Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Multilevel Analysis of the Interaction Between Science Parks and External Agents: a Study in Brazil and Portugal

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Science parks are fundamental for the development of new technology-based firms. For this purpose, intense networks of relationships with external agents permeate them. However, it is still necessary a more systematic view about the relationship between science parks and external agents. Accordingly, this article analyzes the relationship between science parks and external agents based on five levels of geographic scope: local, regional, national, continental, and global. In this research, a two-stage approach was employed we first investigate 30 science parks in Brazil and Portugal through documental analysis. The findings are refined and validated through interviews involving a sub-sample of 11 science parks. We identify six different categories of relationships between science parks and external agents—foundation, investment, management, knowledge-transfer, technical–scientific partnerships, and partnerships (networks/associations)—and four types of external agents—associations, companies, governments, and universities. We find considerable differences in the intensity and nature of the relationships between science parks and external agents within and throughout all geographic levels as well as locational differences in Brazil and Portugal. Finally, this article presents a detailed view of the relationships between science parks and external agents from a holistic perspective. Our results and insights can be useful for assessing the contextual insertion of science parks at different levels of geographic scope, paving the way for their deeper characterization and further research on their maturity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Material 

The research material is uploaded in a data repository and can be shared on-demand.

References

  • Albahari, A., Catalano, G., & Landoni, P. (2013). Evaluation of national science park systems: A theoretical framework and its application to the Italian and Spanish systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 25, 599–614. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2013.785508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albahari, A., Klofsten, M., & Rubio-Romero, J. C. (2019). Science and technology parks: A study of value creation for park tenants. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9661-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albahari, A., Pérez-Canto, S., Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego, A. (2017). Technology Parks versus Science Parks: Does the university make the difference? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ANPROTEC. (2019). Associação Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Empreendimentos Inovadores. Available at http://anprotec.org.br/site/lideres-tematicos/parques-consolidados/. Accessed 11 June 2019.

  • Appold, S. J. (2004). Research parks and the location of industrial research laboratories: An analysis of the effectiveness of a policy intervention. Research Policy, 33, 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arauzo-Carod, J. M., Segarra-Blasco, A., & Teruel, M. (2018). The role of Science and technology parks as firm growth boosters: An empirical analysis in Catalonia. Regional Studies, 52(5), 645–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakouros, Y. L., Mardas, D. C., & Varsakelis, N. C. (2002). Science park, a high tech fantasy?: An analysis of the Science parks of Greece. Technovation, 22, 1230128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balle, A., Steffen, M. O., Curado, C., & Oliveira, M. (2018). Inteorganizational knowledge sharing in a Science and technology parl: The use of knowledge sharing mechanisms. Journal of Knowledge Management, 23(10), 2016–2038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellavista, J., & Sanz, L. (2009). Science and technology parks: Habitats of innovation: Introduction to special section. Science and Public Policy, 36(7), 499–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigliardi, B., Dormio, A. I., Nosella, A., & Petroni, G. (2006). Assessing science parks performances: Directions from selected Italian case studies. Technovation, 26, 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadorin, E., Johansson, S. G., & Klofsten, M. (2017). Attracting and developing talent. Industry and Higher Education, 31(3), 156–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campanella, F., Peruta, M. R. D., & Giudice, M. D. (2014). Creating conditions for innovative performance of science parks in Europe. How manage the intellectual capital for converting knowledge into organizational action. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(4), 576–596.

  • Campbell, D. F. J., Carayannis, E. G., & Scheherazade, S. R. (2015). Quadruple helix structures of quality of democracy in innovation systems: The USA, OECD countries, and EU member countries in global comparison. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 6, 467–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Gringoroudis, E., Campbell, D. F. J., Meissner, D., & Stamati, D. (2018). The ecosystem as helix: An exploratory theory-building study of regional co-petitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation models. R&D Management, 48(1), 148–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cascio, M. A., Lee, E., Vaudrin, N., & Freedan, D. A. (2019). A team-based approach to open coding: Consideractions for creating intercoder consensus. Field Methods, 31(2), 116–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. F., & Lau, T. (2005). Assessing technology incubator programs in the science park: The good, the bad and the ugly. Technovation, 25, 1215–1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.03.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. A., Oerlemans, L. A. G., & Pretorius, M. W. (2010). Knowledge exchange behaviors of Science park firms: The innovation hub case. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 22(2), 207–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Y., Chen, M., Lin, Y., & Gao, Y. (2012). Measuring Regional Innovation and Entrepreneurship Capabilities. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3, 90–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, F., Oort, F., Geertman, S., & Hooimeijer, P. (2013). Science Parks and the Co-location of High-tech Small- and Medium-sized Firms in China’s Shenzhen. Urban Studies, 51, 1073–1089. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013493020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claver-Cortés, E., Marco-Lajara, B., Manresa-Marhuenda, E., & García-Lillo, F. (2018) Location in scientific-technological parks, dynamic capabilities, and innovation. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 30(4), 377–390.

  • Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corrocher, N., Lamperti, F., & Mavilia, R. (2019). Do Science parks sustain or trigger innovation? Empirical evidency from Italy. Tecnological Forecasting and Social Change, 147, 140–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dettwiler, P., Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2006). Utility of location: A comparative survey between small new technology-based firms located on and off Science Parks—Implications for facilities management. Technovation, 26, 506–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2005.05.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2017). The effect of Science and technology parks on a firm´s performance: A dynamic approach over time. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 27, 413–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dı́ez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. (2016). How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park. Technovation, 50–51, 41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edler, J., & Georghiou, L. (2007). Public procurement and innovation—Resurrecting the demand side. Research Policy, 36, 949–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and mode 2 to a triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Mello, J. M., & Almeida, M. (2005). Towards meta-innovation in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy, 34, 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2018). Innovation incommensurability and the science park. R&D Management, 48(1), 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farinha, L., Ferreira, J., & Gouveia, B. (2016). Networks of innovation and competitiveness: A tiple-helix case study. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 7, 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felsenstein, D. (1994). University-related Science parks ‘seedbeds’ or enclaves of innovation? Technovation, 14(2), 93–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrara, M., Lamperti, F., & Mavilia, R. (2015). Looking for best performers: A pilot study towards the evaluation of science parks. Scientometrics, 106, 717–750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1804-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fukugawa, N. (2006). Science parks in Japan and their value-added contributions to new technology-based firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24, 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galvao, A., Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C., Ferreira, J., & Ratten, V. (2019). Triple helix and its evolution: a systematic literature review. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 10(3), 812–833. https://doi-org.ez28.periodicos.capes.gov.br/ https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-10-2018-0103

  • García-Terán, J., & Skoglund, A. (2019). A Processual Approach for the Quadruple Helix Model: The Case of a Regional Project in Uppsala. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 10(3), 1272–1296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guadix, J., Carrillo-Castrillo, J., Onieva, L., & Navascués, J. (2016). Success variables in science and technology parks. Journal of Business Research, 69, 4870–4875. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1039–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, I. C., Sobreiro, V. A., & Kimura, H. (2018). Science and technology park: Future challenges. Technology in Society, 53, 144–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.01.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K.-F., Yu, C.-M.J., & Seetoo, D.-H. (2012). Firm innovation in policy-driven parks and spontaneous clusters: The smaller firm the better? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37, 715–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9248-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017). Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 957–976. Considering the geographical concentration of research studies are concentrated in China, UK, Spain and USA.

  • Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Shelton, T. L. (2020). The Regional Economic Impacts of University Research and Science Parks. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11, 42–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IASP. (2019). International Association of Science Parks and Areas of Innovation. https://www.iasp.ws/. Accessed 13 June 2019.

  • Inkpen, A. C., & Pien, W. (2006). An Examination of Collaboration and Knowledge Transfer: China-Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 779–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00611.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jennings, J. E., Edwards, T., Jennings, P. D., & Delbridge, R. (2015). Emotional arousal and entrepreneurial outcomes: Combining qualitative methods to elaborate theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 30(1), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kharabsheh, R. (2012). Critical success factors of technology parks in Australia. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 4(7), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v4n7p57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koçak, O., & Can, O. (2014). Determinants of inter-firm networks among tenants of science technology parks. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23, 467–492. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtt015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh, F. C., Koh, W. T., & Tschang, F. T. (2005). An analytical framework for science parks and technology districts with an application to Singapore. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyoung-Joo, L., & Eun-Young, K. (2018). A leadership competency model of science and technology parks: The case of Chungbuk Techno Park in Korea. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 13, 105–114. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242018000400105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, H.-C., & Shyu, J. Z. (2005). A comparison of innovation capacity at science parks across the Taiwan Strait: The case of Zhangjiang High-Tech Park and Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park. Technovation, 25, 805–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2003.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamine, W., Mian, S., Fayolle, A., Wright, M., Klofsten, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2016). Technology business incubation mechanisms and sustainable regional development. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 1121–1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9537-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2015). The role of Science Parks: A puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 158–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9455-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecluyse, L., Knockaert, M., & Spithoven, A. (2019). The contribution of science parks: A literature review and future research agenda. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 559–595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-09712-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lecluyse, L., & Knowckaert, M. (2020). Disentangling satisfaction of tenants on Science parks: a multiple case study in Belgium. Technovation, 98, 102156.

  • Liberati, D., Marinucci, M., & Tanzi, G. M. (2015). Science and technology parks in Italy: Main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 694–729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9397-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2003). Science Park Location and New Technology-Based Firms in Sweden – Implications for Strategy and Performance. Small Business Economics, 20, 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022861823493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Link, K. R. (2003). On the Growth of U.S. Science Parks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021634904546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1323–1356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linneberg, M. S., & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the novice. Qualitative Research Journal, 19(3), 259–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms—academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy, 31, 859–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0048-7333(01)00153-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C., & Ferreira, J. J. (2019). One for all and all for one: Collaboration and cooperation in triple helix knowledge cocreation. International Journal of Science Review, 43(4), 316–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, M., Miller, K., & McAdam, R. (2016). Situated regional university incubation: A multi-layer stakeholder perspective. Technovation, 50–51, 69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann, B. T., & Folta, T. B. (2011). Performance differentials withing geographic clusters. Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 104–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MCTI. (2014). Estudo de projeto de alta complexidade: indicadores de parques tecnológicos. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Brasília.

  • MCTI. (2019). Estudo de projeto de alta complexidade: indicadores de parques tecnológicos – Fase 2. Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Brasília.

  • Miao, J. T., & Hall, P. (2014). Optical illusion? The growth and development of the optics valley of China. Environment and Planning c: Government and Policy, 32(5), 863–879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minguillo, D., Tijssen, R., & Thelwall, M. (2014). Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK. Scientometrics, 102, 701–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1435-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mora-Valentín, E., & Criado, M. O. U. (2018). Mapping the conceptual structure of Science and technology parks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 1410–1435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, J. R., Meulenbroek, R. A. Cloodt, M., & Arentze, T. (2020). Perceived benefits of science park attributes among park tenants in the Netherlands. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45, 1196–1227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09744-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, W. K., Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Cloodt, M., & Arentze, T. (2019). Towards a segmentation of science parks: A typology study on science parks in Europe. Research Policy, 48, 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.11.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillimore, J. (1999). Beyond the linear view of innovation in science park evaluation. An Analysis of Western Australian Technology Park, Technovation, 19(11), 673–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramı́rez-Alesón, M., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2017). Unravelling the effects of Science Parks on the innovation performance of NTBFs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43, 482–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9559-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratinho, T., & Henriques, E. (2010). The role of science parks and business incubators in converging countries: Evidence from Portugal. Technovation, 30, 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro, J., Higuchi, A., Bronzo, M., Veiga, R., & Faria, A. (2016). A Framework for the Strategic Management of Science & Technology Parks. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 11, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242016000400011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romano, M., Catalfo, P., & Nicotra, M. (2014). An integrated model for intangibles’ representation, evaluation and control. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(4), 537–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiavone, F., Meles, A., Verdoliva, V., & Giudice, M. D. (2014). Does location in a science park really matter for firms´ intellectual capital performance? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(4), 497–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, S., & Balestrin, A. (2015). Brazilian Incubators and Science Parks Resources and R & D Collaboration. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 10, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242015000300004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shearmur, R., & Doloreux, D. (2000). Science Parks: Actors or Reactors? Canadian Science Parks in Their Urban Context. Environment and Planning a: Economy and Space, 32(6), 1065–1082. https://doi.org/10.1068/a32126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003a). 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-7187(03)00086-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003b). Science Parks and the Performance of New Technology-Based Firms: A Review of Recent U.K. Evidence and an Agenda for Future Research. Small Business Economics, 20, 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022268100133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silva, S., Venancio, A., Silva, J. R., & Gonçalves, C. A. (2020). Open innovation in science parks: The role of public policies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change., 151, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sofouli, E., & Vonortas, N. S. (2006). S&T Parks and business incubators in middle-sized countries: The case of greece. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 525–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-6031-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TecParques. (2020). Associação Portuguesa de Parques de Ciência e Tecnologia. Available at http://www.tecparques.pt/associados.php. Accessed 05 January 2020.

  • Ubeda, F., Criado, M. O. U., & Valentín, E. M. M. (2019). Do firms located in Science and technology parks enhance innovation performance? The effect of absorptive capacity. Journal of Technology Transfer, 44, 21–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaidyanathan, G. (2007). Technology parks in a developing country: The case of India. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9041-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vásquez-Urriago, Á. R., Barge-Gil, A., & Rico, A. M. (2016). Science and Technology Parks and cooperation for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Research Policy, 45, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villasalero, M. (2014). University knowledge, open innovation and technological capital in Spanish Science parks: Research revealing or technology selling? Journal of Intellectual Capital, 15(4), 479–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westhead, P. A., & Batstone, S. T. (1999). Perceived benefits of a managed science park location. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 11, 129–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/089856299283236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, K., Song, Y., Zhang, W., Hao, J., Liu, Z., & Chen, Y. (2018). Technological entrepreneurship in science parks: A case study of Wuhan Donghu High-Tech Zone. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.01.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, M. R., Yan, H., Zhan, L., Yan, X., & Xu, M. (2020). Evaluation of technological innovations and the industrial ecosystem of Science parks in Shanghai: An empirical study. Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C.-H., Motohashi, K., & Chen, J.-R. (2009). Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative? Research Policy, 38, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoda, N., & Kuwashima, K. (2020). Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations in Japan: Transitions of Collaborations and Interactions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11, 1120–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors would like to thank the following supporters of this research: Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brazil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001. Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto and Pró-reitoria de Pesquisa e Pós Graduação (PROPP) to supporting this research (Grant Number: 072018111).Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brazil, for their financial support. 

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Exact Sciences—ICEA, UFOP (Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto), João Monlevade, Rua 37,115, Loanda, MG, 35400-000, Brazil

    Taiane Quaresma Leite & Sérgio Evangelista Silva

  2. School of Mines—EM, UFOP (Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto), Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil

    André Luis Silva

  3. Department of Economics and Socius/CSG (Research Center in Social Sciences and Management), ISEG, (Lisbon School of Economics and Management), Universidade de Lisboa, Rua Miguel Lúpi, 20, 1249-078, Lisboa, Portugal

    Joaquim Ramos Silva

Authors
  1. Taiane Quaresma Leite
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. André Luis Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joaquim Ramos Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sérgio Evangelista Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by Taiane Quaresma Leite. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Taiane Quaresma Leite, and all authors commented, revised, and contributed substantially to this manuscript. 

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sérgio Evangelista Silva.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

This research was approved by the ethics committee.

Consent to Participate

All persons interviewed in this research accepted to participate in it and permitted the divulgation of the statements.

Consent for Publication

The authors of this article authorize its publication.

Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

There is no conflict of interest in this research.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Research Protocol

Main Points of Document Analysis Protocol

Classification of documentary data:

  • For each science park identify its relations with external agents, and group these agents according to common categories:

  • Identify the location of each agent and classify it according to its relative position to the science park (local, regional, national, continental and global);

  • Compute for each agent and its relationship with the science park, and its relative level of geographic scope to the science park.

Main Points of Interview Protocol Related to the Research Purpose

  • How was this science park founded?

  • Which agents participated in the foundation of this science park? What was the role of these agents?

  • Which agents participated in the financing of this science park?

  • Which external agents of government, university, and industry do this science park have any type of relationship, at the layers: local, regional, national, continental and global?

  • With which agents does this science park have scientific technical partnerships?

  • With which agents does this science park have technology transfer?

  • What is the relationship of this science park with associations? At what level does this occur?

Table 11 Partial codification process of a science park (BSP-1)
Full size table
Table 12 Complete intermediary-level codes that represents the relationship of external agents and BSP-1
Full size table
Table 13 Synthesis of the relationship of each science parks with external agents at the five level of relative geographical scope
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leite, T.Q., Silva, A.L., Silva, J.R. et al. A Multilevel Analysis of the Interaction Between Science Parks and External Agents: a Study in Brazil and Portugal. J Knowl Econ 14, 1790–1829 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00867-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00867-x

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation