Effective coordination and innovation-facilitating role of science parks: The place-based approach with paradoxical outcomes

Abstract

The place-based regional industrial strategies provide a novel approach to examining the role of science parks in enhancing regional innovation with place-based policies. With qualitative interviews and case analyses, this study investigates how a place-based science park affects innovation activities of technology-focused companies. Our research findings demonstrate paradoxical nature with both positive and negative aspects of firms’ strategies that cope with obstacles such as the lack of funding for R&D and weak policy on IP protection. These obstacles hinder the collaboration on innovation and strengthen the effect of economic uncertainty on companies’ short-term survival orientation. Important implications for both theory and practice are discussed with possible future research directions identified.

JEL Classification: O32, M10, M38

Keywords

Innovation paradoxical outcomes place-based approach science park technology-focused companies

1. Introduction

As an innovation hub in a region, a science park plays an essential role in networking resources for technology-focused companies. Science parks provide appropriate physical infrastructure and research and development (R&D) policies to stimulate the technology output of companies (Löfsten and Lindelöf, 2003), indicating a catalytic incubator environment for the transformation of innovation research into innovative products (Westhead, 1997). However, some researchers have questioned policies designed to cluster technology-focused companies in locales due to the poor performance of science parks in boosting regional innovation (Bezdek, 1975; Galbraith, 1985). Such questioning stimulates an array of literature on approaches to science parks (e.g. Löfsten and Lindelöf, 2003).

So far, the focuses of extant studies on the role of science parks are much scattered and less pronounced in examining what influence and are influenced by the functions of science parks (Bailey et al., 2019). Much emphasis has been set on identifying and analysing various factors for innovation and for value creation and capture (Braczyk et al., 1998; Morisson and Doussineau, 2019). Interplays among the factors and the effects on how technology-focused companies within a science park innovate to achieve business growth, as well as those on how the science park is able to facilitate innovation to benefit the development deserve further investigation. Therefore, in this study, we aim to investigate ‘What are the key factors interplaying with combined effects on the innovation-facilitating role of a science park?’

Methodologically, this study seeks for answers to the research question through case studies, including archive research, site visits, and a series of semi-structured interviews with both the administrator of science park and 10 high-tech entrepreneurial companies operating in the science park. This method enables us to map out the roles and relationships among the relevant stakeholders of firm-based innovation and place-based catalytic incubation (Aguinis and Solarino, 2019). The inquiries focus on capital investment, human and intellectual resources, product and service output, the value created, and collaboration network. Answers to these inquiries allow for identifying current situations, needs, and challenges that high-tech companies have in benefitting from place-based regional industrial policies of a science park.

Therefore, this study makes two primary contributions to the literature. First, we investigate the effectiveness of a science park by adopting the place-based approach with paradoxical outcomes. While previous studies offered inconsistent findings of such effectiveness (e.g. Löfsten and Lindelöf, 2003), our study contributes new theoretical insights into the effect of regional innovation policies on regional innovation outcomes that exhibit the paradoxical nature with both positive and negative elements. Second, we extend the place-based approach by identifying multiple hinders of the innovation-facilitating role of science parks.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. In the next section, we first examine the background literature on the roles and performance of science parks as a regional hub and incubator for firm-based innovation. Then, the theoretical framework of a place-based approach to science parks is illustrated before the methods being adopted in this study in Section 3. After the outline of methodology, we delineate findings from studying a science park by investigating primarily technology-focused companies via the lens of a place-based approach in the science-park context. Finally, the article is concluded by discussing insights into implications for theory, policy, and practice to shed light on potential avenues for future research.

2. Literature review

Aiming for assisting regional economic development, a science park serves as a regional hub to promote and host the formation of high-end, technology-focused, and innovation-oriented companies (Zeng et al., 2010). Therefore, science parks are vital innovation infrastructure in the region to facilitate business strategies of technology-focused companies both within and around the science parks for achieving higher return and growth, viz. creating and capturing more values, from investing in innovation (Helmers, 2019). Based on such notions, it is essential for the review on current literature to understand and analyse the role of science parks in energizing innovation and enabling value creation and capture by drawing upon and responding to locational and contextual characteristics of economic regions.

With these in mind, this section first looks into the functions of science parks for innovation from the perspective of a place-based approach. Then, through such viewpoints, it further examines extant research on science parks to identify influencing factors for effectiveness of science parks as well as the research gaps.

2.1. Science parks for innovation: a place-based approach

According to Roberts (1986), science parks can be typified as the ‘location of a group of new-technology industrial companies or research units set in park-like surroundings in close and interactive proximity to a research university and its associated staff, resources and general facilities’ (p. 24). Meanwhile, in the extant literature, science parks are seen mainly as a ‘milieu’ of innovation-generating functions in a region (Massey et al., 2003) and a vehicle to entrench innovation within and beyond a region (Felsenstein, 1994). More recently, the growing attention to the place-based approach has shifted the understanding of science parks from an independent innovation hub to an important player of regional innovation (e.g. ‘an anchor tenant’ in Bailey et al., 2018), repositioning the role of a science park in regional economic development.

From a place-based perspective, the economic development of a region is not only dependent upon its tangible conditions such as geographic endowments, but also the social relations and the subjective emotions attached to the region (Beer et al., 2020; Tang and Beer, 2021). In this sense, both natural and societal characteristics of a region are important components of a regional ecosystem, thereby determining the trajectory of regional economic development (Bailey et al., 2018). In contrast to the traditional neoclassical view of regional development (e.g. the place-neutral perspective) (Barca et al., 2012), which advocated for minimized government interventions and maximized market freedom, the place-based approach posits that it is crucial for a region to have economic policies that can leverage strong characteristics of the region and complement weak ones (Hildreth and Bailey, 2013).

The place-based approach has a traditional focus on multilevel analyses across different geographic locations, social relations, and emotional attachments (Barca et al., 2012). As recent work on place-based approaches highlighted (e.g. Bailey et al., 2018, 2019), the central of a science park concerns both value creation and value capture. Departing from the conventional ‘milieu’ and ‘vehicle’ views on science parks, the place-based approach redefines the role of a science park in a region, because it is essential for a region to create value. Bailey et al. (2018) argue that regional values can be generated via innovation and technology, resources and services of human capital, the increase in returns to scale, and infrastructure and strategies of companies in the region. In this sense, a science park demonstrates attributes of the place-based regional innovation hub that bridges academia (e.g. universities), government (e.g. city councils), and industry (e.g. technology-focused companies) and connects different economic actors from knowledge and business networks into an ecosystem for innovation (Bailey et al., 2018).

However, as prior research noted (e.g. Clarysse et al., 2014; Klein et al., 2013), it is more critical and challenging to capture, than to create values. From a place-based view, science parks are potentially a policy instrument for regions to retain – in a sustainable way – part of region-created values. A science park may represent a regional government (e.g. a city council) to support value creation of technology-focused companies and to retain part of the created value in the region by playing a coordination role in distributing values among value creators (e.g. companies).

Another key feature that differentiates the place-based approach from conventional regional development approaches (e.g. the place-neutral view) is the focus on interactions between organizations (e.g. universities, government agencies) and people (e.g. managers, technicians) (Beer et al., 2020). A science park, by nature, is a place where people and organizations jointly work together to generate knowledge (Massey et al., 2003). The process of knowledge generation involves intensive talent work of people with organizations’ support (Nonaka, 1994). In a science park, the regional government may also experiment innovation-stimulating and industry-favourable policies. Such experimentation may facilitate institutional redesigning and policy responses to technological changes and regional development trajectories (Jessop, 2016).

In many accounts of the place-based approach, smart specialization for value creation and value capture is an important pathway to construct regional advantages (Bailey et al., 2018, 2019), and a place-based science park is an important policy instrument for a region to leverage its comparative and competitive advantages in developing a regional specialization. Foray (2014) argues that regional specialization is derived from the ‘discovery of new domains of opportunity and local concentration and agglomeration of resources and competencies in these domains’ (p. 1). While some regions in a nation may not possess advantages for innovation, a region where a science park locates may identify and seize such opportunities from a place-based combination of technologies, capabilities, and resources. Moreover, the place-based specialization does not lie in individual industry sectors. Instead, it promotes specialization of non-industry-specific activities underpinned by unique regional advantages and may be applied across industries (e.g. the specialized activity to reduce emission is essential for many industry sectors). The focus on specialized activities, therefore, becomes a crucial feature of science parks, where companies from multiple industry sectors reside and benefit from specialized regional advantages.

Based on the above analysis, it stands out clearly that central to the role and the functions of science parks in promoting and facilitating innovation are value creation and value capture. The effectiveness of achieving these two is closely associated with and impacted by specific features of how a science park is ‘placed’ to support interactions among organizations and development of innovation for creating values as well as particular characteristics of the economic region which present both advantages (or impetus) and challenges (or barriers) for capturing and disseminating the value created. Thus, it is essential for both factors to be examined and understood in unison through the prism of place-based perspective.

2.2. Science parks for value creation and capture: roles and key factors

For those ‘new-technology industrial companies’, a common, but also vital, role of science park is to provide services and human resources to facilitate tenant companies located inside the parks to pursue and enhance innovation, in technology and in business model, for creating more and higher value. These include enabling small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), particularly start-up companies, with technological assistance, talents, platforms, financial and operational supports, and other resources in developing technological innovation of their enterprises (Horng et al., 2014; Vanderstraeten and Matthyssens, 2012; Xie et al., 2018; Zeng et al., 2010). Such functions essentially render science parks the role as innovation incubator for value creation, whose success is manifested by the latest technology, the cutting-edge innovation and the socio-economic value created by the tenant companies (Mas-Verdu et al., 2015; Xie et al., 2018) with the increase of returns without unduly changing business scales (Massey et al., 2003). Meanwhile, being an integral part of regional economic ecosystem, the effectiveness of a science park for facilitating innovation and value creation by technology-focused companies in the science park is highly dependent on how the science park draws in and respond to the influence of external stakeholders (such as government agencies, research organizations, and other industry/business actors) and key contextual factors (such as policies, market, and socio-economic characteristics) to maximize the opportunities for capturing and realizing value. Such nature also bestows the science park a role as innovation hub for value capture.

With these in mind, it is necessary to examine what and how key functional and contextual factors are covered in extant studies regarding the influence on science parks in value creation and value capture. These are summarized in Table 1 and elaborated in the following sections.

Table 1.

Literature summary of the role and key factors of science parks.

	Key roles for value creation				Contextual factors for value capture
	Operational	Financial	Intellectual Property	Business Development	Govern.Policies	Partner-ships	Markets	Socio- economic Condition
Xie et al. (2018)	v				v	v	v
Ozyurt et al. (2016)	v				v
Faria et al. (2019)					v
Henriques et al. (2018)						v
Zeng et al. (2010)						v		v
Vanderstraeten and Matthyssens (2012)	v	v		v
Gao and Hu (2017)	v		v	v		v	v
Motohashi (2013)	v		v	v
Su and Hung (2009)						v
Park et al. (2002)			v
Seoudi and Mahmoud (2016)	v		v		v			v
Etzkowitz and Zhou (2017)				v	v	v	v	v
Tsai and Tsai (2010)							v	v
Horng et al. (2014)				v				v
Mansour and Kanso (2018)		v
Villasalero (2014)		v

2.2.1. Supports for innovation and value creation

Science parks typically juxtapose developing technologies and applied research on one hand and driving new R&D-focused business development on the other (Roberts, 1986). The latter role essentially has the mechanism of a science park function as an incubator to facilitate the development of innovation-oriented SMEs, particularly start-ups. This entails functions that scaffold success in entrepreneurial innovation and value creation with a suite of operational, financial, intellectual property, and business development supports (Mas-Verdu et al., 2015; Vanderstraeten and Matthyssens, 2012).

Operational supports by science parks as incubators for innovation, indeed, are core in the early development stage of start-up companies. As identified in some studies (e.g. Motohashi, 2013; Vanderstraeten and Matthyssens, 2012), innovation incubators are expected to provide quality operational supports and services, such as access to on-site with low price, administrative functions, business, marketing and legal consultations, and personal network connections that could help start-ups in their early development stage. Such services create potential tenants’ values as well as building reputation of the incubators to gain competitive advantages in the market. To support initial procurement of land or infrastructure and normal operations of newly established start-up companies, local government commonly provide subsidies or set up financial institutions (Ozyurt et al., 2016; Seoudi and Mahmoud, 2016; Xie et al., 2018), as undercapitalization is a common problem for these start-up companies (Motohashi, 2013).

Financially, bank loans are the second most common source approached by technology-focused companies to fund their innovations. However, the access to bank credits by newly established start-up companies remains poor as banks are generally in favour of larger enterprises who offer more mature products and services in established markets as to mitigate the possibility of bad credits (Hattab, 2012). Therefore, a key function of science parks as incubators is to help their tenants by providing information of and connecting them with other sources of financial supports, such as venture capital, to reduce information asymmetric that commonly hamper the capital access (Gao and Hu, 2017). This is especially crucial for infant start-ups to fund their innovative technology creation and thus empower them to compete in the market (Park et al., 2002; Seoudi and Mahmoud, 2016).

The extent to which the role of science parks as innovation incubators is considered effective in creating high-tech companies could be measured by the number of patents registered and innovative technology developed (Santoro 2000; Zahra and George, 2002). Villasalero (2014) reveals that patent performance is positively associated with the research and development of relevant projects and affiliated universities or research institutions. This suggests the importance of developing networks, both with companies within the incubators and institutions outside the science parks, for intellectual supports and value co-creation. The study on science parks in Lebanon by Mansour and Kanso (2018) shows that, despite of the limited availability of government support, the presence of science parks helps to provide collaborative networks for companies that contribute to the increasing numbers of patents registered. For science parks as innovation incubators, facilitating collaborations among companies, with either similar or different innovation focuses, within the incubators are particularly essential for supporting technology-focused start-up companies to develop. Such collaborations provide a wider chance for those tenant companies to explore intellectual resources and learn competencies that can enhance their professional and intellectual capacities (Vanderstraeten and Matthyssens, 2012). In particular, by collaborating with companies with the same focused area, tenants could enhance their knowledge in the related technology used to support better innovation and value creation that underpin their core business.

In addition to the aforementioned factors, the availability of business development supports is also essential for tenant companies to develop, including monitoring, business assistance, strategic managerial consultations, networking, and providing information on technology platforms (Motohashi, 2013; Vanderstraeten and Matthyssens, 2012). Of these supports, Motohashi (2013) suggests that tenant companies highly value networking activities, such as holding business exchanges. This indicates that tenants are aware of the difficulties to enter the market and the competitiveness of the market. Therefore, to provide comprehensive and quality business development supports, it is important for science parks to design long-term strategic management plans, including monitoring development process (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017; Horng et al., 2014). Thus, science park’s manager should ensure that their staff have broad view of science park activities and update their knowledge constantly, especially on the cutting edge of research and technology (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017). In addition, incubators should have a control system to ensure whether the supports and resources provided are sufficient and meet tenants’ needs as well as create service platforms to serve its incubating tenants, as evidence in Tuspark Incubator (Gao and Hu, 2017). Tuspark Incubator provides free platforms, such as high-tech platform and human resource platform to assist its tenants in accessing and utilizing technological resources and securing talented staff for its incubating tenants. With these free supports provided, it is expected that tenant companies could develop their business quicker and be more innovative and adaptable in the competitive market.

So far, the literature highlights the importance for science parks to provide multi-facet supports facilitating tenant companies to innovate for creating values. However, which supports are more critical and needed, how these supports can be better provided and what effects of their interplays can have in delivering desirable outcomes require further investigation. While supporting tenant companies with access to resources for financial capital and for intellectual capital and property development are regarded as two key roles of science parks for energizing innovation, in the extant research these two factors appear examined in a rather isolated manner, despite their strong interconnection as well as their correlations with business development and operational supports. Such linkage and joined impact on quality and effectiveness of value creation need to be examined in a more place-based manner and in relation to contextual characteristics of a science park and the economic region where it situates.

2.2.2. Contextual factors for value capture

Science parks play an important role in promoting research-based innovation and entrepreneurship that eventually could stimulate regional economic growth by capturing and propagating the values created by the technology-focused tenant companies. Successful science parks are able to manage the flows of knowledge and technology among companies, R&D institutions, markets, and thus create cutting-edge innovation that can lead to opportunities and value captured based on specific regional advantages (Ozyurt et al., 2016; Xie et al., 2018). According to the place-based perspective, the effectiveness of a science park in capturing and delivering value created relies on its capability in drawing upon and responding to specialized regional advantages often manifested in government policies, partnerships, market environment and socio-economic conditions, which are essential factors representing contextual characteristics of the economic region.

Government policies often play a critical role in shaping the relationships in science parks, including in the creation of knowledge and research outputs (Faria et al., 2019). Effective government policies and supports are critical in the development of technological entrepreneurship (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017; Ozyurt et al., 2016; Seoudi and Mahmoud, 2016; Xie et al., 2018), as it provides clear guidance on the use of resources that can stimulate the interactions among tenants in the science park. These policies may cover funding, mediation services, education and scientific research, and networking that can drive development in the high-tech zone. Regulations should be transparent and less bureaucratic which can ease start-ups to access resources and develop its capacity (Ozyurt et al., 2016). Unavailability of proper and sufficient information, for instance, in government incentives, opportunities or procedures in the incubators, may hamper tenants to achieve its potential. It is, therefore, crucial for government officials and science park management to analyse the fundamental barriers and minimize information asymmetry or lack of sufficient information transferred. If too much bureaucracy occurs and the regulations deem ineffective and less supportive to the establishment of tenant companies, regulatory reforms should be undertaken to minimize the obstacles faced and enable the supports to the development of start-ups companies and increase their channels to outside companies and market (Hattab, 2012; Seoudi and Mahmoud, 2016). In addition, the lack of government supports, either from the central or local government, may contribute to the failure of the science park, as evidence in the Newcastle science park project (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017).

Partnerships underpin the success of science parks, which require conjoint efforts among stakeholders such as government agencies, universities (academia) and industries for attracting talents, and nurturing entrepreneurial businesses (Cadorin et al., 2019; Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017; Mitra, 2000). Desires of industries to apply the results of research and interest in corporate strategies have driven the emergence of science parks. Partnering with universities focusing on innovation, therefore, provide a promising development for science park as universities are place where knowledge and research are created, and interactions between academics and entrepreneurs are nurtured (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017; Henriques et al., 2018; Su and Hung, 2009; Xie et al., 2018). As a knowledge centre, universities work along with new and established companies, and with public and private research institutes to bring research and development to a higher level. Universities, therefore, provide solid foundations for scientific research which could be transformed to benefit entrepreneurs (Eversole, 2021). Díez-Vial and Montoro-Sanchez (2016) suggest that ideally the science park is located close to the university to create a conducive innovative environment. Tenant companies could learn or incorporate knowledge, technology or administration through universities, in which this eventually could create an environment that drives innovation and facilitates research and human resources, as evidenced in Tuspark Incubator (Gao and Hu, 2017). It is, therefore, crucial for science parks to enhance and maintain their linkages with universities, research institutions and the industry to keep up to date with the latest technology to support continuing innovation in their regional economy (Zeng et al., 2010).

In addition to policy and partnership factors, the dynamic of the environments, including market development, human resources, technology innovation, and investment environment play an important part in the development of science parks (Chen et al., 2015; Lin and Tzeng, 2009). Market demand and profits are the main drivers of innovation for tenant companies and universities (Xie et al., 2018). The better innovation attracts more resources to be invested as well as potential investors, and this eventually could boost revenue generation that can stimulate regional economic growth. This cycle increases market demand for innovation and technological entrepreneurship, as evidenced by start-ups companies in China and Malaysia (Li, 2017; Wong and Goh, 2015). Start-up companies that focus on market orientation could potentially receive higher returns (Gao and Hu, 2017).

Facing global competition challenges, the government seeks general consensus to maintain and strengthen economic growth through the enhancement of science and technology (Tsai and Tsai, 2010). To attract foreign investment and technology transfer, the government should provide a safe and conducive investment environment to achieve economies of scale and reduce in infrastructure costs. To address the above concern, science parks are thus developed as places where social and economic goals intersect with science and technology, market, and society (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017). In addition to providing innovative infrastructures, science parks also play a role in establishing favourable culture that encourages regional sustainable innovation, entrepreneurships and an efficient network and information flows to improve talents and professional quality employees (Horng et al., 2014; Seoudi and Mahmoud, 2016; Zeng et al., 2010). Thus, shifting emphasis from older industrial regions to a more developed regions for establishing science parks can create undesirable socio-political pressure leading to adverse impact on effectiveness and sustainability for value capture and propagation (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017). Hence, government involvement and public investment in such cases are crucial to stabilizing the situation for science parks to swiftly adapt and ensuring that sufficient resources are committed to maintain economic growth and social development.

Although all these contextual factors have been identified as essential for science parks to capture values for regional economic development, the review of extant literature shows skewed focus on individual rather than more integrated effects. Despite strong correlations among government policies, socio-economic conditions, and markets, there appears scant analyses on how these factors together interplay with the features of a science park on its capability for and the outcomes of value capture within the contextual setting. Partnership is also a factor that needs to have its influence on science parks examined further in unison with effects of the other contextual factors.

With regard to the studies on science parks in the Australian context, the extant literature also reveals the lack of recent and relevant studies. The narratives of fostering regional innovation through the role of science parks and interactions with other stakeholders have been largely centred on nurturing entrepreneurship (e.g. Mitra, 2000) and social capital development, and impacts on wider communities (e.g. Eversole, 2021). On the other hand, research on firm-based innovation tends to focus more on effects in forms of ‘clusters’ of technology-focused companies (e.g. Enright and Roberts, 2001), which are deep-seated on theme- or sector-oriented approaches rather than the place-based approach. As a result, much emphasis is on value creation through inter-organizational collaborations and partnerships for business development, with limited attention given to value capture through innovation as well as intellectual capital and property management.

2.3. Research gaps

The review of literature on science parks highlights that the effectiveness of a science park in facilitating innovation and in enabling value creation and value capture are subjected to multiple factors. The role of science parks as regional innovation hub is shaped by government policies, partnerships with external stakeholders, dynamics of the market environment, and the socio-economic conditions which they operate in. Meanwhile, the functions of science parks as an incubator for innovation are essentially about how science parks foster entrepreneurial innovation of tenant companies, especially those technology-focused start-ups, by providing them with supports for operations, collaboration and intellectual properties, financial resources, and business development.

However, as illustrated by Table 1, the focuses of extant studies on the role of science parks are much scattered and less pronounced in examining what influence and are influenced by the functions of science parks. As discussed above, much emphasis has been set on identifying and analyzing various factors for innovation and for value creation and capture. Interplays among the factors and their combined effects on how technology-focused companies within a science park innovate to achieve business growth, as well as those on how the science park is able to translate innovation to benefit regional economic development deserve further investigation.

Second, both value creation and value capture factors have been investigated in relation to the operations of science parks. Yet, there is limited analysis on interactions between the impacts of contextual characteristics at the regional level, reflected in forms of external stakeholders, policy instruments, market environments, and socio-economic conditions, on science parks and the effects of science parks’ roles to drive innovation at the firm level. As the roles of science parks are in nature innovation incubators for technology-focused companies and innovation hubs for regional economic development, these entail analyses on the juncture among the influence of some key factors across firm-level innovation and value creation, park-level facilitation and value capture, and region-level contextual characteristics. An area of particular interest is how interplays of government policies, markets and partnerships affect the actions and performance of science parks in supporting those technology-focused companies on investing in R&D and on managing intellectual capital and properties for entrepreneurial innovation.

Finally, given the relatively new concept of place-based approaches to science parks, it is essential to investigate and showcase how the approach works in a science park and whether it helps the science park create and capture values by coordinating organization-people interactions and specializing activities to leverage regional advantages. Due to the heterogeneity of regional conditions, relations, and attached emotions across a nation, science parks residing in different regions should have different policies that can facilitate innovation in place-based ways. An investigation into specific interactions and activities for innovation in a science park sheds new light on policy-making possibilities of the place-based approach and its theoretical boundaries in explaining regional economic development. Considering the formation and the operations of science parks often have unique features that are location-specific, these limitations need to be explored and addressed through a combination of both theoretical and empirical lenses.

3. Research design

3.1. Adopting qualitative interviews

Given the underspecified nature of the phenomenon being studied and in addition to the need to examine contextual implications, this research carried out company visits, archive research (i.e. companies annual reports, published articles, promotion documents), observation and in-depth qualitative interviews to explore the relevant contextual environments as well as develop alternative interpretations of the needs and characteristics of firm engagement in science park (Hesse-Biber and Leavy, 2011; Miles and Huberman, 2004; Yin, 2008).

The site visits and interviews with 10 companies’ owners and senior managers as well as one official of the science park administration authority were conducted at one of the science parks situated in South Australia. Each interview lasted around one hour. The interview questions were related to the following issues: the business characteristics, the elements of an organization’s approach to innovation, the collaboration with other stakeholders, the facilitating role of the science park, and the needs for the science park to be more effective to support companies in collaboration and innovation. In order to get a holistic view of the role of the science park, we also interviewed one official of the authority of the science park. The original transcripts of the interviews were averagely four-page long (i.e. A4 and single space) for each interview and they were checked and coded by the three authors. In addition, during the site visits, we also collected the companies’ historical documents, such as their annual reports, and other relevant companies’ promotion documents as well as on site observation of their daily operation.

The profiles of the 10 cases are presented in Table 2. The 10 companies, designated as Case 1 to Case 10 (i.e. C1 to C10), represent different business types, from hi-tech consulting, R&D and innovation to digital design, software development and equipment production, and sales (see Table 2 for detailed information). The industry sectors covered include defence, energy, farming, mining, shipping, IT infrastructure, and telecommunications. These companies represented different sizes, the majority of which are small and medium-sized with the number of employees less than 100. Most of them locate their entire operation within the science park, and several have offices outside the park to get close to their customers.

Table 2.

Companies’ profile.

ID	Type of business	Sector	Size ^a	Business operation
C1	Hi-tech consulting	Defence	12	Providing safety and risk assessment and governance solutions.
C2	Hi-tech R&D and innovation	Defence	550	Self-controlled R&D; collaboration on innovation with university and other industry partners locally and internationally.
C3	Technology development	Defence and mining	150	Developing ground penetrating radar; licensing with key national research institutions, the joint venture with the military, and linking university for testing and obtaining talents.
C4	R&D on digital human modelling	Mining and farming	10	Working with another two companies and developing joint projects with the university.
C5	Software development	Shipping	2	Using virtual office at the science park for software development.
C6	Digital R&D and innovation	Mining, energy and emergency services	100	Linking with university and other businesses for digital R&D and innovation on cad-walk capability.
C7	Developing and sales of equipment	Mining	50	Collaborating with major national research institutions.
C8	R&D and innovation	Telecom and defence	100	Hardware, software, mechanical, systems & logistics engineering, assembly, integration and test on radar technology with other four organizations.
C9	AI and radar technology	Telecom, automobile and defence	100	Software and hardware engineers, embedded software, digital design, and mechanical work.
C10	Collection and transmission of remote sensor data	Defence and IT infrastructure	5	Designing, developing and selling asset management hardware technology and software.

Source: Authors’ elaboration from primary interviews, site visits and secondary data analysis.

Size – the number of employees.

3.2. Analytical strategies

We employed a thematic method to analyse the qualitative interview data (King, 2004). The primary interview data were complemented by secondary data such as companies’ annual reports, promotion documents, and other published articles. Codes were developed in relation to themes (Braun and Clarke, 2006), and analysis was performed in several steps, as suggested by Cassell (2015) and Miles and Huberman (2004). The data was analyzed by adopting cross-sectional analysis (Gioia et al., 2012) with multiple iterations between the data and emerging theoretical themes. Based on Pratt et al. (2006), the data analysis comprised three main steps: (1) classifying the initial data into first-order concepts; (2) abstracting and consolidating the concepts into second-order themes; and (3) aggregating the conceptual categories into dimensions. The outcomes are presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Data structure: paradoxical phenomena of science park.

In the first stage of data analysis, the authors read the interview transcripts, field notes, and other relevant corporative documents. At the same time, the initial data was categorized into first-order concepts, using language that was as close to the data as possible. The authors regularly discussed the emerging first-order concepts. In the second stage, based on Strauss and Corbin (1998), the authors worked closely to consciously identify similarities and differences among the first-order themes to consolidate empirical themes into higher-level conceptual categories. This stage included continually comparing the first-order themes with one another and with the emerging conceptual categories. The transcripts and field notes were also reviewed again to ensure the coded passages fitted with the emerging second-order categories. After several rounds of iterations among first-order concepts, second-order themes were developed based on the literature being reviewed in this study.

In the last stage, the theoretical explanations for the relational dynamics with paradoxical outcome among the second-order categories were actively examined. Multiple iterations of pattern matching between the emerging conceptual categories and the literature were conducted to identify the theoretical dimensions. Following Pratt et al. (2006), alternative conceptualizations of how the theoretical dimensions related to each other and the literature were actively brainstormed before the model shown in Figure 1 were finalized.

Based on the illustration of Figure 1, we observed that there are a number of paradoxical outcomes as the second-order themes based on the first-order concepts. ‘Paradox’ denotes contradictory yet interrelated elements (Lewis, 2000; Smith and Lewis, 2011), and in organization studies, paradox can be defined as contradictions embedded within a statement (e.g. Murnighan and Conlon, 1991), human emotions (e.g. Vince and Broussine, 1996), or organizational practices (e.g. Eisenhardt and Westcott, 1988). As Cameron and Quinn (1988) claim that by exploring paradox, researchers might move beyond oversimplified and polarized notions to recognize the complexity, diversity, and ambiguity of the reality. By doing so, research can examine how contradictions could both hamper and encourage further changes and development (Lewis, 2000; Smith and Lewis, 2011). Therefore, in this study, we identify a number of paradoxical outcomes which could serve as a framework, fostering insights into contradictions and complex inter-relationships between key elements.

4. Findings

In this section, we summarize our main findings – a set of paradoxical characteristics and the contextual factors, which influence the operation of technology-focused companies and the science park. As presented in Figure 1, four aggregated dimensions emerged as the central themes of this research. These are: (1) barrier for facilitating innovation; (2) hinder for collective IP development; (3) insufficient financial support; and (4) inconsistency for growth. We elaborate these in detail next.

4.1. Paradoxical characteristics

Through our deep interaction with participant informants, we discovered a set of distinct characteristics of the technology-focused companies operating in the science park, which, to our surprise, are paradoxical in nature as presented in the second-order themes in Figure 1. We summarize exemplary statements from our informants as the first-order concepts in Figure 1, from which we deducted these defining characteristics of technology-focused companies operating in the science park. For the sake of brevity, we include only a few statements to represent the major views of our informants. Our discussions about such phenomena follow the introduction of each paradoxical outcome.

4.1.1. Barrier for facilitating innovation

Our research reveals that the major goal of these technology-focused companies in the science park is to achieve innovation through their on-going R&D activities and collaboration with other stakeholders. ‘Innovation’ was a keyword in our interview structure to prompt the participants to discuss this particular issue. According to our informants and their company reports, ‘innovation is promoted as [a] goal by the science park authority’, and ‘it is also one of the primary goals for firm embarking on the adventurous and arduous journey with a sense of fulfilment’ (e.g. C2). As highlighted by the interviews, ‘technology-focused companies are different from merely operating a traditional business, since the core of their business is innovation’ (e.g. C3). Although ‘innovation comes with high risks as it is an untrodden path, they are willing to take such risks’ (e.g. C8).

Although majority of technology-focused companies in the science park pursue innovation, our informants have pointed out that they lack coherent facilitation and synergy for innovation within the science park. Most of the R&D activities are carried out by company-self, while some innovation projects are based on collaboration with partners within or outside the science park (e.g. C3). Although these companies find and choose collaboration partners according to synergies, one of the major criticisms toward the facilitating role of science park has been the lack of coordination and matching function for different companies knowing each other and identifying synergies. For example, the owner of C4 said:

The park provides an impressive address for business contact, and it also provides a lot of morning teas for social gathering. But there is no other real help. For us, it is hard to find synergy to work with other companies in the park, and there is no help from the authority here.

C6’s manager also made a similar comment:

Except providing the link with a university here, there is no other help from the authority of the science park. We do not really know what other companies are doing, and the park authority should provide such important information.

Hence, the first paradoxical outcome is between promoting innovation as goal and lack of coherent facilitation and synergy to support the realization of such goal within the science park.

4.1.2. Hinder for collective IP development

During the interviews, managers also pointed out the important needs of strengthening collective IP development among firms within the science park, but possible conflict between strengthening the development of IP collectively and lack of IP protection within the science park to facilitate such realization, and it requires the authority to do more, as C3’s manager claimed:

IP is a significant thing here. The company develops IP first and then collaborates with other companies could generate more meaningful outcome. But the reality is that it could be problematic due to lack of IP protection. In other words, collaboration and developing IP do not generally go together very well. For this, the authority of the science park could do more to protect IP based on collaborative effort.

The manager of C5 also added:

It needs to describe what other companies do within the science park in order for different companies to find possible business partners and develop IP. It has been good to work with university on this front, but it is hard to work with other companies to develop IP due to lack of clear policy on IP protection.

The manager of C8 shared a similar view:

It would be better to provide more useful information to understand other local companies’ capabilities and experiences regularly so people can work together to develop new IP.

These comments demonstrate that innovation is the goal and critical activities for those technology-focused companies operating in the science park. However, they face some obstacles, and the authority of the park plays a crucial role in facilitating synergies, matching capabilities and encouraging R&D and protecting IP among business partners within the science park. The reality is that ‘the science park provides a good location for conducting business and collaboration among firms located there’ (C9). However, there lack substantial supports, and the authority should pay particular attention to improve the facilitating role for sustainable IP development of these technology-focused companies operating there. Therefore, this is the second paradoxical outcome between the needs to strengthen collective IP development among technology-focused companies and lack of IP protection to facilitate the fulfilment of these needs within the science park.

4.1.3. Insufficient financial support

A number of participants stressed that ‘technology-focused companies often require high initial financial capital’ (C2). As these participants stated, they do have to acquire much asset to get the company up and running (e.g. C2 & C3). Nowadays, ‘cloud technology and other essential infrastructure services demand significant budget commitments’ (C3). On the other hand, smaller companies might adopt the light asset model, with human talents regarded as the key asset (e.g. C5). As we have continuously witnessed, a couple of capable and entrepreneurial people with brilliant ideas might only need a modest or even virtual, office to run their business in association with the science park. The light asset sets a lower threshold for digital companies as compared to other traditional industries, allowing these new start-ups to explore with great audacity through the linkage with the ‘place-based’ technological concentration.

Besides, another major criticism regarding the facilitating role of the science park is the lack of VC investment, government funding, and seeding grant to support newly established start-ups, as C1’s owner claimed:

Just providing space for interaction with other companies is not enough. There are insufficient VC investment and lack of government funding. Incentives for collaboration with seeding grant are missing, but they are important for newly established start-ups.

Furthermore, a lack of government financial support either to the authority of the science park or to the companies operating within the park has also been raised as a major limitation in providing opportunities for business interactions and growth (e.g. C2, C3, & C8). Therefore, this represents the third paradoxical outcome: on one hand, majority newly formed technology-focused companies require sufficient financial support for the initial establishment and further development with R&D activities; on the other hand, there is insufficient financial support, either from VC investments or from government funding, for newly established technology-focused companies within the science park.

4.1.4. Inconsistency for growth

A number of owners/managers emphasized the importance of ‘technology-focused companies achieve growth with long-term perspectives for their business success’ (i.e. C2, C3, C5 & C8). However, business survival is more crucial in the short term, given the uncertainty rooted in Covid-19 and its consequent economic impact. Our informants indicate that they can build a website, an application, or software in a few days to meet the immediate needs of their clients. The technology-focused companies can ‘develop core competencies for the time being, but it is difficult to predict whether this could last long’ (e.g. C5). Second, the valuation of hi-tech ventures increases much more rapidly compared to traditional industries with expectation of last longer (C2). However, ‘when an economic recession starts with a plunge of share prices, the quick expansion and growth can be suddenly jeopardized’ (e.g. C2, C3, & C8). As C9’s manager pointed out, it is hard to have a long-term vision:

It is hard to have a long-term plan given the lack of on-going support from the government, policy priority shifts from time to time and sudden events such as Covid-19 and related economic slowdown. We want to achieve long-term sustainable development but the reality forces us to focus short-term survival.

Based on these comments, we can see another paradoxical outcome has emerged: while majority companies have the willingness to achieve a long-term sustainable development, the harsh reality, however, forces them to focus on short-term business survival.

4.2. Contextual factors and their interplay with the technology-focused companies in the science park

Having described the above characteristics of the technology-focused companies operating in the science park that we discover through archive research and in-depth interviews with our participants, we now discuss how the contextual factors interact with these companies in shaping such characteristics. Some of the specific comments and responses regarding the contextual sitting and policy issues from interviewees are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Key responses regarding positive and negative elements of the contextual sitting and policy.

ID	Questions	Responses
C1	Positive elements	Providing space for companies’ interaction.
C1	Areas for improvement	Lack of funding from the government to support parks and firms. It should provide more opportunities for social gathering and incentives for collaboration with seeding grants. These are missing but they are very important.
C2	Positive elements	Bringing companies together for an integrated system of supplying products and arranging sub-contracts among different firms.
C2	Areas for improvement	Lack of government support systems, for example, security system and cyber-related services.
C3	Positive elements	Linking with universities nearby for bringing on engineering people, developing joint graduate programs, and testing facilities; providing networking opportunities with other electronics companies.
C3	Areas for improvement	One challenging area is related to IP protection. Within the science park, collaborating and developing IP do not generally go well given the possible competition. The science park needs to find a way for both promoting IP development as well as for IP protection.
C4	Positive elements	It is an impressive address for business contact.
C4	Areas for improvement	Lack of real help, for example, it is hard to find synergy to work with other companies within this science park.
C5	Positive elements	Providing better and sounding address for conducting our business.
C5	Areas for improvement	It needs to describe what other companies do within the science park in order for different companies to find possible business partners and develop IP. It has been good to work with university on this front, but it is hard to work with other companies to develop IP due to lack of clear policy on IP protection
C6	Positive elements	Providing useful links with universities.
C6	Areas for improvement	Lack of knowledge about what other companies are doing and the science park authority should provide this information.
C7	Positive elements	We like the proximity to the industrial customers within the science park.
C7	Areas for improvement	However, it only provides social functions, but not other support for collaboration.
C8	Positive elements	Providing a mixture of collaboration and sub-contracting arrangement with the other five companies and universities.
C8	Areas for improvement	It would be better to provide more useful information to understand other local companies’ capabilities and experiences regularly so people can work together to develop new IP.
C9	Positive elements	We set up our company here in order to be close to our industrial customers within the science park. We can also pick up those engineers we need here. We also collaborate with the university here.
C9	Areas for improvement	It is hard to have a long-term plan given the lack of on-going support from the government, policy priority shifts from time to time and sudden events such as Covid-19 and related economic slowdown. We want to achieve long-term sustainable development but the reality forces us to focus short-term survival.We need more support in terms of infrastructure, e.g., the internet can be more effective. More networking opportunities could also be important. Advertising all the companies located in the science park would help different companies to match with each other.
C10	Positive elements	Good location to be close to our defence and technology partners, also innovation collaboration partner of the university.
C10	Areas for improvement	It would be better to provide affordable rental and utilities to assist us to enhance our collaborative initiatives.

Source: Authors’ elaboration from primary interviews.

4.2.1. Government support

Both the federal and state governments have encouraged R&D and innovation for national development by using measures such as tax incentives and state-endorsed start-up funds. However, apart from initial support to establish the science park, there has been no funding or other support in recent years. As demonstrated by the science park’s historical documents and unveiled by the official of the science park authority, so far, the park has a limited resource to support the normal function for business operations within the science park. One of the major hurdles was related to party politics, namely when the governments changed with different political parties, then the policy would change accordingly, and it is hard to maintain policy consistency. Hence, both the science park authority and companies operating there cannot have consistent government support. That reflects the primary concern among those companies we interviewed, as these companies mentioned the lack of government support and seeding fund for R&D, innovation and collaboration. Many companies have to find their way to obtain sufficient funding for R&D activities. C9’s manager explained:

Most of our R&D investment is recouped through the project costs by getting the customer to agree on the price and the scope. We conduct our R&D and deliver the project accordingly. Therefore, we do not really have a civic R&D budget per year, and all these are embodied in each project’s costs.

4.2.2. External partners

The interaction between the technology-focused companies and other partners located within and outside the science park plays a crucial role in developing collaboration for innovation. Many managers pointed out that a key reason for residing in the science park was to work with potential partners such as universities and other relevant companies. These potential partners may help to achieve optimum outcomes. C3’s manager claimed:

The links to the university have been seen very important for our business here. We can jointly train our potential engineering people through its graduate program, and use university facilities to test our products. We can also develop electronics community within the technology to share information and develop possible joint projects with other relevant companies.

Others also identified the importance of a talent pool within and nearby the science park as C9’s manager highlighted:

For our project-based business activities, we need different engineers for different projects and at different time, such as software engineers and hardware engineers. By locating within the science park and next to the university, we can recruit adequate staff members with relevant skills.

4.2.3. Competitive environments

The competitive environments generated by the science park could be another attractive factor. Based on the companies’ annual reports and the interviewees’ responses, many new companies indicated that they want to build world-class digital technology with an adequate ecosystem that supports them to grow and flourish. Operating in a science park would enable them to be aware of the competitive edge and fully utilize the ecosystem with close links to suppliers, consumers and competitors. With the integration of both the digital ecosystem and entrepreneurial ecosystem within the science park, it allows these technology-focused companies to develop their R&D, and at the same time, to gain better insights regarding suppliers, consumers and competitors’ individual and social behaviour (Sussan and Acs, 2017), as C2’s manager indicated:

We divide R&D and innovation into two separate areas. We do a lot of R&D ourselves, namely internal R&D on products, technologies models, and so on. As for innovation, we develop projects and work together with other companies that may just be located next door. This enables us to develop insight knowledge regarding our partners and easily coordinate those joint projects.

4.2.4. Socio-economic conditions of the science park

As a ‘place-based’ innovative hub, the science park could potentially provide sufficient resources and enough opportunities for different types of technology-focused companies to entry and develop their business within the park. However, our archive research and interviews show that the major function of the science park is to provide a unique space for companies to operate with some social functions for people to know each other. More substantial supports are required to enhance companies’ operation in the science park. For example, a number of owners/managers suggested the importance of seed funding and information sharing for collaboration. Infrastructure support should go beyond just basic needs such as providing office space, water, electricity, and Internet, but security and cyber projection, IP protection, and other necessary facilities. Also, linking with other external stakeholders, such as government agencies, the banking sector and venture capital, it is crucial for helping companies gain extra support for their business development in the science park.

5. Discussion and conclusion

In this study, we investigated how a place-based science park may better facilitate innovation activities of technology-focused companies. Our research findings demonstrate both positive and negative factors that affect technology-focused companies’ adoption of strategies to cope with obstacles such as the lack of funding for R&D, insufficient policy on IP protection, the lack of collaboration on innovation, and short-term survival orientation. These negative elements could intensify the impact on companies as their effects can feed into each other. In this section, we discuss a number of implications for theory, policy, and practices as well as the research limitations and future research directions.

5.1. Implications for theory

By reviewing the effectiveness of a regional innovation hub (i.e. a science park) through the place-based lens, we discover that previous studies offered inconsistent findings of such effectiveness (e.g. Löfsten and Lindelöf, 2003). Our study contributes new theoretical insights into the effect of regional innovation policies on outcomes of regional innovation with a paradoxical outcome combining both positive and negative elements. From a place-based perspective, the economic development of a region should rely on both tangible and intangible conditions (Beer et al., 2020). In this sense, both natural and societal characteristics of a region are essential components of a regional ecosystem, thereby determining the trajectory of regional economic development (Bailey et al., 2018). In line with the extant literature on science parks that present scattered and less pronounced examination on what influence the functions of science parks (Bailey et al., 2018; Pitelis and Tomlinson, 2017) as well as the various factors for innovation and for value creation and capture (Braczyk et al., 1998; Morisson and Doussineau, 2019), our research demonstrates the importance of interactions among stakeholders of a science park and implying the urgent need for developing an innovation ecosystem by connecting all the relevant elements as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Conceptual map of technology-focused companies in a science park and the interplay with contextual factors.

Figure 2 demonstrates that tangible conditions are the prominent existing elements for companies to function well in the science park, but the lack of intangible resources, especially the ‘software’ management issues (i.e. the lack of facilitation and synergy, policy issue related to IP protection for collaboration, information sharing capability) jeopardizes the full utilization of potential either in the area of R&D or in the collaboration of innovation.

Besides, our findings also demonstrate the dynamic capabilities and resilience among those technology-focused companies for finding their own way for survival, beyond the observation of prior studies (Gao and Hu, 2017; Motohashi, 2013; Vanderstraeten and Matthyssens, 2012). That is, they are not passively waiting for getting support from both the government and park authority, but taking initiatives by themselves, such as absorbing R&D costs within projects, aligning with research institutes and other partners within or nearby the science park, and sharing talents and information among each other.

Furthermore, when we put all the relevant contextual factors into consideration, these paradoxes can be better explained with some fundamental issues rooted in government support, relationships with others, dealing with competitive environments, and coping with the socio-economic conditions of the science park, where are examined separately in prior studies (e.g. Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017; Seoudi and Mahmoud, 2016; Xie et al., 2018; Zeng et al., 2010). Still, such paradoxes require further investigation by future research from multiple perspectives and dimensions. There are still some questions remaining open. It requires further investigations to identify characteristics of science parks that represent as context-independent and inherent traits defined by the place-based approach as well as those that could vary as the contextual conditions change. It is essential to understand under what circumstances these characteristics could evolve toward another direction. Moreover, it is also critical to analyse whether the paradoxical tensions can be addressed and resolved and whether these paradoxical features are unique to the particular context of the science park studied or could also be relevant to similar science parks in other regions or countries. Having cross-country comparative studies to juxtapose different findings and to examine potential theoretical implications will also need to be addressed with future research.

5.2. Implications for policy and practices

One of the important findings of this study is that government policies can be subjected to election cycles and changes of political flavours, while science parks will exist for a much longer-term outlasting particular government leadership. When the political environment is friendly to regional development and science parks, companies may enjoy favourable government initiatives. However, when the political climate changes, both science parks’ authority and companies operating there have to find their way to survive. Nevertheless, the outcomes of policies are challenging to measure and not all satisfactory.

Hence, it is essential for policymakers to consider how to implement relevant policies and create a supportive and friendly environment, where the park administration authority, investors and companies operating are able to develop a long-term plan. More importantly, consistent policies between government leaderships are crucial for the innovation-facilitating role of a science park. Our study provides clear evidence that policy inconsistency has resulted ambiguous directions for innovation development within a science park and by technology-focused companies residing in the science park. Inconsistent policies have also directed other stakeholders (e.g. universities) of a science park to multiple directions. This is especially important in the technology-focused industries, given the long lead time of R&D and innovation of products and services. On the flip side, when the economic environment is hostile (e.g. recession) where the government is not supportive, investors are not generous with funding and support, competitors are fighting with each other in a blood bath, technology-focused companies will have to focus on short-term survival regardless their intrinsic long-term pursuit.

5.3. Limitations and future research directions

Our focus on holistic understandings regarding the role of a science park as innovation-facilitator has enabled this study to obtain unique evidence and develop theoretical frameworks (e.g. illustrated in Figure 2). However, this study was mainly based on the perspectives of those operators of technology-focused companies, and future research should include a cross-sectional investigation with multiple stakeholders with an approach based on longitudinal and historical analysis. Moreover, although our semi-constructed interview has allowed for an in-depth analysis of a science park, the qualitative nature of the interview methodology may be criticized by the lack of generalizability. Therefore, more quantitative research is required to verify our findings generated in this study and test our theoretical framework in a wider range of science parks.

In conclusion, science parks are an important part of the business landscape for technological advancement, R&D, and innovation around the globe. Our research presents a unique example that inspires other scholars by developing a holistic analysis of the antecedents, contextual environments, business model and development processes, and the long-term scenarios of the development of both science parks and those companies operating there. Some of the conclusions reached here may also be relevant in other regions and countries. Thus, future research should explore similarities as well as variations of the place-based approach to science parks in different socio-economic contexts.

Footnotes

Final transcript accepted 16 April 2022 by Martina Linnenluecke (AE, Corporate Social Responsibility).

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We would like to thank the Mason Lake Fellowship Program Fund 2019 (MLFP-2019) and DFAT-AJF2020097 for the financial support for conducting this research.

ORCID iD

Ying Zhu

References

Aguinis

Solarino

(2019) Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal 40: 1291–1315.

Bailey

Pitelis

Tomlinson

(2019) Strategic management and regional industrial strategy: Cross-fertilization to mutual advantage. Regional Studies 54: 647–659.

Bailey

Pitelis

Tomlinson

(2018) A place-based developmental regional industrial strategy for sustainable capture of co-created value. Cambridge Journal of Economics 42: 1521–1542.

Barca

McCann

Rodríguez-Pose

(2012) The case for regional development intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science 52: 134–152.

Beer

McKenzie

Blažek

, et al. (2020) What is place-based policy? Regional Studies Policy Impact Books 2: 11–22.

Bezdek

(1975) The 1980 economic impact-regional and occupational-of compensated shifts in defense spending. Journal of Regional Science 15: 183–198.

Braczyk

Cooke

Heidenreich

(1998) Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governances in a Globalized World. London: UCL Press.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101.

Cadorin

Klofsten

Löfsten

(2019) Science Parks, talent attraction and stakeholder involvement: An international study. The Journal of Technology Transfer 46: 1–28.

10.

Cameron

Quinn

(1988) Organizational paradox and transformation. In: Quinn

Cameron

(eds) Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 12–18.

11.

Cassell

(2015) Conducting Research Interviews for Business and Management Students. London: SAGE.

12.

Chen

Lin

, et al. (2015) Evaluating the development of high-tech industries: Taiwan’s science park. Technology Forecasting and Social Change 73: 452–465.

