTE Assoc. of Science and Tech. Parks of Spain
RTI International
Southern Taiwan Science Park
22@Barcelona
Skolkovo Foundation
Kyoto Research Park
Manchester Science Park
AREA Science Park
City of Clovis
MIRDC Mental Industries R&D Centre
Riyadh Technovalley
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
Country
Brazil
Brazil
Germany
Spain
England
Iran
China
Spain
Estonia
Spain
United States
Taiwan
Spain
Russia
Japan
England
Italy
United States
China
Saudi Arabia
Brazil
Publications
21
13
11
10
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
This study also identified the main scientific vehicles for the publication. The Journal
of Technology Transfer was identified as the primary journal for scientific
dissemination with 13 papers published, followed by the journal Technovation, with
eight papers. Table 7 also points the Dutch editorial group Elsevier more present
among the results.
Table 7 Most used journals
Journal
Journal of Technology Transfer
Technovation
International Journal of Technology Management
Navus – Management and Technology Magazine
Environment and Planning C-Government and Policy
Technological Forecasting and Social Change
Eurásia Journal of Mathematics Science and
Technological Education
R&D Management
European Planning Studies
Expert Systems with Applications
Publisher
Springer
Elsevier
Inderscience
Centro Universitário
SENAC
Sage Journals
Elsevier
Iser
Papers
13
8
5
4
Wiley
Routledge Journals,
Taylor & Francis
Pergamon Elsevier
3
3
4
4
3
3
4.4 Publications volume by country
11
Concerning the most productive countries based on the authors’ affiliation, China is
the largest producer of scientific papers on STIP, with 27 publications. Taiwanese
authors occupy second place, with twenty-six published papers. Table 8 lists the
twenty most productive countries, and indicates the importance that countries that are
economic powers (as the United States, England, and China) gives to the studies of
the STIP, as well as countries in the development phase (Spain, Brazil, Thailand) that
are making efforts to address IEs as promoters of innovation and development.
Table 8 Distribution of academic production by countries (Journals)
Country
China
Taiwan
Spain
United States
Brazil
England
Netherlands
Italy
Iran
France
Germany
Poland
Sweden
Thailand
South Korea
Belgium
Colombia
India
Ireland
Papers
27
26
23
19
18
17
10
9
7
5
5
5
5
5
4
3
3
3
3
%
14,12%
13,55%
12,42%
10,73%
9,60%
9,03%
5,64%
4,51%
3,95%
2,82%
2,82%
2,82%
2,82%
2,82%
2,25%
1,69%
1,69%
1,69%
1,69%
Comparatively, among the technical works found in the annals of IASP conferences,
Spain appears as the most represented country, with 71 papers (12.75%). The
following are Brazil (10.83%) and United States (9.09%). In total, 54 countries were
identified.
Table 8 data (journal papers) bear a similarity to the information in Table 9 (IASP
technical works). Twelve countries (China, Taiwan, Spain, United States, Brazil, Iran,
Italy, England/United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden, South Korea) appear in
both lists suggesting a synergistic activity among academia and professional practice
of STIPs and IEs in these countries.
12
Table 9 Distribution of technical works by Countries (IASP)
Country
Spain
Brazil
United States
United Kingdom*
China
Germany
Finland
Sweden
Iran
Italy
Turkey
South Korea
France
Taiwan
Russia
Greece
Australia
Saudi Arabia
Mexico
Number of articles
71
62
50
36
34
27
24
20
19
19
16
16
14
12
10
10
10
9
9
%
12,5%
10,83%
8,74%
6,29%
5,94%
4,72%
4,19%
3,67%
3,32%
3,32%
2,79%
2,79%
2,44%
2,09%
1,74%
1,74%
1,74%
1,57%
1,57%
* At this stage of the research, it was not possible to separate the member countries of
the United Kingdom.
The results pointed out in Tables 5 and 6 (scientific and technical output by
organizations), and 8 and 9 (scientific and technical output by country) show
coherence. The most productive countries, in terms of papers in journals (Spain,
Taiwan, China, Brazil and England) and IASP’s technical works (Spain, Brazil, USA,
China and England) also have the most productive organizations, both in relation to
academic output (Spain, Brazil, China and Taiwan) and the technical works found in
the IASP conferences’ annals (Spain, Brazil, England, USA, China and Taiwan). It is
possible to comment that there is not a research group or researcher or concentration
of these in an institution that distorts the sampling (the leading researcher has only five
papers in the sample of 177).
