2020 THJ PDF

triple helix journal (2020) 1-37
brill.com/thj
A Divergent Research Agenda: Academic and

Professional Publications on Science, Technology
and Innovation Parks
Marcelo Gonçalves do Amaral, André Luiz Furtado da Hora,
Nathan Ribeiro Messias, Leandro de Andrade Cunha
and Jéssica Souza Maia
Triple Helix Research Group Brazil, Fluminense Federal University,
Volta Redonda, Brazil
marceloamaral@id.uff.br
Abstract
This research analyzes the evolution of the publications from academic researchers
and technical publications carried out by professionals of the Science, Technology,
and Innovation Parks (stips). The objective is to compare the research agenda from
the two groups, increasing the comprehension of who they are and what they are re-
searching. The method uses bibliometric techniques. The research found that the aca-
demic authors dealt with conceptual themes, while managers emphasized operations
issues. Also, it was identified the growth in the academic interest on the subject (after
2015); the limited number of academic publications (177 in 12 years); China, Taiwan,
and Spain as the countries with the highest academic output (40%); Spain, Brazil, and
the usa concentrates 35% of technical publications. The work has implications for the
academy (new topics for research agenda), and to the parks and policymakers enables
a perception of the parks’ relevance to the economic development.
Keywords
bibliometric analysis – iasp – management of innovation habitats – Science –

Technology – Innovation Parks (stips) – Triple Helix
© marcelo gonçalves do amaral et al., 2020 | doi:10.1163/21971927-bja10010

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NCDownloaded
4.0 License.
from Brill.com06/25/2020 12:55:20PM
via free access
‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪Amaral ET al.‬‬
‫‪ Arabic‬‬
‫برنامج البحوث املتباينة ‪ -‬املنشورات األكادميية واملهنية حول مجمعات العلوم‬
‫والتكنولوجيا واالبتكار‬
‫‪Marcelo Gonçalves do Amaral, André Luiz Furtado da Hora,‬‬

‫‪Nathan Ribeiro Messias, Leandro de Andrade Cunha‬‬
‫‪and Jéssica Souza Maia‬‬
‫يحلل هذا البحث تطور منشورات الباحثني األكادمييني واملنشورات التقنية التي أنجزها مهنيون يف مجاالت العلوم والتكنولوجيا‬
‫واالبتكار‪ .‬يهدف هذا املقال إىل مقارنة برنامج البحث الخاص باملجموعتني‪ ،‬وزيادة فهم ماهية ومحتوى هاته البحوث‪ .‬تستخدم‬
‫الطريقة تقنيات ببليوغرافية‪ .‬كشفت الدراسة التى قمنا بها أن الباحثني األكادمييني عالجوا مواضيع نظرية‪ ،‬بينام ركز املهنيون عىل‬
‫جوانب اإلدارة التنفيذية‪ .‬باإلضافة إىل ذلك‪ ،‬تم الوقوف عىل النقاط التالية ‪ :‬منو االهتامم األكادميي بهذا املوضوع (بعد عام ‪)2015‬؛‬
‫عدد املنشورات األكادميية املحدود (‪ 177‬منشورا ً يف ‪ 12‬عاماً)؛ اعتبار الصني وتايوان وأسبانيا البلدان التي حققت أعىل ناتج أكادميي‬
‫(‪)40%‬؛ استئثار إسبانيا والربازيل والواليات املتحدة ب ‪ 35%‬من املنشورات التقنية‪.‬ويرتتب عىل هاته الدراسة تبعات بالنسبة‬
‫للجامعة )مواضيع جديدة لربنامج البحث ( أما بالنسبة للمجمعات وصانعي السياسات‪ ،‬فإنها متكن من‬
‫‪.‬معرفة مدى نجاعة املجمعات ىف تحقيق التنمية االقتصادية‬
‫‪ Chinese‬‬
‫‪不同的研究议程 —— 科技和创新园区的学术与专‬‬
‫‪业出版物‬‬
‫‪Marcelo Gonçalves do Amaral, André Luiz Furtado da Hora,‬‬

‫‪Nathan Ribeiro Messias, Leandro de Andrade Cunha‬‬
‫‪and Jéssica Souza Maia‬‬
‫‪这项研究分析了学术研究人员出版物的演变以及科技和创新园区专业人员‬‬
‫‪完成的技术出版物。目标是比较两个小组的研究议程，以加深对他们是谁‬‬
‫‪以及正在研究什么的理解。研究方法使用了文献计量技术。研究发现：学‬‬
‫‪术作者处理理论主题，而专业人士则注重运营管理问题。此外，还确定了‬‬
‫‪对该主题的学术兴趣在增长 ( 自 2015年后 ) ；学术出版物数量有限 ( 12年内达到‬‬
‫‪177种 ) ；中国、台湾和西班牙是学术产出最高的国家 ( 40%) ；西班牙、巴西‬‬
‫‪和美国 35%集中在技术出版物。这项工作对学术界 ( 研究议程的新主题 ) 、园‬‬
‫。‪区和政策制定者都有重要意义，使人们能了解园区与经济发展的关联‬‬
‫‪10.1163/21971927-bja10010 | triple helix‬‬ ‫‪journal (2020) 1-37‬‬

‫‪Downloaded from Brill.com06/25/2020 12:55:20PM‬‬
‫‪via free access‬‬
A divergent research agenda 3
French
Un programme de recherche divergent :
publications universitaires et professionnelles sur
les parcs scientifiques, technologiques et
d’innovation
Résumé
Cet article analyse l’évolution des publications de chercheurs universitaires et des

publications techniques réalisées par de professionnels des parcs scientifiques, tech-
nologiques et d’innovation. L’objectif est de comparer le programme de recherche des
deux groupes, en comprenant davantage qui ils sont et quelles recherches ils font. La
méthode utilise des techniques bibliométriques. La recherche a révélé que les universi-
taires traitent de thèmes théoriques, tandis que les professionnels mettent l’accent sur
les questions de gestion opérationnelle. En outre, on a pu noter : un accroissement de
l’intérêt académique pour le sujet (après 2015); un nombre limité de publications aca-
démiques (177 en 12 ans); que la Chine, Taïwan et l’Espagne ont la plus forte production
académique (40%); et que l’Espagne, le Brésil et les États-Unis concentrent 35% des pu-
blications techniques. Cette étude a des implications pour l’académie (nouveaux sujets
pour les programmes de recherche), et pour les parcs et en outre, permet aux décideurs
politiques de percevoir la pertinence des parcs pour le développement économique.
Mots-clés
Parcs scientifiques – technologiques et d’innovation – Triple Hélice – gestion des

environnements de l’innovation – iasp
triple helix journal (2020) 1-37 | 10.1163/21971927-bja10010

Downloaded from Brill.com06/25/2020 12:55:20PM
via free access
4 Amaral ET al.
Portuguese
Uma agenda de pesquisa divergente: publicações
acadêmicas e profissionais sobre Parques de
Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação
Resumo
Esta pesquisa analisa a evolução das publicações feitas por pesquisadores acadêmicos
e publicações técnicas realizadas pelos profissionais dos Parques de Ciência, Tecnolo-
gia e Inovação. O objetivo é comparar a agenda de pesquisa dos dois grupos, au-
mentando a compreensão de quem eles são e o que estão pesquisando. O método uti-
liza técnicas bibliométricas. A pesquisa constatou que os autores acadêmicos lidam
com temas conceituais, enquanto os gerentes enfatizavam questões operacionais.
Também foi identificado o crescimento do interesse acadêmico sobre o assunto (após
2015); o número limitado de publicações acadêmicas (177 em 12 anos); China, Taiwan e
Espanha como os países com maior produção acadêmica (40%); Espanha, Brasil e eua
concentram 35% das publicações técnicas. O trabalho tem implicações para a aca-
demia (novos tópicos para a agenda de pesquisa), e para os parques e formuladores de
políticas, habilitando a percepção da relevância dos parques para o desenvolvimento
econômico.
Palavras-chave
análise bibliométrica – iasp – gestão de habitats de inovação – Parques de Ciência –

Tecnologia e Inovação (stips) – Triple Helix
10.1163/21971927-bja10010 | triple helix journal (2020) 1-37

via free access
Russian
Разнонаправленная исследовательская
программа: научные и профессиональные
публикации о научно-технических и
инновационных парках
Марсело Амарал, Андре Луис Фуртадо Хора,

Натан Рибейро Мессиас, Леандро де Андраде Кунья,
Джессика Соуза Майя
Сводка
В этой статье анализируется эволюция публикаций и технических публикаций

научных исследователей, сделанных профессионалами в области науки, техники
и инноваций. Цель состоит в том, чтобы сравнить исследовательскую программу
двух групп, понимание больше о том, кто они и какие исследования они делают.
Метод использует библиотечные методы. Исследования показали, что ученые за-
нимаются теоретическими темами, в то время как специалисты сосредотачива-
ются на вопросах оперативного управления. Кроме того, увеличился академиче-
ский интерес к этому предмету (после 2015 года); ограниченное число научных
публикаций (177 за 12 лет); Китай, Тайвань и Испания имеют самый высокий ака-
демический результат (40%); а на Испанию, Бразилию и Соединенные Штаты
приходится 35% технических публикаций. Это исследование имеет последствия
для академии (новые темы для исследовательских программ), а также для парков
и, кроме того, позволяет директивным органам воспринимать актуальность пар-
ков для экономического развития.
Ключевые слова
Парки науки – технологий и инноваций – Тройной Хюлис –

Управление инновационной средой – iasp

via free access
6 Amaral ET al.
Spanish
Una agenda de investigación divergente:
publicaciones académicas y profesionales sobre
Parques de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación

Resumen
Esta investigación analiza la evolución de las publicaciones hecho por investigadores

académicos y publicaciones técnicas realizadas por profesionales de los Parques de
Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. El objetivo es comparar la agenda de investigación
de los dos grupos, aumentando la comprensión de quiénes son y qué están investi-
gando. El método utiliza técnicas bibliométricas. La investigación encontró que los
autores académicos trataron temas conceptuales, mientras que los gerentes enfa-
tizaron los problemas de operaciones. Asimismo, se identificó el crecimiento en el in-
terés académico sobre el tema (después de 2015); el número limitado de publicaciones
académicas (177 en 12 años); China, Taiwán y España como los países con mayor pro-
ducción académica (40%); España, Brasil y EE. UU. Concentran el 35% de las publica-
ciones técnicas. El trabajo tiene implicaciones para la academia (nuevos temas para la
agenda de investigación), y para los parques y formuladores de políticas, permitiendo
la percepción de la relevancia de los parques para el desarrollo económico.
Palabras clave
análisis bibliométrico – iasp, gestión de hábitats de innovación – Parques de

Ciencia – Tecnología e Innovación (stip) – Triple Helix
1 Introduction
The globalization process that has been taking place in society has changed
the economic and social dynamics around the world, resulting in greater

via free access
c omplexity in the market and demanding higher quality in products and ser-
vices (Castells 2009). The globalization has led to the dilution of national bar-
riers in business (Hitt et al. 2016), and raised the competition level among re-
gions, countries, and firms (Robbins 2005). The commercial opening expands
the competitors’ numbers and intensifies the companies rivalry. This competi-
tive environment also demands considerable attention to economic perfor-
mance (Vedovello et al. 2006). As time progresses, new demands and opportu-
nities arise, deepening the changes in relations and the economic and
production systems (Spolidoro and Audy 2008).
The twentieth-century ends witnessed the rise of the Knowledge and Infor-
mation Age, which transformed the capital-based society into a knowledge-
based society, with a predominance of technological and informational knowl-
edge (Castells 2009). Based on this scenario it is possible to witness diffusions,
and acceleration of technologies and innovations 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 a vi-
tal role in the economic development of the regions. These environments
emerge as a response to the globalization and competition movement of mul-
tinational 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 technology development in policies, programs, and
physical space, as well as the provision of specialized services in the region
they are. Etzkowitz and Zhou (2017) define 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 model.
The research about science, technology and innovation parks (stips) focus
on the conditions to the park’s establishment (Annerstedt and Haselmayer
2004; Aslani et al. 2015; Díez-Vial and Montoro-Sánchez 2015; Gainoa and Pam�-
plona 2004; Sternberg 2004; Tonelli et al. 2015), the relation among stips, in-
novation, and regional economic development (Albahari, et al. 2013; Etzkowitz
and Zhou 2017; Hu 2007; Pavlakovich-Kochi 2015; Ratinho and Henriques 2010);
and the support to tenant companies, established or new ventures (Chan et al.
2011; Jimenez-Zarco et al. 2013; Löfsten and Lindelöf 2002, 2005).
In some countries, like the usa, stips are basically private non-profit orga-
nization where real state and technological development are combined to find
a viable and sustainable financial equation (Amaral et al. 2020; Durão et al.
2005). Another regions, the stips are a public venture run by a university, or a

via free access
8 Amaral ET al.
regional development agency, or a pool of entities (Brazil 2019). These legal

arrangements makes the stips management works as an ngo, or an universi-
ty’s lab, or a public organization. There is low focus on the assessment and
management of these innovation environments, differently from the profit
business sector where the evaluation culture was widely spread (Cabral and
Dahab 1998; Amaral 2015).
These research efforts on assessment and management of stips led to the
investigation of the academic literature, found on international databases, and
the technical publications from parks’ professionals. In a research on stips’
assessment in the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the authors found that aca-
demics and professionals outputs are in distinct topics (Hora 2019; Amaral
et al. 2019). This work has as the objective of deepening this investigation, com-
paring papers and technical works from academics and professionals around
the world. The idea is to identify who they are and what they are researching
and publishing. Also, if these authors have collaboration over the groups. The
research question is: “What are publishing the academics and professionals
about stips?”.
The primary purpose is to understand who are the most active actors and
the subjects of interest, based on a comparison between academic papers and
technical content about parks, supported by bibliometric techniques. Based
on Amaral et al. (2019), it is expected that academic authors address concep�-
tual issues (formal aspects of technology transfer, and proposals for public
policy) and stips’ professionals emphasize matters related to operational
management, focusing on case studies and experience reports. What is not
clear is where these agendas are going on.
A literature review was performed to reach the proposed objective (section 2).
Then, the methodological procedures are described (section 3). As well as
the collected information, along with the discussion regarding the findings
(section 4) and final considerations (section 5).
No similar study was found in the literature comparing academic research-
ers and stips’ staff. Thus, it is an original work that can contribute to both aca-
demia and managers of these innovation environments, and also to the devel-
opment of public policies to create a common agenda.
2 A Brief Review of stips: Concept and Evolution
2.1 Concept and Definition

In recent years, studies and research on innovation environments and technol-
ogy parks have been growing in academic literature (Albahari et al. 2013), and

via free access
several scholars have already launched to research the theme (Sternberg 2004;
Hu 2007). However, there is no consensus within the terminologies, referring
to these environments (Löfsten and Lindelöf 2005). The terms “technological
parks”, “science parks”, or “parks of innovation”, appears in the academic and
professional publications (Hora 2019; Amaral et al. 2020). Table 1 introduces
some of them. The term “science park” would be more widely used in Europe,
while “university research park” predominates in the usa. The countries of the
Asian continent, on the other hand, have adopted “technology park” (Link and
Scott 2006).
Table 1 Park concept (parks typology)
Concept Description
University- Places to facilitate interactions between companies and

industry parks the academy.
Industrial parks Parks with a high density of industries and technology-
based companies.
Scientific cities Spaces located in urban areas, with the presence of
universities, industry, and research laboratories.
Science regions Large territorial extensions, such as Silicon Valley,
which brings together universities and research centers,
with low deployment costs for companies.
Scientific park It is a structure of a business nature whose main
activity of the installed establishments is the R&D of
products and processes.
Research Park It is a particular category of a scientific park, where
there is no production, except for the development of
prototypes. The main difference is the greater emphasis
of the research park on contractual obligations related
to technology transfer between companies and educa-
tional and research institutions.
Spaces with public and private research laboratories.
Technology Park It is a delimited area of business composed of universi-
ties, research centers, and industrial facilities that carry
out technology-based activities, with the exploitation of
R&D actions, stimulating the production and commer-
cialization of goods and services.
Source: Developed by the authors, based on Hora (2019).

via free access
10 Amaral ET al.
These innovation environments provide more than physical space and

r esources. They support the improvement of the business developed in their
facilities (Nikina et al. 2016). This diversity is motivated by the search and in�-
sertion of different social agents present in these environments, such as uni-
versities, research centers, and institutes, funding agencies, local, state and
federal governments representatives, in addition to different sizes companies
(Vedovello et al. 2006) and the various strategies and motivations.
Based on the technological park concept, the most widespread in the litera-
ture, there is a set of definitions presented in Table 2, which detail the charac-
teristics and strategies of these innovation environments.
Table 2 Definition of Technological Parks
Authors Definitions
Brazilian A planned, formal, concentrated, and cooperative

Association industrial-based industrial complex that brings
of Promoting together companies whose production is based on
Entities of technological research developed in the R&D centers
Innovative linked to the park.
Enterprises An enterprise that promotes the culture of innovation,
(anprotec) competitiveness, and the enhancement of entrepre-
neurial capacity. Based on the knowledge and technol-
ogy transfer, to increase wealth production (Brasil,
2019).
spolidoro e To promote the relationship among scientific and
audy business communities, allowing the union of specific
(2008) knowledge and skills to provide the following results:
– to develop a culture of innovation and
competitiveness of companies and institutions of
intensive in knowledge;
– to facilitate the technology and entrepreneurial
skills transfer between academia and the industry;
– to stimulate the creation and development of
technology-based companies through incubators
and spin-off;
– to promote the development of scientific and
technological research;
– to promote the sustainable development of the
community and region in which is inserted.

via free access
Table 2 Definition of Technological Parks (cont.)
Authors Definitions
Association of Master plan ventures designed for research and

University Research marketing, able to create partnerships with universi-
Parks (aurp) ties and research centers, encouraging new companies,
facilitators of technology transfer and that, as a result,
drives the economic and technological development.
International It is an organization managed by specialized profes-
Association of sionals, whose main aim is to increase the wealth of its
Science Parks and community by promoting the culture of innovation
Areas of Innovation and the competitiveness of its associated businesses
(iasp) and knowledge-based institutions.
It stimulates and manages the flow of knowledge and
technology amongst universities, R&D institutions,
companies and markets; it facilitates the creation and
growth of innovation-based companies through
incubation and spin-off processes; and provides other
value-added services together with high quality space
and facilities.
Source: Developed by the authors based on Hora (2019).
Despite the multiplicity of denominations and their different interpretations,

all terminologies converge to recognize the interest and role of these environ-
ments about feeding the socioeconomic development on localities and regions
in which they are installed (Ratinho and Henriques 2010). This paper uses the
acronym stip (science, technology, and innovation parks) to encompass all
definitions (Amaral et al. 2020).
The diversity of terms is due to the functions performed by these innovation
environments. Table 3 brings together characteristics found in the literature.
Table 3 Function of stips
Functions Authors
Generation and Etzkowitz and Zhou (2017); Boschma (2005); Link

transfer of knowledge and Scott (2006); Löfsten and Lindelöf (2002, 2005).
Business creation La Rovere and Melo (2012); Durão et al., (2005);
Colombo and Delmastro (2002).

via free access
12 Amaral ET al.
Table 3 Function of stips (cont.)
Functions Authors
University-company Colombo and Delmastro (2002); Löfsten and

interactions Lindelof (2002).
Business-to-business Vedovello et al. (2006), Campanella et al. (2014).
interactions
Job creation Pavlakovich-Kochi (2015).
Promoting innovation Boschma (2005); Luengo and Obeso (2012);
Díez-Vial and Montoro-Sánchez (2015); Etzkowitz
and Zhou (2017).
Promoting regional Albahari et al. (2013); Hu (2013); Brasil, (2019).
development
Reduced transaction Link and Scott (2006), Layson et al. (2008).
costs
Source: Developed by the authors, based on Hora (2019).
2.2 Evolution
The stips movement dates back to the 1950s. The first initiatives appeared in
the usa, initially at Stanford University (Pique et al. 2018). In this decade, Sili-
con Valley, supported by Stanford University, has experienced a transforma-
tion becoming a hub of the semiconductor and information science industry
(Aslani et al. 2015; Henton and Held 2013; Chan et al. 2011). Other stips emerged
in the usa and Europe in the following decade, with two notable examples be-
ing the Cambridge Science Park and Sophia Antipolis’s Technopolis (Aslani et
al. 2015). In Asia, the first park was erected in 1970 in the Japanese city of Tsu-
kuba (Phan et al. 2005). During the 1970s and 1980s, an expansion of the phe-
nomenon occurred worldwide (Gainoa and Pamplona 2004). A growth peak
was observed during the 1990s, with the emergence of several of the stips cur-
rently in operation. Nowadays, aurp estimates the existence of 700 stips and
innovation districts around the world, with high concentration in the usa and
Europe.
It is possible to credit the creation and expansion of these environments
worldwide to researchers from universities and research centers, who had in-
novative ideas and inclination to develop them commercially, with the entre-
preneurial initiative (Aslani et al. 2015). Another reason is the prevailing belief
that the installation and operation of innovation environments, such as stips,

via free access
have the potential to promote economic growth and competitiveness, with the
new businesses creation and value aggregation for companies installed in
them (Löfsten and Lindelöf 2005). Vedovello et al. (2006) and Link and Scott
(2006) support the assertion that the movement of stips was developed on the
idea that the physical proximity between industrial establishments, technology-
based companies, and sources of knowledge, such as universities and research
centers, favor stimulating innovation.
In several countries, the motivation in creating stips will be the possibility
to provide infrastructure and other resources and support needed by compa-
nies in generating, developing, and launching innovative products and servic-
es (Brown and Mason 2014; McAdam and McAdam 2008; Ratinho and Hen-
riques 2010). However, stips go beyond the role of promoting innovation and
entrepreneurship (Löfsten and Lindelöf 2005). They present themselves as ex-
perience spaces that guide and support specific behaviors in their stakehold-
ers, providing the formation of integrated social and institutional processes to
stimulate creativity and innovation.
Because stips are linked to the innovation discourse, these environments
are considered promoters of local development and have achieved an impor-
tant place in the public policy agendas (Tonelli et al. 2015). Hereupon, its role
is highlighted concerning the promotion of environments conducive to the in-
novation culture, competitiveness, and business training, based on the transfer
of knowledge and technology and the increase in the production of a wealth of
a locality (Marklund et al. 2009).
Annerstedt and Haselmayer (2004) adopt a classification based on three cat-
egories, related to the period of the stips creation, as shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Generations of stips
Gen Characteristics
1o stips created in the 1950s and inspired by pioneering parks.

Physical structures that included incubators and other technology-
based services.
“Science push” guidance: motivation to support and incite the
emergence of technology-based companies, as well as promote
university-company interaction in joint R&D&I activities.
Focus on scientific excellence, competitiveness, and innovation
capacity of the companies installed, resulting in a relevant contribu-
tion in regional and national development.

via free access
14 Amaral ET al.
Table 4 Generations of stips (cont.)
Gen Characteristics
2o Characterized as an university extension, research, and institutes

centers; to serve as a bridge between universities and the market.
They concentrate resources and actions focused on processes and
products resulting from the final phases of the innovation process.
They seek to repeat the success of their predecessors with the
support of local, regional, or national public authorities.
“Demand-pull” guidance, with mirrored management practices in
the business world.
Profusion in the usa and Europe between the 1970s and 1990s.
3o More professionalized management, headed by innovation
specialists.
Created, mostly from the 1990s, as a cluster of companies with
common characteristics, with an excellent communication network,
facilitating university-company-government relations.
Strategy: global insertion and integration with other public policies
of regional development.
Focus: to value the network developed in the surroundings seeking
to add more intensely and efficiently to the local community.
They accumulated experiences from previous generations, using this
knowledge to contribute to the socio-economic development of
emerging peripheral countries. They have often been the result (or
instrument) of public policies for development.
Source: Developed by the authors, based on Annerstedt and Haselmayer (2004).
3 Research Procedures
The present research is applied, descriptive, and analytical. It can still be char-
acterized as qualitative, due to this procedures’ use for selecting and sorting
papers for analysis under the author’s bias. It is descriptive and has a longitu-
dinal profile, covering eleven years (2007–2018). The collection, selection, and
analysis were performed in three stages over two distinct datasets of publica-
tions. The bibliometric analysis techniques were applied to allow the compre-
hension of authors’ production and citations related, especially on academic
papers (Araújo 2006).

via free access
In the search and scientific papers selection, the Web of Science (wos) plat-
form was the primary source, and the bibliometric analysis procedure was or-
ganized into three steps. In the first one, the search string (“scien* park” OR
“tech* park”) was used in wos to have all the searches contained in the title, in
the keywords or the abstracts. As the concepts related to the theme are similar,
and several authors use different terms (Table 1), we added the terms “innova-
tion park,” “university research park,” and “research park.”
The string “scien* park” OR “tech* park” returned 621 results, which 254 of
them are proceeding papers, eight reviews, six new items, six editorial materi-
als, one meeting abstract, and 352 indexed papers. The term “innovation park”
returned 23 results, which eleven are proceeding papers, one is a new paper,
one review, and ten indexed papers. The search for the term “research park”
has reported 93 results, with 27 proceeding papers, three new items, two edito-
rial materials, one review, and 64 indexed papers. The term “university research
park” returned four results. One of them is a proceeding paper, and three oth-
ers are indexed papers. Altogether, in this first stage were found 429 journals
indexed papers.
In step two, the titles and abstracts of selected documents were read to as-
sess publications’ compatibility with the creation, management, and opera-
tion of a stip. Eventually, in addition to titles and abstracts, a more detailed
reading was made to define if the document was part or not of the sample. The
result was 177 papers selected.
This sample selection was submitted to the step three which comprises the
papers classification, the analysis of the most prolific authors, countries, most
relevant institutions, and the search of the themes, and classification of docu-
ments by themes and categories.
About the search and classification of works presented at iasp conferences,
the same analysis method and classification used for academic indexed papers
were adopted. However, the documents were not fully organized. It was neces-
sary to build a MS Excel database containing the output presented at the
events.
The iasp, founded in 1984, is the leading international entity related to
stips and areas of innovation. 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 orga-
nization has 350 members in 74 countries. Annually, iasp organizes a confer-
ence in which stips’ professionals, academics, business people, and govern-
ment representatives presents and discuss works on the theme. The conferences
are also a space of training and exchange of experiences among managers and
workers in this segment. About content, the production is mainly composed of

via free access
16 Amaral ET al.
reports of professionals’ experiences as single case studies. A total number of

588 articles were presented in the period 2007–2017 (from 24th to 34th confer-
ence). The technical works presented in 2018 and 2019 were not available at the
moment of this research. A total of 572 (97.27%) works are directly related to
the theme according to the classification adopted in this study.
This amount of technical works not published in a databases (like wos)
does not allow an analysis of co-citation. The idea to check what academic
authors and professional authors are citing and vice-versa is a limitation of this
work and can be explored in other research. However, it requires a consider-
able effort to prepare the dataset.
4 Results and Discussion
This section presents (in four subsections) and discusses the research results of
the analysis over the two publications’ datasets.
4.1 Publications Analysis by Year

This research identified 177 papers in indexed journals, from which it is possi-
ble to verify an increase of interest in the topic, given the growth of the volume
of output. In 2007, only three documents related to stips were found (1.69%).
In the next two years, the output was 20 articles (5.65%). The scientific produc-
tion 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 re-
sults indicate the growing trend in the academic community around the world
on the theme. The output volume is low, concentrated in applied social sci-
ences and engineering (Figure 1).
The analysis of technical works presented at the iasp conferences exhibited
a constant growth between 2007 and 2010, and a drop of almost 47% in 2011.
From 2012 onwards, there is a resurgence of an increase in output, to again
decline in 2015. The following years indicate a resumption trend of the publica-
tion volume.
In the period from 2007 to 2010 is the productivity peak of the sample ana-
lyzed (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 Bei-
jing conference in China), as show in Figure 1. These oscillations could be more
related to the events configuration (location, the format of the call for papers
and presentations) than a greater or lesser interest in the theme. It is impor-
tant to note that the iasp conducts the events with local partners (in general

via free access
stips) and that despite some standardization in operation, there are more suc-
cessful events than others. Figure 1 shows the distribution of academic and
technical output per year and Table 5 shows the conference locations and the
main theme.
The figure indicates similarities between the two publications groups. In
both cases, there is an increasing trend in the first four years of the period ana-
lyzed. The last three years in each graph similarly present a second growth line,
indicating that the output for the following years may continue to grow. How-
ever, in the iasp case, this publication volume is lower than the peaks reached
in 2010 and 2014. Possibly, the conference location, as well as issues related to
the host countries’ economies and the financial health of the stips, could af-
fect the number of delegates. This work does not explore these factors.
Papers
35
30
30
25
26
20 24
15 19
16
10
12
10 10 10 9
5 8
3
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Technical works
80
60 67
64
59 58 60
40 51 48
47 44 46
20 32
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Figure 1 Amount of publications by year (2007–2018)
Source: Developed by the authors.

via free access
18 Amaral ET al.
Table 5 iasp Conferences information
Year Location Theme No works

presented
2007 Barcelona Creative Jobs and Creative 51

(Spain) Companies – Key Factors for
Growth and Competitiveness
2008 Johannesburg The role of science parks in 59
(South Africa) accelerating knowledge economy
growth - contrasts between emerg-
ing and more developed economies
2009 Raleigh (usa) Future Knowledge Ecosystems – 64
The opportunity for science and
technology parks, people and
places
2010 Daedong Global Green Growth (G3): 67
(South Korea) Challenges and Opportunities for
Science and Technology Parks”
2011 Copenhagen Roadmaps for future navigation 32
(Denmark)
2012 Tallinn Serving the companies and the 47
(Estonia) innovation community’
2013 Recife (Brazil) Science parks shaping new cities 58
2014 Doha (Qatar) Science parks: where technology 60
goes to work
2015 Beijing (China) New Technologies, New Industries, 44
New Communities
2016 Moscow (Russia) The Global Mind – linking innova- 46
tion communities for internation-
alisation, sustainability and growth
2017 Istanbul (Turkey) Science parks and innovation 48
ecosystems: articulating future
trends and strategies
4.2 Publications Analysis by Authors

In the academic output analysis, we found 378 authors, 2.1 authors per paper
on average. The Spanish researcher Isabel Díez-Vial (Complutense University
of Madrid), the Taiwanese Grace T.R. Lin (National Chiao Tung University),

via free access
and the Thai Jarunee Wonglimpiyarat (Thammasat University) were the most
productive authors, with five, four and four published papers, respectively.
Concerning the iasp conferences output, the most prolific author is the
Brazilian stip manager Francisco Saboya (Porto Digital), with thirteen techni-
cal works presented in several events editions. After that, the Spanish citizen
Juan Antonio Bertolin (Espaitec Park) and the English citizen Malcolm Parry
(Surrey Technology Park) appear in the rank, both with ten technical works.
Another twenty-three authors complete the listing according to Table 6. From
a total of 957 authors that presented professional works in the period analyzed,
773 did in one opportunity, and 26 at least three times. Cases of co-authorship
were identified and counted a publication for each one of the authors.
Table 6 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 co-authorship was
found among the papers. In the technical works, four Brazilian authors in the
list (Saboya, Calheiros, Targino, and Gouveia) worked in the same stip (Porto
Digital) and has a long authorship collaboration.
Table 6 Publications by author
Author/ Papers Author/ Technical

Country Country Works
Díez-Vial, Isabel 5 Saboya, Francisco (Brazil) 13

(Spain)
Lin, Grace T.R. 4 Bertolín, Juan Antonio 10
(Taiwan) (Spain)
Wonglimpiyarat, Jarunee 4 Parry, Malcolm (England) 10
(Thailand)
Nagano, Marcelo Seido 4 Calheiros, Guilherme 9
(Brazil) (Brazil)
Chan, Kai-Ying A. 3 Negre, Paco 9
(Hong Kong) (Spain)
Fernández-Olmos, Marta 3 Targino, Polyana 9
(Spain) (Brazil)
Lee, Jaegul (usa) 3 Gouveia, Cidinha (Brazil) 8
Link, Albert N. (usa) 3 Neumann, Helge 8
(Germany)
Li, Xibao (China) 3 Giugliani, Eduardo (Brazil) 8
MacAdam, Maura 3 Chen, Chun Wei (Taiwan) 8
(Ireland)

via free access
20 Amaral ET al.
Table 6 Publications by author (cont.)
Author/ Papers Author/ Technical

Country Country Works
MacAdam, R. (Ireland) 3 Díaz, Soledad (Spain) 7

Oerlemans, L.A.G. 3 Prikladnicki, Rafael (Brazil) 7
(Netherlands)
Pretorious, M.W. (South 3 del Castillo Hermosa, Jaime 7
Africa) (Spain)
Sun, Chia Chi (Taiwan) 3 Pique, Josep Miguel (Spain) 7
Vick, T.E. (Brazil) 3 Yazdianpoor, Mozghan 7
(Iran)
Ai, Chi Han (China) 2 Palomo das Neves, Sonia 7
(Spain)
Albahari, Alberto (Spain) 2 Parada Ávila, Jaime 6
(Mexico)
Barge-Gil, Andrés (Spain) 2 Ibarrondo, Marian (Spain) 6
Cantu, Chiara *(Italy) 2 Huang, Bol Wei (Taiwan) 6
Chien, K.M. (Taiwan) 2 Westling, Bjorn (Sweden) 5
Corsaro, Daniela (Italy) 2 Urarte, Cristina Andrés 5
(Spain)
Eftkhari, H. (Iran) 2 Juanola-Feliu, Esteve 5
(Spain)
Frone, D. (Romania) 2 Samitier Martí, Josep 5
(Spain)
Leal-González, Martha 5
(Mexico)
Spaeth, Mary Shepard 5
(Sweden)
Brinkhoff, Sascha (Germany) 5
This study also identified the primary scientific vehicles for the academic pub-
lication. The Journal of Technology Transfer was the most used journal for aca-
demic dissemination with 13 papers published, followed by the Technovation,
with eight papers. Table 7 also points to the Dutch editorial group Elsevier
more present among the results.

via free access
Table 7 Most used journals
Journal Publisher Papers
Journal of Technology Transfer Springer 13

Technovation Elsevier 8
Int. Journal of Technology Management Inderscience 5
Navus senac 4
Environment and Planning C-Government Sage Journals 4
and Policy
Technological Forecasting and Social Elsevier 4
Change
Eurasia Journal of Mathematics Science Iser 3
and Technological Education
R&D Management Wiley 3
European Planning Studies Routledge Journals, 3
Taylor & Francis
Expert Systems with Applications Pergamon Elsevier 3
4.3 Publications Analysis by Institutions

Regarding the scientific productivity per institution, in the wos database, be-
tween 2007 and 2018, the Complutense Universities of Madrid (Spain, with
seven papers), the National Chiao Tung University (Taiwan), and the Univer-
sity of São Paulo (Brazil) were the most prolific institutions. Next, there is the
Chinese University Tsinghua, with five papers published by affiliates authors.
As shown in Table 8, among the ten most prolific organizations, the preva-
lence in academic output related to stips from Taiwanese organizations (four
universities/fifteen papers) and Spanish organizations (two universities/
eleven papers). Also, note the presence of universities from Brazil (two uni-
versities/nine papers) and the usa (two universities/eight papers) in this list
of the twenty most productive organizations. As Taiwan is internationally rec-
ognized as a part of China, it is the leading research production on stips, with
six universities represented and twenty-two papers (12% of 177 papers). In any
case, there is a dispersion of the theme by the countries. It was found 231 orga-
nizations from 43 countries.
The iasp publications database reveals a diversified and distributed output
across the stips. Altogether, 353 organizations were involved in publications,

via free access
22 Amaral ET al.
and 45 had three or more papers. Companies, incubators, stips, and universi-
ties are some examples of organizations with the authors’ affiliation. The Bra-
zilian technological park Porto Digital, based in the city of Recife, is the most
present organization among the content analyzed, with twenty-one technical
works. Followed by the Brazilian Technological Park of the Pontifical Catholic
University of Rio Grande do Sul (Tecnopucrs), with thirteen technical works;
and the German stip Wista-Management gmbh, installed in Berlin, with elev-
en technical works.
Table 8 Publications by organizations
Organization/ Papers Organization/ Technical

Country Country works
Complutense University 7 Porto Digital (Brazil) 21

of Madrid (Spain)
National Chiao Tung 6 Tecnopucrs (Brazil) 13
University (Taiwan)
Sao Paulo University 6 Wista-Management 11
(Brazil) (Germany)
Tsinghua University 5 Espaitec Science and 10
(China) Technology Park (Spain)
National Central 4 Surrey Research Park 9
University (Taiwan) (England)
University of Tehran 4 istt- Isfahan Technology 8
(Iran) Town (Iran)
University of London 4 Tsinghua Science Park - 8
(England) Tuspark (China)
Thammasat University 4 Andalusia Science and 8
(Thailand) Technology Park (Spain)
North Carolina State 4 Tallin Science Park 7
University (usa) Technopol (Estonia)
ucla (usa) 4 apte Assoc. of S&T Parks 7
of Spain (Spain)
Zaragoza University (Spain) 4 rti International (usa) 7
National Applied 3 Southern Taiwan Science 7
Research Laboratories Park (Taiwan)
(Taiwan)
Unisinos (Brazil) 3 22@Barcelona (Spain) 6

via free access
Table 8 Publications by organizations (cont.)
Organization/ Papers Organization/ Technical

Country Country works
Manchester University 3 Skolkovo Foundation 6

(England) (Russia)
Pretoria University 3 Kyoto Research Park 6
(S. Africa) (Japan)
Tokyo University 3 Manchester Science Park 6
(Japan) (England)
Twente University 3 area Science Park (Italy) 5
(Netherlands)
Catholic University of 2 City of Clovis (usa) 5
the Sacred Heart (Italy)
Chang Jung Christian 2 mirdc Mental Industries 5
University (Taiwan) R&D Centre (China)
Chinese Academy of 2 Riyadh Technovalley 5
Sciences (China) (Saudi Arabia)
Universidade Federal do Rio 5
de Janeiro (Brazil)
4.4 Publications by Countries

Concerning the most prolific countries based on the authors’ affiliation, China
is the largest academic papers producer on stip, with 27 publications. Taiwan-
ese authors occupy second place, with twenty-six published papers. As well
the research shows that countries in the development phase (Brazil, Iran, and
Thailand) are making efforts to address stips as promoters of innovation and
development.
Comparatively, among the technical works found in the iasp conferences
proceedings, 54 countries were identified. Spain appears as the most repre-
sented country, with 71 papers (12.75%). The following are Brazil (10.83%) and
the usa (9.09%).
Table 9 lists the twenty most productive countries in each category. The data
indicates the importance of economic powers, as the usa, England/UK, and
China gives to the studies of the stip.

via free access
24 Amaral ET al.
Table 9 Publications by countries
Country Papers % Country Technical works %
China 27 14,12% Spain 71 12,75%

Taiwan 26 13,55% Brazil 62 10,83%
Spain 23 12,42% usa 50 9,09%
usa 19 10,73% UK* 36 6,29%
Brazil 18 9,60% China 34 5,94%
England 17 9,03% Germany 27 4,72%
Netherlands 10 5,64% Finland 24 4,19%
Italy 9 4,51% Sweden 20 3,67%
Iran 7 3,95% Iran 19 3,32%
France 5 2,82% Italy 19 3,32%
Germany 5 2,82% Turkey 16 2,79%
Poland 5 2,82% S. Korea 16 2,79%
Sweden 5 2,82% France 14 2,44%
Thailand 5 2,82% Taiwan 12 2,09%
South Korea 4 2,25% Russia 10 1,74%
Belgium 3 1,69% Greece 10 1,74%
Colombia 3 1,69% Australia 10 1,74%
India 3 1,69% Saudi Arabia 9 1,57%
Ireland 3 1,69% Mexico 9 1,57%
* At this dataset, it was not possible to separate data from the member countries of the United
Kingdom.
A complementary analysis was made on the iasp members on the correspon-

dence between membership by country and publications quantity in the con-
ferences. Spain (26 registered members), China (31 members), and Sweden (16
members) have more members. The countries with a significant number of
associates (China, Iran, Spain, Turkey, Russia, and Sweden) are in the most pro-
ductive list also. Otherwise, countries with few number of associates like Brazil
(11 members), UK (9 members), and the usa (7 members) allows concluding
that there is no correlation among membership and publications.
4.5 Publications Analysis by Theme

Regarding the categorization of the content, the authors proposed 25 topics
related to the study of stips based on the functions identified in the literature

via free access
review (Table 3), titles of the sessions in conferences, publications keywords,

and themes of academic journals special issues, among others. These topics
were classified in four categories: “internal or operational management” (OM);
“external relations or networks” (RN); related to the “innovation system” (IS);
and “theoretical” (T) according the predominance of the discussion in the
sample of papers and technical works.
The classification of publications in each category was done after reading
titles, abstracts, and keywords of 176 papers and 560 technical works selected
for the comparison (Table 10). One papers and 12 technical works covers more
than one theme turning infeasible the classification. Eventually, given the dif-
ficulty in defining the content studied, the discussion and conclusions were
also read. The most present topics on wos papers were:
– “Technology Transfer and Knowledge Management” (23, 12.99%),
– “Incubators, startups and academic spin-offs” (21 papers, 11.86%),
– “Description of characteristics and dynamics of parks” (13 papers, 7.34%),
– “Public innovation policies” (13 paper, 7.34%), and
– “Influence, unfolding and impact study of innovation networks” (12 papers,
6.77%).
Triple Helix and derived models, as well as the national and regional innova-
tion systems’ approaches, are also addressed in the bulge of publications, em-
phasizing the relevance and timeliness of the subject in academic research.
In the same way, the iasp conference publications were categorized
(Table 10). It was necessary to broaden the classification categories by adding
twelve themes beyond the original 25, summing 33 themes (4 are not repeat-
ed). Possibly, due to the quantity of technical works found in the iasp data-
base (572) it resulted in a greater themes diversity. Some of them are interest-
ing to stip’s managers (such as management of internal organizational
aspects) possibly do not have the same attractiveness to academic researchers
or scientific publications.
Also, the 33 topics were classified by in the same four categories proposed.
It’s relevant to observe that the same topic can have distinct categorization ac-
cording to the content in the respective set of 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 publications (9.26%) and “Tools and
platforms to stimulate innovation”, with 38 publications (6.64%).
On the other hand, themes like “Models of evaluation of startups”, “Litera-
ture Review on stip”, “stip and entrepreneurial education”, and “Comparative
studies of stip,” had low interest among professionals related to the stips
universe.

via free access
26 Amaral ET al.
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 13, were not treated in any professional’s work.
Themes that are crucial for the creation, maturation, and prosperity of stip,
are not much studied, like “Success factors for stips” (9 publications), “man-
agement of social innovation” (5), and “finance and financing of stip” (6).
Table 10 Publications by themes
Theme Cat Papers Theme Cat Technical

Works
Technology Transfer and T 23 (12,99%) Description of OM 55 (9,61%)

Knowledge Characteristics and
Management Dynamics of Parks
Incubators, Startups and T 21 (11,86%) Study of The Impact of IS 53 (9,26%)
Academic Spin-Offs Parks on Regional
(Entrepreneurship) Development
Description of Charac- OM 14 (7,90%) Tools and Platforms to OM 38 (6,64%)
teristics and Dynamics Stimulate Innovation
of Parks
Study of The Impact of RN 12 (6,77%) Innovation Management / OM 35 (6,11%)
Innovation Networks Creativity Process
Influence of Parks on OM 12 (6,77%) Ecosystems and Innova- RN 32 (5,59%)
Resident Companies tion Networks
Public Innovation IS 12 (6,77%) Management / OM 30 (5,24%)
Policies Management Models /
Park Configurations
Ecosystems and IS 11 (6,21%) Incubators OM 29 (5,06%)
Innovation Management
National and Regional IS 11 (6,21%) Study of the Impact of IS 29 (5,06%)
Innovation Systems / Parks on National
Triple-Quadruple- Development
Quintuple Helix
Study of The Impact of IS 10 (5,64%) Evolution and Develop- OM 26 (4,54%)
Parks on Regional ment of Parks
Development

via free access
Table 10 Publications by themes (cont.)

Works
Models of Park OM 6 (3,38%) Technology Transfer and T 26 (4,54%)

Evaluation Knowledge Management
Comparative Study T 5 (2,82%) Sustainable Develop- T 25 (4,37%)
of Parks ment, Sustainability,
Eco-Innovation
Social Innovation T 4 (2,25%) National and Regional T 19 (3,32%)
Management Innovation Systems /
Triple-Quadruple-Quin-
tuple Helix
Study of the Impact IS 4 (2,25%) Influence of Parks on OM 15 (2,62%)
of Parks on National Resident Companies
Development
Scientific and RN 4 (2,25%) Models of Park OM 12 (2,09%)
Technological Output of Evaluation
Park
Sustainable Develop- T 4 (2,25%) Incubators, Startups, OM 12 (2,09%)
ment, Sustainability, Academics Spin-Off
Eco-Innovation (Entrepreneurship)
Literature Review on T 3 (1,69%) Influence of the STIP on T 12 (2,09%)
STIP Innovation Generation
Governance and RN 3 (1,69%) Public Innovation Policies IS 11 (1,92%)
Collaboration Networks
Evolution and Develop- OM 3 (1,69%) Intellectual Capital and OM 11 (1,92%)
ment of Parks HR Management in stip
Management / Manage- OM 3 (1,69%) Typologies and Tenden- T 10 (1,74%)
ment Models / Park cies of Parks
Configuration
Selection of Resident OM 3 (1,69%) Strategies For Attracting OM 10 (1,74%)
Companies Investments
Open Innovation OM 3 (1,69%) Park-University Relation RN 10 (1,74%)
Strategies For Attracting OM 2 (1,12%) Success Factors for stips T 9 (1,57%)
Investments
Organizational Strategy OM 2 (1,12%) Governance and Collabo- RN 8 (1,39%)
of Parks ration Networks

via free access
28 Amaral ET al.
Table 10 Publications by themes (cont.)

Works
Typologies and Tenden- T 1 (0,56%) Study of The Impact of RN 7 (1,22%)

cies of Parks Innovation Networks
Risk Management in OM 1 (0,56%) Scientific and Technologi- OM 7 (1,22%)
Parks cal Output of Park
Finance and Financing of OM 6 (1,04%)
stip
Urban Development / T 5 (0,87%)
Smart Cities
Social Innovation T 5 (0,87%)
Management
Open Innovation T 4 (0,69%)
stip and Entrepreneurial OM 3 (0,52%)
Education
Comparative Study of T 3 (0,52%)
Parks
Literature Review on T 2 (0,34%)
stips
Startup Evaluation Models OM 1 (0,17%)
4.6 Discussion
There is a trend of growth on the subject’s relevance in the academic world.
The increase of papers publication, perceived in recent years, can support
this argument. However, academic interest is still low and there is a high re-
search potential in the fields of management, economics, urban planning, and
regional development. As a driver of socio-economic development, stips at-
tracts investment. Public agents (in the mission to develop regions and to
provide society with jobs and other economic and social solutions) have been
investing in stips, which should awaken the interest of academia on the
phenomenon.
Looking to the authors (Table 6) and organizations (Tables 8), it was not an
expectation of the predominance of the same people and organizations in

via free access
both lists. However, the result was surprising when any common author or en-
tity was founded. More exploration of databases shows few academics pub-
lishing at iasp conferences. Maybe an explanation is the absence of the aca-
demic value of iasp’s proceedings (they are not indexed as a publication in
international databases and does not count for professional career or fundrais-
ing). On the other hand, there are fewer stip professionals with activity in the
academic world.
Another aspect, to be considered, is the selection process for publications.
Scholarly journals have a rigorous double-blind review process to approve and
publish a paper. Also, top tier journals are very competitive (they publishes less
than 15% of submitted papers). Even iasp conferences having high-level tech-
nical committees, the selection process is not so tight as in the journals.
Analyzing only countries’ data, Table 9 bears similarity of the information
among the two groups. Twelve countries (China, Taiwan, Spain, usa, Brazil,
Iran, Italy, England/United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden, South Korea)
appears in both lists suggesting a synergistic activity among academia and pro-
fessional practice on these countries.
The results pointed out in Tables 8 and 9 show coherence. The most produc-
tive countries, in terms of academic papers (Spain, Taiwan, China, Brazil, and
England) and technical works (Spain, Brazil, usa, China, and England), also
have the most productive organizations in the academic output (Spain, Brazil,
China, and Taiwan) and the technical output (Spain, Brazil, England, usa, Chi-
na, and Taiwan). However, as the organizations (and authors) are different in
both groups. The data suggests a concentration of academic and technical
publications on these countries but in two different clusters without collabora-
tion among them.
The research didn’t found any institutional or researcher concentration that
biases the datasets (e.g.: the leading researcher has five papers in a sample of
177, and the leading university has seven papers).
The analysis of Table 10 confirms that academic and professional universes
have differences regarding research agendas. Academics have published (as
a result of research activities) predominantly on themes related to the “theo-
retical” aspects of stips (35% in 7 topics). Then, on “innovation system” and
“internal and operational management” themes (27% each, in 5 and 10 topics,
respectively). The professionals have mainly published about “internal and op-
erational management” themes (52% in 15 topics). However, they have more
interest in “theoretical” aspects (21% of the publications, in 11 topics) than in
“external relations and networks” (17% in 4 topics) and in “innovation system”
(10% in 3 topics).

via free access
30 Amaral ET al.
In sum, the analysis of Table 10 also suggests that:

– The academics focus on theories related to the processes of knowledge
transfer and technology management on the generation of innovation
(probably looking for patterns to propose models and theories),
– stip’s professionals are publishing on the description and characteristics
and dynamics of their innovation environments, like case studies and re-
ports about living experiences (academics also carry out case studies, but in
a few numbers, as a way of approaching the subject),
– However, it is not possible to affirm that academics are not interested in
operational themes. In the same way, the analysis cannot confirm that pro-
fessionals are not interested in theoretical aspects.
– The topic of “the impact of stips in regional development” has received 53
publications from practitioners (9.26% of the total). This number reveals in-
terest and concern with the real implications of the ventures (even as a way to
justify the investment received). At the same time, the academy researchers
published only ten articles on a similar subject (5.64%).
As suggested in the introduction, academic authors addressed conceptual is-
sues (technology transfer aspects) while stips’ professional emphasized
themes more related to operational management, although they also care
about the impact of the initiatives with which they are involved and other
questions related to the park operation and its success. Table 11 summarizes
common and divergent points in both agendas.
Table 11 Characteristics of the academic and professional authors
Academic authors Professional authors
Sample Characteristics
Sample 177 papers, 378 572 publications, 957 authors
characteristic authors (2.1 authors (1,7 per paper)
per paper).
Main Authors 18 Universities, 1 15 stips, 1 Association, 1 University,
Research Center, 1 2 Research center, 1 Foundation, 1
Academy of City Hall
Sciences

via free access
Table 11 Characteristics of the academic and professional authors (cont.)
Academic authors Professional authors
Divergent topics
Publication Growth of the A stable amount of publications per
trend volume of publica- year (average of 52; range from 32 to
tions (average of 67)
14.75/per year, but
an average of 25 in
the last four years)
Research Focus on theories Managerial focus on the description
themes/ related to the and characteristics and dynamics of
publications processes of transfer their innovation environments, like
and technology and case studies and reports about living
knowledge manage- experiences.
ment on the
generation of
innovation.
Convergent topics
Countries more China, Taiwan, Spain, usa, Brazil, Iran, Italy, England/UK,
active France, Germany, Sweden, South Korea
Research themes/ Both groups works on “Description and characteristics and
publications dynamics of stips” and “Study of the impact of parks on
regional development”, basically with case studies.
Source: developed by the authors.
An in-depth look in the data, analyzing the evolution of the themes by publica-
tion year does not bring additional findings. In the papers published, we do not
found a clear or predominant trend. In the case of iasp conferences, some
editions introduced new themes, but in the call for papers, traditional themes
are still present. An increase in the publications related to Quadruple and
Quintuple Helix models in the last five years was identified. Still, it is not sig-
nificative in the total number of publications.
Another consideration is related to the presence of iasp in the countries.
The number of affiliates has any relation to the productivity level. In this
sense, one suggestion to iasp is to enhance training and diffusion actions like
short-term courses, webinars, and publications (based on comparative studies
and position papers). This action can induce more academic research and a

via free access
32 Amaral ET al.
research agendas convergence. A recommendation to iasp is the separation of

conferences submissions in two groups, a set of technical reports (experience
report and case studies), and academic submissions. In this way, iasp signed
an agreement with the Triple Helix Association to support publications of
scholarly works from stip community in the Triple Helix Journal (announced
in September 2019).1
When compared with the literature, the publication in the two datasets
shows the same diversity of concepts (Table 1) and definitions (Table 2). Both
groups of authors use the iasp definition of stip combined with another one
(in general, from the respective national association).
Based on the categories proposed by Annerstedt and Haselmayer (2004)
(Table 4), it is possible to classify the stips according to the generations and
then try to comprehend if the stage affects the technical publications. Howev-
er, at this research, there is no available information about the period of cre-
ation, focus, and strategies adopted by the stips. Also, it was not clear the
value-added in this static classification. Many stips are making efforts to dy-
namize their internal environments and, because of that, new terms as areas of
innovation (in Europe) and districts of innovation (in the usa) are emerging
inside the old stips (Nikina et al. 2016; Amaral et al. 2020).
5 Final Considerations
This work performed comparative research among the publications carried

out by academic researchers and stip professionals. It was assumed that aca-
demic authors would deal with more theoretical issues (formal aspects of tech-
nology transfer, considerations for public policies) while managers emphasize
issues more related to operational management. The bibliometric analysis was
the technique applied in the two databases that compare the publications.
Some considerations can be made about the obtained results. The first one
is, as a whole, the academic output 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 a broad set of
themes, highlighting a heterogeneity of the research subject.
Second, the results show different outputs from academics and profession-
als and a low level of communication among them. The research agendas are
distinct. Although the most prolific universities and stips are in the same
countries, the similarities between the two groups are limited to this location-
al issue. The authors found in the research on the wos platform comes from

via free access
niversity, and no links were found among them and the existing stip. In this
u
sense, it is possible to affirm that the academy is not involved with stips man-
agement activities. In the same way, the most productive authors found in the
iasp database have no links with the academy. Even in the cases when the stip
belongs to a university.
As a final consideration, the study identified the adoption of stips as an in-
novation strategy for the socioeconomic of cities and regions. Especially in de-
veloping 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 within the field of studies.
Such as the themes identified in Tables 10. Topics as “Strategies of investment
attraction,” are vital for the feasibility of the projects for stips installation and
consolidation. While more studies on stips governance, innovation networks,
national and regional innovation systems, can contribute to the development
and improvement of the linkages among players. A convergence of agendas
will favor the maturity of the partnerships to improve and foster technical and
academic outputs, with socioeconomic impacts.
The research has limitations on methodology, given the arbitrary choice of
search strings (“scien* park” OR “tech* park; “innovation park”; “university re-
search park”; and “research park”) and the unfeasibility of making co-citations
analysis. Other discussions on innovation in companies, high-technology sec-
tors, and regional development policies would undoubtedly bring more publi-
cations on stips. Still, the difficulty in filtering and analyzing such content
would also increase exponentially. There are also limitations on the applica-
tion of bibliometric analysis. 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 rank all the publications.
This paper has several possible impacts. For iasp and similar entities, this
research can serve as an evaluation of the events’ content and to increase the
knowledge about their community. It is also useful for signaling a set of themes
to be incorporated. As well as allowing bridges with the academy. For the acad-
emy, it can flag new topics for research. For the stips and public managers, it
will enable the perception of the theme’s relevance in each country.
Future research can include the expansion of the research on academic out-
puts, including databases like Scopus, and the enlargement of professional
works database with the addition of proceedings from the conferences orga-
nized by aurp, anprotec, and similar entities. Another possible research is
to discuss the evolution of the park’s concept over the years and according to
generations.

via free access
34 Amaral ET al.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the iasp, in the person of the former Executive Director
Luiz Sanz Irles and the former President Josep Miguel Pique Huertas, by the
access to the information about publications from the conferences.
Endnote
1 See: https://us2.campaign-archive.com/?u=13b268c2fc1016735cb84b917&
id=f81a279a98.
References
Albahari, A., Catalano, G., and Landoni, P. (2013). Evaluation of National Science Park
Systems: A Theoretical Framework and its Application to the Italian and Spanish
Systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25 (5), pp. 599–614. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.785508.
Amaral, M. (2015). Management and Assessment of Innovation Environments. Triple
Helix, 2:19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40604-015-0030-5.
Amaral, M., Faria, A., and Schocair, M. M. (2020). Assessing the Innovation Environ-
ment of The Research Triangle Region. Administration, Society and Innovation, 6 (2).
https://doi.org/10.20401/rasi.6.2.386.
Amaral, M., Hora, A., Ribeiro, N., Cunha, L., and Maia, J. (2019). Science, Technology
and Innovation Parks: A Comparative Analysis Among Scientific and Technical Pro-
duction on the Theme. Proceedings of the xvii Triple Helix Conference. Cape Town.
Annerstedt, J., and Haselmayer, S. (2004). Third Generation Science Parks. Why do the
Science Parks go Urban within the Globalizing Economy? In: International Associa-
tion of Science Parks (eds). Regional Attractiveness in the Knowledge Economy, Ser-
vitec. Bergamo: Servitec, pp. 83–89.
Araújo, C. A. (2006). Bibliometria: evolução histórica e questões atuais. Em Questão,12
(1), pp. 11–32.
Archibugi, D., Howells, J., and Michie, J. (1999). Innovation Policy in a Global Economy.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 11 (4), pp. 527–539. https://doi
.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00036-0.
Aslani, A., Eftekhari, H., and Didari, M. (2015). Comparative Analysis of the Science and
Technology Parks of the US Universities and a Selected Developing Country. Journal
of Innovation and Sustainability, 6 (2), pp. 2–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.24212/2179
-3565.2015v6i2p25-33.

via free access
Brazil (2019). Estudo de Projetos de Alta Complexidade: Indicadores de Parques Tecnológi-

cos. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações, Coordenação-
Geral de Estímulo ao Desenvolvimento de Negócios Inovadores, e Universidade de
Brasília, Centro de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Tecnológico.
Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and Innovation: A Critical Assessment. Regional Studies,
39 (1), pp. 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887.
Brown, R., and Mason, C. (2014). Inside the High-Tech Black Box: A Critique of Technol-
ogy Entrepreneurship Policy. Technovation, 34 (12), pp. 773–784. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.013.
Cabral, R., and Dahab, S. (1998). Refining the Cabral-Dahab Science Park Manage-
ment Paradigm. International Journal of Technology Management, 16 (8), pp. 813–
818.
Campanella, F., Della Peruta, M., and Del Giudice, M. (2014). Creating Conditions for
Innovative Performance of Science Parks in Europe. Journal of Intellectual Capital,
15 (4), pp. 576–596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIC-07-2014-0085.
Castells, M. (2009). The Rise of Network Society. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chan, K., Oerlemans, L., and Pretorious, T. (2011). Innovation Outcomes of South Afri-
can New Technology-based Firms: A Contribution to the Debate on the Perfor-
mance of Science Park Firms. South African Journal of Economic and Management
Sciences, 14 (4), pp. 361–378. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v14i4.34.
Colombo, M., and Delmastro, M. (2002). How Effective are Technology Incubators? Evi-
dence from Italy. Research Policy, 31 (7), pp. 1103–1122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0048-7333(01)00178-0.
Díez-Vial, I., and Montoro-Sánchez, A. (2015). How Knowledge Links with Universities
may foster Innovation: The Case of Science Park. Technovation, 5 (50/51), pp. 41–52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.001.
Durão, D., Sarmento, M., Varela, V., and Maltez, L. (2005). Virtual and Real Estate
Science and Technology Parks: A Case Study of Taguspark. Technovation, 25 (3),
pp. 237–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00110-X.
Etzkowitz, H., and Zhou, C. (2017). Innovation Incommensurability and the Science
Park. R&D Management, 48 (1), pp. 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12266.
Fagerberg, J., and Srholec, M. (2008). National Innovation Systems, Capabilities and
Economic Development. Research Policy, 37 (9), pp. 1417–1435. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.respol.2008.06.003.
Gainoa, A., and Pamplona, J. (2004). Abordagem teórica dos condicionantes da forma-
ção e consolidação dos parques tecnológicos. Production, 24 (1), pp. 177–187. https://
doi.org/10.1590/S0103-65132013005000027.
Henton, D., and Held, K. (2013). The Dynamics of Silicon Valley: Creative Destruc-
tion and the Evolution of the Innovation Habitat. Social Science Information, 52 (4),
pp. 539–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018413497542.

via free access
36 Amaral ET al.
Hitt, M., Ireland, R., and Hoskisson, R. (2016). Strategic Management: Concepts: Com-
petitiveness and Globalization. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Hora, A. (2019). Avaliação da Gestão de Ambientes de Inovação: Aplicação do Amaral’s
Model for Innovation Environment Management (amiem) em Parques Tecnológicos
do Estado do Rio de Janeiro. Master dissertation, Fluminense Federal University.
Hu, A. (2007). Technology parks and regional economic growth in China. Research
Policy, 36, pp. 76–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.08.003.
Jimenez-Zarco, A., Cerdan-Chiscano, M., and Torrent-Sellens, J. (2013). Challenges and
Opportunities in the Management of Science Parks: Design of a Tool based on the
Analysis of Resident Companies. Brazilian Review of Business Management, 15 (48),
pp. 362–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v15i48.1503.
La Rovere, R., and Melo, L. (2012). Science Parks and Their Role in the Innovation Pro-
cess: A Literature Review for the Analysis of Science Parks as Catalysts of Organiza-
tional Networks. In: Nobre, F. Walker, D., and Harris, R. (eds), Technological, Mana-
gerial and Organizational Core Competencies: Dynamic Innovation and Sustainable
Development. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-61350-165-8.
ch013.
Layson, S., Leyden, D., and Neufeld, J. (2008). To Admit or Not to Admit: The Ques-
tion of Research Park Size. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 17 (7/8),
pp. 689–697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10438590701785652.
Link, A., and Scott, J. (2006). US University Research Parks. Journal of Production Analy-
sis, 25, pp. 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-006-7126-x.
Löfsten, H., and Lindelöf, P. (2005). R&D Networks and Product Innovation Patterns –
Academic and Non-academic New Technology-based Firms on Science Parks. Tech-
novation, 25 (9), pp. 1025–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.02.007.
Löfsten, H., and Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the Growth of New Technology-
based Firms: Academic-industry Links, Innovation and Markets. Research Policy, 31
(6), pp. 859–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00153-6.
Luengo M., and Obeso M. (2012). El efecto de la Triple Hélice en los resultados de la
innovación. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 53 (4), pp. 388–399. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-75902013000400006.
Marklund, G., Vonortas, N., and Wessner, C. (2009). The Innovation Imperative. Chelten-
ham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
McAdam, M. and McAdam, R. (2008). High Tech Start-ups in University Science Park
Incubators: The Relationship between the Start-up’s Life Cycle Progression and
use of the Incubator’s Resources. Technovation, 28 (5), pp. 277–290. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.07.012.
Nikina, A., Pique, J., and Sanz, L. (2016). Areas of Innovation in a Global World: Concept
and Practice. IASP, Málaga.
Pavlakovich-Kochi, V. (2015). The Economic Impact of UA Tech Park. Tucson, AZ.

via free access
Phan, P., Siegel, D., and Wright, M. (2005). Science Parks and Incubators: Observations,
Synthesis and Future Research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20 (2), pp. 165–182.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.001.
Pique, J., Berbegal-Mirabet, J., and Etzkowitz, H. (2018). Triple Helix and the Evolution
of Ecosystems of Innovation: The Case of Silicon Valley. Triple Helix, 5:11. https://
dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40604-018-0060-x.
Ratinho, T., and Henriques, E. (2010). The Role of Science Parks and Business Incuba-
tors in Converging Countries: Evidence from Portugal. Technovation, 30, pp. 278–
290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.09.002.
Robbins, S. (2005). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
Spolidoro, R., and Audy, J. (2008). Parque científico e tecnológico da PUCRS: TECNOPUC.
Porto Alegre: Edipucrs.
Sternberg, R. (2004). Technology Centres in Germany: Economic Justification, Effec-
tiveness and Impact on High-tech Regions. International Journal of Technology
Management, 28, pp. 444-469. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2004.005298.
Tonelli, D. F., Marquesini, M., Zambalde, A., and Almeida, R. (2015). Implantação de
Parques Tecnológicos como Política Pública/ Uma Revisão Sistemática sobre seus
Limites e Potencialidades. Revista Gestão & Tecnologia, 15 (2), pp. 113–134. https://
doi.org/10.20397/2177-6652/2015.v15i2.632.
Vedovello, C., Judice, V., and Maculan, A. (2006). Revisão crítica às abordagens a
parques tecnológicos: alternativa interpretativa às experiências brasileiras recentes.
Revista de Administração e Inovação, 3 (2), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.5773/rai
.v3i2.58.

via free access

2020 THJ PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 THJ PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

triple helix journal (2020) 1-37

A Divergent Research Agenda: Academic and

bibliometric analysis – iasp – management of innovation habitats – Science –

© marcelo gonçalves do amaral et al., 2020 | doi:10.1163/21971927-bja10010

‫‪Marcelo Gonçalves do Amaral, André Luiz Furtado da Hora,‬‬

‫‪Marcelo Gonçalves do Amaral, André Luiz Furtado da Hora,‬‬

‫‪10.1163/21971927-bja10010 | triple helix‬‬ ‫‪journal (2020) 1-37‬‬

Cet article analyse l’évolution des publications de chercheurs universitaires et des

Parcs scientifiques – technologiques et d’innovation – Triple Hélice – gestion des

triple helix journal (2020) 1-37 | 10.1163/21971927-bja10010

análise bibliométrica – iasp – gestão de habitats de inovação – Parques de Ciência –

10.1163/21971927-bja10010 | triple helix journal (2020) 1-37

Марсело Амарал, Андре Луис Фуртадо Хора,

В этой статье анализируется эволюция публикаций и технических публикаций

Парки науки – технологий и инноваций – Тройной Хюлис –

triple helix journal (2020) 1-37 | 10.1163/21971927-bja10010

Marcelo Gonçalves do Amaral, André Luiz Furtado da Hora,

Esta investigación analiza la evolución de las publicaciones hecho por investigadores

análisis bibliométrico – iasp, gestión de hábitats de innovación – Parques de

10.1163/21971927-bja10010 | triple helix journal (2020) 1-37

triple helix journal (2020) 1-37 | 10.1163/21971927-bja10010

regional development agency, or a pool of entities (Brazil 2019). These legal

2 A Brief Review of stips: Concept and Evolution

2.1 Concept and Definition

10.1163/21971927-bja10010 | triple helix journal (2020) 1-37

Table 1 Park concept (parks typology)

University- Places to facilitate interactions between companies and

triple helix journal (2020) 1-37 | 10.1163/21971927-bja10010

These innovation environments provide more than physical space and

Table 2 Definition of Technological Parks

Brazilian A planned, formal, concentrated, and cooperative

10.1163/21971927-bja10010 | triple helix journal (2020) 1-37

Table 2 Definition of Technological Parks (cont.)

Association of Master plan ventures designed for research and

Despite the multiplicity of denominations and their different interpretations,

Table 3 Function of stips

Generation and Etzkowitz and Zhou (2017); Boschma (2005); Link

triple helix journal (2020) 1-37 | 10.1163/21971927-bja10010

Table 3 Function of stips (cont.)

University-company Colombo and Delmastro (2002); Löfsten and

10.1163/21971927-bja10010 | triple helix journal (2020) 1-37

Table 4 Generations of stips

1o stips created in the 1950s and inspired by pioneering parks.

triple helix journal (2020) 1-37 | 10.1163/21971927-bja10010

Table 4 Generations of stips (cont.)

2o Characterized as an university extension, research, and institutes

10.1163/21971927-bja10010 | triple helix journal (2020) 1-37

triple helix journal (2020) 1-37 | 10.1163/21971927-bja10010

reports of professionals’ experiences as single case studies. A total number of

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Publications Analysis by Year

10.1163/21971927-bja10010 | triple helix journal (2020) 1-37

triple helix journal (2020) 1-37 | 10.1163/21971927-bja10010

Table 5 iasp Conferences information

Year Location Theme No works

2007 Barcelona Creative Jobs and Creative 51

4.2 Publications Analysis by Authors

10.1163/21971927-bja10010 | triple helix journal (2020) 1-37

Table 6 Publications by author

Author/ Papers Author/ Technical

Díez-Vial, Isabel 5 Saboya, Francisco (Brazil) 13

triple helix journal (2020) 1-37 | 10.1163/21971927-bja10010

Table 6 Publications by author (cont.)