13.

Clarysse

Wright

Bruneel

, et al. (2014) Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy 43: 1164–1176.

14.

Díez-Vial

Montoro-Sanchez

(2016) How knowledge links with universities may Foster innovation: The case of a science park. Technovation 50–51: 4152.

15.

Eisenhardt

Westcott

(1988) Paradoxical demands and the creation of excellence: The case of just-in-time manufacturing. In: Quinn

Cameron

(eds) Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 169–194.

16.

Enright

Roberts

(2001) Regional clustering in Australia. Australian Journal of Management 26: 65–85.

17.

Etzkowitz

Zhou

(2017) Innovation incommensurability and the science park. R&D Management 48: 73–87.

18.

Eversole

(2021) Regional campuses and invisible innovation: Impacts of non-traditional students in ‘Regional Australia’. Regional Studies. Epub ahead of print 10 February. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2021.1899156.

19.

Faria

Mixon

Upadhyaya

(2019) Public policy and the university-industry R&D nexus. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 17: 499–506.

20.

Felsenstein

(1994) University-related science parks: ‘Seedbeds’ or ‘enclaves’ of innovation? Technovation 14: 93–110.

21.

Foray

(2014) Smart Specialization: Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Innovation Policy. London; New York: Routledge.

22.

Galbraith

(1985) High-technology location and development: The case of Orange County. California Management Review 28: 98–109.

23.

Gao

(2017) The upgrade to hybrid incubators in China: A case study of Tuspark incubator. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management 8: 331–351.

24.

Gioia

Corley

Hamilton

(2012) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods 16: 15–31.

25.

Hattab

(2012) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: GEM Egypt Report 2012. London: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, London Business School.

26.

Helmers

(2019) Choose the neighbor before the house: Agglomeration externalities in a UK science park. Journal of Economic Geography 19: 31–55.

27.

Henriques

Sobreiro

Kimura

(2018) Science and technology park: Future challenges. Technology in Society 53: 144–160.

28.

Hesse-Biber

Leavy

(2011) The Practice of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

29.

Hildreth

Bailey

(2013) The economics behind the move to ‘localism’ in England. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 6: 233–249.

30.

Horng

Kiu

Chou

, et al. (2014) Developing a novel hybrid model for industrial environment analysis: A study of the gourmet and tourism industry in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 19: 1044–1069.

31.

Jessop

(2016) Territory, politics, governance and multispatial metagovernance. Territory, Politics, Governance 4: 8–32.

32.

King

(2004) Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: Cassell

Symon

(eds) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: SAGE, pp. 256–270.

33.

Klein

Mahoney

McGahan

, et al. (2013) Capabilities and strategic entrepreneurship in public organizations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 7: 70–91.

34.

Lewis

(2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review 25: 760–776.

35.

(2017) China’s manufacturing locus in 2025: With a comparison of ‘Made-in-China 2025’ and ‘Industry 4.0’. Technology Forecasting and Social Change 135: 66–74.

36.

Lin

Tzeng

(2009) A value-created system of science (technology) park by using DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications 36: 9683–9697.

37.

Löfsten

Lindelöf

(2003) Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science Parks and business policy in growing firms. Technovation 23: 51–64.

38.

Mansour

AMHM

Kanso

(2018) Science park implementation: A proposal for merging research and industry in developing Arab countries. HBRC Journal 14: 357–367.

39.

Massey

Quintas

Wield

(2003) High-tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society, Science and Space. Abingdon: Routledge.

40.

Mas-Verdú

Ribeiro-Soriano

Roig-Tierno

(2015) Firm survival: The role of incubators and business characteristics. Journal Business Research 68: 793–796.

41.

Miles

Huberman

(2004) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

42.

Mitra

(2000) Nurturing and sustaining entrepreneurship: University, science park, business and government partnership in Australia. Industry and Higher Education 14: 183–190.

43.

Morisson

Doussineau

(2019) Regional innovation governance and place-based policies: Design, implementation and implications. Regional Studies, Regional Science 6: 101–116.

44.

Motohashi

(2013) The role of the science park in innovation performance of start-up firms: An empirical analysis of Tsinghua Science Park in Beijing. Asia Business Review 19: 578–599.

45.

Murnighan

Conlon

(1991) The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly 36: 165–186.

46.

Nonaka

(1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5: 14–37.

47.

Ozyurt

Cetinguc

Calik

, et al. (2016) Technology-based-firms located off technology development zones: Reasons for not being a part of technology development area in Turkey. Journal of Economics, Business and Management 4: 486–490.

48.

Park

Chen

Gallagher

(2002) Firm resources as moderators of the relationship between market growth and strategic alliances in semiconductor start-ups. Academy of Management Journal 45: 527–545.

49.

Pitelis

Tomlinson

(2017) Industrial organization,the degree of monopoly and macroeconomic performance –Aperspective on the contribution of Keith Cowling (1936–2016). International Journal of Industrial Organisation 55: 182–189.

50.

Pratt

Rockmann

Kaufmann

(2006) Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal 49: 235–262.

51.

Roberts

(1986) Science parks: Research, development and change. Physics in Technology 17: 24–31.

52.

Santoro

(2000) Success breeds success: The linkage between relationship intensity and tangible outcomes in industry-university collaborative ventures. Journal of High Technology Management Research 11: 255–273.

53.

Seoudi

Mahmoud

(2016) Public policy for venture capital: A comparative study of Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Review of Business and Finance Studies 7: 19–42.

54.

Smith

Lewis

(2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. The Academy of Management Review 36: 381–403.

55.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

56.

Hung

(2009) Spontaneous vs. policy-driven: The origin and evolution of the biotechnology cluster. Technological Forecast & Social Change 76: 608–619.

57.

Sussan

Acs

(2017) The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics 49(1): 55–73.

58.

Tang

Beer

(2021) Regional innovation and the retention of foreign direct investment: A place-based approach. Regional Studies. Epub ahead of print 20 December. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2021.2006173.

59.

Tsai

(2010) Innovation capability and performance in Taiwanese science parks: Exploring the moderating effects of industrial clusters fabric. International Journal of Organizational Innovation 2: 80–103.

60.

Vanderstraeten

Matthyssens

(2012) Service-based differentiation strategies for business incubators: Exploring external and internal alignment. Technovation 32: 656–670.

61.

Villasalero

(2014) University knowledge, open innovation and technological capital in Spanish science parks: Research revealing and technology selling? Journal of Intellectual Capital 15: 479–496.

62.

Vince

Broussine

(1996) Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies 17: 1–21.

63.

Westhead

(1997) R&D’ inputs’ and ‘outputs’ of technology-based firms located on and off Science Parks. R&D Management 27: 45–62.

64.

Wong

Goh

(2015) Catch-up models of science and technology: A theorization of the Asian experience from bi-logistic growth trajectories. Technology Forecasting and Social Change 95: 312–327.

65.

Xie

Song

Zhang

, et al. (2018) Technological entrepreneurship in science parks: A case study of Wuhan Donghu High-Tech Zone. Technological Forecasting & Social Change 135: 156–168.

66.

Yin

(2008) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.

67.

Zahra

George

(2002) Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy Management Review 27: 185–203.

68.

Zeng

Xie

Tam

(2010) Evaluating innovation capabilities for science parks: A system model. Baltic Journal of Sustainability 16: 397–413.