A complementary analysis was made of the IASP members, and it was possible to
analyze the correspondence between the number of members per country and the
volume of publications in the conferences. In terms of output, Spain (26 registered
members and 71 technical works submitted), China (31 members and 34 technical
works) and Sweden (16 members and 21 technical works) are the leaders. The
countries with a significant number of associates (China, Iran, Spain, Turkey, Russia,
and Sweden) are among productive nations. However, the relationship between
members and publications in the conferences does not present a direct correlation, that
is, not necessarily a higher number of members represents expressive results.
Examples are Brazil (eleven registered members presented an output of 62 technical
works), England (nine members and 36 technical works) and the United States (with
seven members and 50 technical works).
A "productivity" indicator was developed in which the amount of output in each
country is divided by the number of associated members from the nation (Table 10).
Some countries, such as the United States (7.14 articles per associated member), Brazil
13
(5.64 papers per member), England (4), South Korea (3.2), and Spain (2.73) present
reliable indicators that bring some information about membership profile and
behavior. Taking into account that there were eleven conferences carried out there is
a wide dispersion in participation, and it can be assumed that these five countries were
those in which the same organizations participate more actively over the years.
However, this conclusion is only a supposition. Data on the initial date of affiliation
to the IASP were not collected, and this type of research can be carried out in another
opportunity.
Table 10 List of IASP members vs. articles submitted (IASP Conferences)
Country
China
Iran
Spain
Turkey
Sweden
Russia
Italy
France
Brazil
England
Mexico
Portugal
United States
Canada
Poland
Saudi Arabia
South Korea
United Arab Emirates
Netherlands
IASP Members
31
30
26
19
16
17
12
12
11
9
8
8
7
7
6
5
5
5
4
Technical Works
34
19
71
16
21
10
19
22
62
36
9
4
50
6
9
9
16
1
5
Ratio
1.10
0.63
2.73
0.84
1.31
0.59
1.58
1.83
5.64
4.00
1.13
0.50
7.14
0.86
1.50
1.80
3.20
0.20
1.25
4.5. Publications analysis by theme
Regarding the categorization of the content, the authors proposed, in an arbitrary way,
25 topics related to the study of STIPs. This listing was constituted from the titles of
the sessions in congresses, keywords in the publications, and themes of special issues
of scientific journals, among others, also taking into account the authors mastery on
the subject.
The output classification in each category was done after reading the titles, abstracts,
and keywords of each of the 177 papers (WOS periodicals) and 572 technical works
(IASP database) selected for the comparison in this research (Table 11 and 12).
Eventually, given the difficulty in defining the content studied in each document only
with the reading of title, abstract, and keywords, the discussion and conclusions were
also read.
The most present topics on WOS papers were:
• "Management and transfer of technology and knowledge," with 23 papers (12.99%
of the total),
• "Incubators, startups and academic spin-offs," with 21 papers (11.86%),
• "Description of characteristics and dynamics of parks," with 13 papers (7.34%),
14
• "Public policies of and for innovation," with 13 published papers (7.34%), and
• "Influence, unfolding and impact study of innovation networks," with 12 papers
(6.77%).
Triple Helix and derived approaches, as well as the national and regional innovation
systems’ approaches, are also addressed in the bulge of these publications,
emphasizing the relevance and timeliness of the subject in academic research.
"Investment strategy", "risk management in parks", "review of scientific literature on
STIP", "parks organizational strategy", "typologies and trends of parks", "selection of
resident companies", and "Comparative parks study" were the categories in which the
authors had less interest, or used less effort in the construction of research. This
heterogeneity of themes reveals the complexity, scope, and relevance of the STIPs for
economic and social development.
Table 11 Classification by themes (journals)
Theme
Technology Transfer and Knowledge Management
Incubators, Startups and Academic Spin-Offs. Entrepreneurship
Characteristics and Dynamics of Parks Description
Innovation Networks Impact Study
Influence of Parks on Resident Companies
Public Policies in Innovation
Ecosystems and Innovation Management
National and Regional Innovation Systems / Triple-Quadruple-Quintuple
Helix
Study of The Impact of Parks on Regional Development
Models of Park Evaluation
Comparative Study of Parks
Social Innovation Management
Study of The Impact of Parks on National Development
Scientific and Technological Output of Park
Sustainable Development, Sustainability, Eco-Innovation
Review of Literature on STIP
Governance and Collaboration Networks
Evolution and Development of Parks
Park Management
Selection of Resident Companies
Open Innovation
Strategies For Attracting Investments
Organizational Strategy of Parks
Typologies and Tendencies of Parks
Risk Management In Parks
Papers
23 (12,99%)
21 (11,86%)
14 (7,90%)
12 (6,77%)
12 (6,77%)
12 (6,77%)
11 (6,21%)
11 (6,21%)
10 (5,64%)
6 (3,38%)
5 (2,82%)
4 (2,25%)
4 (2,25%)
4 (2,25%)
4 (2,25%)
3 (1,69%)
3 (1,69%)
3 (1,69%)
3 (1,69%)
3 (1,69%)
3 (1,69%)
2 (1,12%)
2 (1,12%)
1 (0,56%)
1 (0,56%)
In the same way, the publications of the IASP conference were analyzed and
categorized. It was necessary to broaden the classification categories by adding nine
themes beyond the original 25, making a total of 34 subjects. Possibly, the justification
for expanding the scope is the volume of the technical works found in the IASP
database (572) that resulted in a greater diversity of topics. It is assumed that some
themes of interest to managers (such as management of internal aspects of the
15
organization) do not have the same attractiveness to researchers or scientific
publications.
The most common theme was "Description of characteristics and dynamics of parks",
with 55 technical works (9.61%), followed by "Study of the impact of parks in regional
development", with 53 technical works (9.26%) and "Tools and platforms to stimulate
innovation", with 38 technical works (6.64%).
On the other hand, the themes "Models of evaluation of startups" (only 1 technical
works), "Review of literature on STIP" (2 technical works), "STIP and entrepreneurial
education" and "Comparative studies of STIP," had low interest among professionals
related to the STIP universe.
Topics such as "University-Business collaboration" and "Intellectual capital and HR
Management in STIP”, among others, were included in the analysis. Meanwhile, the
themes "Risk management in parks" and "Selection of resident companies," presented
in Table 11, were not treated in any of the professionals' works.
Success factors for STIPs (9), management of social innovation (5 articles) and finance
and financing of STIP (6 papers) are thematically crucial for the creation, maturation,
and prosperity of STIP, and reveals impact and urgency in terms of social
responsibility.
Table 12. Classification by theme (IASP)
Theme
Description of Characteristics and Dynamics of Parks
The Impact Study of Parks on Regional Development
Tools and Platforms to Stimulate Innovation
Innovation Management / Creativity Process
Ecosystems and Innovation Networks
Management / Management Models / Park Configurations
Incubators
The Impact Study of Parks on Economic / National Development
History and Evolution of Parks
Management and Transfer of Technology and Knowledge
Sustainable Development, Sustainability, Eco-Innovation
National and Regional Innovation Systems / Triple-Quadruple-Quintuple Helix
Influence of Parks on Resident Companies
Park Evaluation Models
Start Ups, Spin-Off Academics, Entrepreneurship
Influence of the STIP on Innovation Generation
Public Policies in Innovation
Intellectual Capital and HR Management in STIP
Typologies and Tendencies of Parks
Strategies For Attracting Investments
Park-University Relation
Success Factors for STIPs
Governance and Collaboration Networks
Study of The Impact of Innovation Networks
Scientific and Technological Output of Park
Finance and Financing of STIP
Urban Development / Smart Cities
Social Innovation Management
Technical
Works
55 (9,61%)
53 (9,26%)
38 (6,64%)
35 (6,11%)
32 (5,59%)
30 (5,24%)
29 (5,06%)
29 (5,06%)
26 (4,54%)
26 (4,54%)
25 (4,37%)
19 (3,32%)
15 (2,62%)
12 (2,09%)
12 (2,09%)
12 (2,09%)
11 (1,92%)
11 (1,92%)
10 (1,74%)
10 (1,74%)
10 (1,74%)
9 (1,57%)
8 (1,39%)
7 (1,22%)
7 (1,22%)
6 (1,04%)
5 (0,87%)
5 (0,87%)
16
Open Innovation
STIP and Entrepreneurial Education
Comparative Study of Parks
Review of Literature on STIPs
Startup Evaluation Models
4 (0,69%)
3 (0,52%)
3 (0,52%)
2 (0,34%)
1 (0,17%)
The reading and interpretation of the two Tables (11 and 12) lead to the understanding
that the academic and professional universes (technical and practical of managers and
practitioners related to STIPs and related) have some differences regarding
preferences and challenges. Academics have developed research activities related to
the “transfer of technology transfer and knowledge management” (12.99%),
“incubators, startups and academic spin-offs” (11.86%), and “description and
characteristics and dynamics of STIPs” (7,90%). The professionals involved in the
management of STIPs and related areas of innovation have elaborated technical works
and studies mainly on the themes “description and characteristics and dynamics of
STIPs” (31.07%), “the impact study of the parks on regional development” (29.94%),
and “tools and platforms to stimulate innovation” (21.46%).
These results suggest an understanding that:
• The academy seeks to study more emphatically the theories related to the processes
of knowledge transfer and technology management (and their consequences) on the
generation of innovation (probably looking for patterns of common aspects),
• Managers and practitioners have developed a more significant number of studies on
the description and characteristics and dynamics of STIPs, which would be case
studies and reports of experiences about their living experiences (in this subject the
researchers also carry out their case studies, a way of approaching the object of study),
• The topic that deals with the relation of STIPs with regional development, received
53 articles among practitioners (9.26% of the total), which reveals an interest and
concern with practical impacts of the ventures in which they are involved (even as a
form justify the investment received), while the academy researchers published only
ten articles on the subject (5.64%).
As expected, academic authors also addressed conceptual issues (aspects technology
transfer) while managers emphasized themes more related to operational management,
although they also care about the impact of the initiatives with which they are
involved. In both cases, there is a focus on the macro environment (relation between
the STIP, the government, and society). A deeply study on the sample about this theme
can bring more information. The supposition is academic production cover theoretical
aspects and some case studies while technical production focuses on case studies and
report of experiences.
5 Final considerations
This work has as the objective to make a comparative effort among the production of
scientific articles carried out by academic researchers and the production carried out
by STIP managers. It was assumed that academic authors would deal with more
17
conceptual issues (formal aspects of technology transfer, considerations for public
policies) while managers emphasize issues more relate`d to operational management.
Thus, the greater goal of knowing the contributions from academy and practitioners
on the subject would be revealed. In order to carry out such research, the bibliometric
analysis was the technique used, being performed in two databases that compare the
different output categories.
Several considerations can be made about the obtained results. The first one is, as a
whole, the scientific output focused on the study and analysis of STIP is diversified,
due to the complexity of the factors covered and the multiplicity of actors and
relationships involved in these environments. This production is extensive, covering
several themes and trends, highlighting a heterogeneity on the subject research.
A second consideration, there is a trend of growth, impact, and relevance of the subject
in academia. As a potential driver of regional development, parks attract investment
and studies. Public agents, in the mission to develop cities, states and regions, and in
order to provide society with jobs and other economic and social solutions, as well as
to measure income through taxes, has been adopting the investment in these IEs, which
awakens the interest of academia about the phenomenon. The growth of production
on the theme, perceived both in the search for newspaper articles (2015, 2016 and
2017) can support this argument.
Another consideration is, despite the fact that organizations that host scientific and
professional outputs on STIPs has origins in the same countries, also revealing the
proximity between governments, companies and universities regarding scientific
impact, investments and operations in STIP in these nations, the similarities between
the two types of results are limited to this locational issue. Outputs generally show
different approaches to study and application.
It is also noted that, in short, the authors found in the research on the WOS platform
come from academia and no links were found among them and the existing STIPs. In
this sense, it is possible to affirm that researchers are not involved with management
activities. In the same way, the authors found in the IASP base among the most
proficient have no links with academy, but rather with the STIPs. Of course, in some
cases, the STIP belongs to a university or the professional has an advanced training
(masters and doctorate degrees). However, what is the origin and type of relationship
among managers and the academy were not the focus of this work.
Another consideration is that the greater presence of IASP in the countries, translated
in terms of affiliates, does not necessarily lead to greater productivity in terms of
technical output about the theme, and much less on scientific output. In this sense,
IASP training actions like courses and publications could induce the effort on this
direction.
A final consideration, the study allows to identify the adoption of these innovation
mechanisms as strategies for the economic and social development of cities and
regions, especially in the most recent developing countries (Brazil, Thailand, South
Africa, Iran) and those are treading a more accelerated pace of progress and
transformation (China).
This research also presents gaps that can be filled in the field of studies in vogue, such
as the themes identified in Tables 11 and 12. Some topics, such as "Strategies of
investment attraction", are vital for the feasibility of the projects for parks installation
and consolidation. While more studies on park governance, innovation networks,
18
national and regional innovation systems, and Triple Helix and their derived models,
could contribute to the development and improvement of relations among the actors
present in these IEs, favoring the maturity of the partnerships, with the objective of
improving and fostering technological and scientific outputs, with economic and social
impacts.
The research has limitations on methodology, given the arbitrary choice of search
terms. Other discussions on companies, high-technology sectors and regional
development policies would certainly bring more work on the subject, but the
difficulty in filtering and analyzing such content would also increase exponentially.
There are also limitations on the application of bibliometric analysis. No analyzes of
co-authoring networks or citations were made. Data collected from WOS allows such
analysis but IASP data does not. To do that, it would be necessary to expanded IASP
database with the inclusion of the references of each publication. Another point to be
questioned is to classify all the IASP output as technical work. The diversity of content
is broad and at the same time, requires enormous work to read and classify all the
production.
The work has several possible impacts. For the IASP and similar entities, it can serve
as an evaluation of its events, to increase the knowledge about their community, and
signaling a strategy of themes to be incorporated, as well as allowing bridges to be
made with the academy. For the academy, it can flag new topics for research. For the
parks and public managers it allows a perception of the theme’s relevance in each
country.
Future research can include the expansion of the research on scientific outputs
including databases as Scopus, and the inclusion of conference papers from other
entities such as the American University Research Parks (AURP) and Brazilian
Association of Promoting Entities of Innovative Enterprises (ANPROTEC).
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the IASP, in the person of the Executive Director Luiz Sanz Irles,
and the former President Josep Miguel Piqué Huertas by the access to the information
about publications made at the conferences. In addition, the authors thank the
researchers of the Triple Helix Research Group Brazil for their support in organizing
the information.
References
Amaral, M., Gray, D., and Faria, A. F. (2016). Applying an Assessment Tool to
Understand the Success of Research Triangle Region, NC as an Innovation
Environment. Technology Transfer Society Annual Conference, Phoenix, USA.
ANPROTEC (2012). Estudo, Análise e Proposições sobre as Incubadoras de
Empresas no Brasil – relatório técnico. Brasília.
19
Araújo, C. A. (2006). Bibliometria: evolução histórica e questões atuais. Em Questão,
12(1):11-32.
Archibugi, D., Howells, J., and Michie, J. (1999). Innovation policy in a global
economy. Cambridge University Press.
Cabral, R., and Dahab, S. (1998). The Cabral-Dahab Science Park Management
Paradigm. International Journal of Technology Management, 16(8):813-818.
Castells, M. A Sociedade em Rede - a era da informação: economia, sociedade e
cultura (1999). São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
Etzkowitz, H., and Zhou, C. (2017). Innovation incommensurability and the science
park. R&D Management, 48(1): 73-78.
Fagerberg, J., and Srholec, M. (2008). National innovation systems, capabilities and
economic development. Research Policy, 37(9):1417-1435.
Giugliani, E. (2011). Modelo de Governança para Parques Científicos e Tecnológicos
no Brasil. Doctoral Thesis in Engineering and Knowledge Management. Federal
University of Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Hitt, M., Ireland, R., and Hoskisson, R. (2008). Administração estratégica:
competitividade e globalização. 2a ed. São Paulo: Cengage Learning.
Hoffmann, M., Mais, I., and Amal, M. (2010). Planejamento e gestão de parques
científicos e tecnológicos: uma análise comparativa. Economia Global e Gestão,
15(3):89-107
Robbins, S. P. (2005). Comportamento Organizacional. São Paulo: Prentice Hall.
Spolidoro, R., and Audy, J. (2008). Parque científico e tecnológico da PUCRS:
TECNOPUC. Rio Grande do Sul, RS. Edipucrs.
Tidd, J., and Bessant, J. (2014). Strategic innovation management. John Wiley &
Sons.
Vedovello, C. (2000). Aspectos relevantes de parques tecnológicos e incubadoras de
empresas. Revista do BNDES, 7(14):273-300.
Zouain, D. (2003). Parques tecnológicos: Propondo um modelo conceitual para
regiões urbanas: o Parque Tecnológico de São Paulo. Tese de Doutorado. Curso de
Ciências na Área de Tecnologia Nuclear-Aplicações, IPEN.
20
Marcelo Amaral