Scientometrics

, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 701–725 | Cite as

Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK

Article

Abstract

This study investigates whether scientific publications can give plausible suggestions about whether R&D support infrastructures in the UK successfully foster scientific activity and cooperation. For this, research publications associated with UK SPs were identified from Scopus for the years 1975–2010 and analysed by region, infrastructure type and organisation type. There was apparently a systematic intensification of R&D from the 90s as evidenced by the publications of on-park firms and research institutions. Science Parks and Research Parks were the most successful infrastructures in fostering cooperation and research production, in comparison to Science and Innovation centres, Technology parks, Incubators and other parks, and HEIs were the major off-park partners for the on-park businesses. The East of England, the South East, and Scotland concentrate the highest proportion of parks, each of these three major geographical agglomerations exhibit distinct areas of scientific specialisation. Parks seem to have a positive impact on the overall level of collaboration and production of science and technology, which are highly concentrated in competitive regions. Nevertheless, industry-academia collaborations show that on-park firms tend to collaborate with partners beyond their local region rather than the local HEI. Support infrastructures may therefore not help to reduce the uneven development and geographic distribution of research-intensive industries in the UK.

Keywords

Incubator Research and technology parks University-Industry collaboration Regional innovation system Regional clusters New technology based-firms Bibliometric study 

Supplementary material

11192_2014_1435_MOESM1_ESM.docx (468 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 468 kb)

References

  1. Abramovsky, L., & Simpson, H. (2011). Geographic proximity and firm-university innovation linkages: Evidence from Great Britain. Journal of Economic Geography, 11(6), 949–977. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbq052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Audretsch, D. B. (2001). The role of small firms in U.S. biotechnology cluster. Small Business Economics, 17(1/2), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakouros, Y., Mardas, D., & Varsakelis, N. (2002). Science park, a high tech fantasy? An analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation, 22, 123–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bigliardi, B., Dormio, A., Nosella, A., & Petroni, G. (2006). Assessing science parks’ performances: Directions from selected Italian case studies. Technovation, 26(4), 489–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Birch, K. (2009). The knowledge-space dynamic in the UK bioeconomy. Area, 41(3), 273–284.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. BIS. (2009). UK Innovation Survey 2009—Statistical annex. London: Department for Business Innovation & Skills.Google Scholar
  7. Bøllingtoft, A., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2005). The networked business incubator-leveraging entrepreneurial agency? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Calero, C., Leeuwen, T. N., & Tijssen, R. (2007). Research cooperation within the bio-pharmaceutical industry: Network analyses of co-publications within and between firms. Scientometrics, 71(1), 87–99. doi:10.1007/s11192-007-1650-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st century industrial complexes (p. 288). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Chiesa, V., & Chiaroni, D. (2005). Industrial clusters in biotechnology—Driving forces, development processes and management practices. London: Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cockburn, I. M., & Henderson, R. M. (1998). Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 157–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, W., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and Impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Colombo, M., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103–1122. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733301001780.
  14. Cooke, P. (2001). Biotechnology clusters in the UK: Lessons from localisation in the commercialisation of science. Small Business Economics, (17), 43–59.Google Scholar
  15. Cooke, P. (2002). Biotechnology clusters as regional, sectoral innovation systems. International Regional Science Review, 25(1), 8–37. doi:10.1177/016001760202500102.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Dyson, J. (2010). Ingenious Britain: Making the UK the leading high tech exporter in Europe. London.Google Scholar
  17. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. European Commission. (2012). Competitiveness and innovation framework programme (CIP)—European commission. Retrieved March 23, 2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm.
  19. Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs—location, survival and growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 5–17.Google Scholar
  20. Fukugawa, N. (2006). Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(2), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glasson, J., Chadwick, A., & Smith, H. (2006). Defining, explaining and managing high-tech growth: The case of Oxfordshire. European Planning Studies, 14(4), 37–41. doi:10.1080/09654310500421147.
  22. Godin, B. (1996). Research and the practice of publication in industries. Research Policy, 25(4), 587–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). The place of universities in the system of knowledge production. Research Policy, 29(2), 273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gower, S. M., & Harris, F. C. (1994). Science parks in the UK: Regional regenerators or just another form of property development? Property Management, 12(4), 24–33. doi:10.1108/02637479410071036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hansson, F., Husted, K., & Vestergaard, J. (2005). Second generation science parks: From structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society. Technovation, 25(9), 1039–1049. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2004.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hauser, H. (2010). The current and future role of technology and innovation centres in the UK (p. 29). London.Google Scholar
  27. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hu, M.-C. (2011). Evolution of knowledge creation and diffusion: The revisit of Taiwan’s Hsinchu Science Park. Scientometrics, 88(3), 949–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Huggins, R. (2003). Creating a UK competitiveness index: Regional and local benchmarking. Regional Studies, 37(1), 89–96. doi:10.1080/0034340022000033420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2010). UK competitiveness index 2010 (p. 43). Cardiff.Google Scholar
  31. Hung, W. C. (2012). Measuring the use of public research in firm R&D in the Hsinchu Science Park. Scientometrics, (92), 63–73.Google Scholar
  32. Kasabov, E., & Delbridge, R. (2008). Innovation, embeddedness and policy: Evidence from life sciences in three UK regions. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20(2), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kitson, M., Howells, J., Braham, R., & Westlake, S. (2009). The connected university driving recovery and growth in the UK economy. London.Google Scholar
  34. Lambert, R. (2003). Lambert review of business-university collaboration. Norwich: H. M. Treasury.Google Scholar
  35. Laursen, K., Reichstein, T., & Salter, A. (2011). Exploring the effect of geographical proximity and university quality on university-industry collaboration in the United Kingdom. Regional Studies, 45(4), 507–523. doi:10.1080/00343400903401618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leibovitz, J. (2004). “Embryonic” knowledge-based clusters and cities: The case of biotechnology in Scotland. Urban Studies, 41(5–6), 1133–1155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: University-industry links for technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3/4), 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). U.S. science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1323–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms–academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31(6), 859–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Marston, L. (2011). All together now: Improving cross-sector collaboration in the UK biomedical industry. London: NESTA report London.Google Scholar
  42. Minguillo, D. (2010). Toward a new way of mapping scientific fields: Authors’ competence for publishing in scholarly journals. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(4), 772–786. doi:10.1002/asi.21282.Google Scholar
  43. Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M. (2011). The entrepreneurial role of the University: A link analysis of York Science Park. In E. Noyons, P. Ngulube, & J. Leta (Eds.), Proceedings of the ISSI 2001 conference13th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Durban, South Africa, July 48 (pp. 570–583). South Africa.Google Scholar
  44. Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M. (2012). Mapping the network structure of science parks: An exploratory study of cross-sectoral interactions reflected on the web. Aslib Proceedings, 64(4), 332–357.Google Scholar
  45. Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M. (2013). Industry research production and linkages with Academia: Evidence from UK science parks. In ISSI 2013 conference—14th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics. Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  46. Moodysson, J., & Jonsson, O. (2007). Knowledge collaboration and proximity: The spatial organization of biotech innovation projects. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14(2), 115–131. doi:10.1177/0969776407075556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Noyons, E. C. M., Moed, H. F., & Luwel, M. (1999). Combining mapping and citation analysis for evaluative bibliometric purposes: A bibliometric study. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50(2), 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. OECD. (2002). Frascati manual: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development (p. 252). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  49. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., et al. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423–442. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Phan, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Phillimore, J. (1999). Beyond the linear view of innovation in science park evaluation: An analysis of Western Australian Technology Park. Technovation, 19, 673–680. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497299000620.
  52. Porter, M. E., & Ketels, C. H. M. (2003). UK competitiveness: Moving to the next stage. London.Google Scholar
  53. Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry links and innovation: Questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Radosevic, S., & Myrzakhmet, M. (2009). Between vision and reality: Promoting innovation through technoparks in an emerging economy. Technovation, 29(10), 645–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rafols, I., Hopkins, M., & Hoekman, J. (2012). Big pharma, little science? A bibliometric perspective on big Pharma’s R&D decline. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 22–38. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162512001540.
  56. Sainsbury, D. (1999). Biotechnology cluster: Report of a team led by Lord Sainsbury. London: Minister for Science.Google Scholar
  57. Saublens, C. (2007). Regional research intensive clusters and science parks. Brussels.Google Scholar
  58. Schwartz, M. (2009). Beyond incubation: An analysis of firm survival and exit dynamics in the post-graduation period. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34(4), 403–421. doi:10.1007/s10961-008-9095-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Siegel, D., Waldman, D., & Link, A. N. (2003a). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32(1), 27–48. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00196-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Siegel, D., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003b). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: Exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1357–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Soetanto, D. P., & Jack, S. L. (2013). Business incubators and the networks of technology-based firms. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 432–435. doi:10.1007/s10961-011-9237-4
  62. Suvinen, N., Konttinen, J., & Nieminen, M. (2010). How Necessary are Intermediary Organizations in the Commercialization of Research? European Planning Studies, 18(9), 1365–1389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. UKSPA. (2003). Evaluation of the past and future economic contribution of the UK Science Park movement.Google Scholar
  64. UKSPA. (2012). UKSPA: Annual statistics 2010–2011.Google Scholar
  65. Van Geenhuizen, M., & Soetanto, D. P. (2008). Science parks: What they are and how they need to be evaluated. International Journal of Foresight, 4, 90–111. http://inderscience.metapress.com/index/B6238555224J5200.pdf.
  66. Vedovello, C. (1997). Science Parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Westhead, P. (1997). R&D “inputs” and “outputs” of technology based firms located on and off Science Parks. R&D Management, 27(1), 45–62.Google Scholar
  68. Westhead, P., & Batstone, S. (1998). Independent technology-based firms: The perceived benefits of a Science Park location. Urban Studies, 35(12), 2197–2219. doi:10.1080/0042098983845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1995). Links between higher education institutions and high technology firms. Omega, 23(4), 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Willetts, D. (2013). Eight great technologies (p. 57). London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Minguillo
    • 1
  • Robert Tijssen
    • 2
  • Mike Thelwall
    • 1
  1. 1.Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, STECHUniversity of WolverhamptonWolverhamptonUK
  2. 2.Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS)Leiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations