Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The umbrella term SP is used to define different research-based infrastructures with the following general characteristics: formal and operational linkages with HEIs or research institutes (RIs); support the formation and growth of knowledge-intensive commercial businesses; active engagement in the transfer of science-based technologies and business skills (UKSPA 2003). Commercial-based infrastructures or industrial infrastructures on the other hand do not necessarily have operational links with HEIs or RIs.

  2. The term ‘science parks movement’ was introduced by the UKSPA (The United Kingdom Science Park Association) to refer to the broad science park community or group of infrastructures which are formally linked with universities to support the development of knowledge-based companies.

  3. This selection of document types is based on their relevance as public communication channels for industry research outputs (Cohen et al. 2002).

  4. Research-oriented infrastructures means all the infrastructures found, excluding Business and Industrial parks.

  5. Input factors: R&D Expenditure; Economic Activity Rates; Business Start-up Rates per 1,000 inhabitants; Number of Business per 1,000 inhabitants; GCSE Results—5 or more grades A* to C; Proportion of Working Age Population with NVQ Level 4 or Higher; Proportion of Knowledge-Based Business (Huggins and Thompson 2010).

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (2001). The role of small firms in U.S. biotechnology cluster. Small Business Economics, 17(1/2), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bigliardi, B., Dormio, A., Nosella, A., & Petroni, G. (2006). Assessing science parks’ performances: Directions from selected Italian case studies. Technovation, 26(4), 489–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, K. (2009). The knowledge-space dynamic in the UK bioeconomy. Area, 41(3), 273–284.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • BIS. (2009). UK Innovation Survey 2009—Statistical annex. London: Department for Business Innovation & Skills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bøllingtoft, A., & Ulhøi, J. P. (2005). The networked business incubator-leveraging entrepreneurial agency? Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 265–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the World: The Making of 21st century industrial complexes (p. 288). London: Routledge.

  • Chiesa, V., & Chiaroni, D. (2005). Industrial clusters in biotechnology—Driving forces, development processes and management practices. London: Imperial College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Cooke, P. (2001). Biotechnology clusters in the UK: Lessons from localisation in the commercialisation of science. Small Business Economics, (17), 43–59.

  • Cooke, P. (2002). Biotechnology clusters as regional, sectoral innovation systems. International Regional Science Review, 25(1), 8–37. doi:10.1177/016001760202500102.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, J. (2010). Ingenious Britain: Making the UK the leading high tech exporter in Europe. London.

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012). Competitiveness and innovation framework programme (CIP)—European commission. Retrieved March 23, 2012, from http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm.

  • Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs—location, survival and growth. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 5–17.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Godin, B. (1996). Research and the practice of publication in industries. Research Policy, 25(4), 587–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B., & Gingras, Y. (2000). The place of universities in the system of knowledge production. Research Policy, 29(2), 273–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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(9), 1039–1049. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2004.03.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, H. (2010). The current and future role of technology and innovation centres in the UK (p. 29). London.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, M.-C. (2011). Evolution of knowledge creation and diffusion: The revisit of Taiwan’s Hsinchu Science Park. Scientometrics, 88(3), 949–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, R. (2003). Creating a UK competitiveness index: Regional and local benchmarking. Regional Studies, 37(1), 89–96. doi:10.1080/0034340022000033420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2010). UK competitiveness index 2010 (p. 43). Cardiff.

  • Hung, W. C. (2012). Measuring the use of public research in firm R&D in the Hsinchu Science Park. Scientometrics, (92), 63–73.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitson, M., Howells, J., Braham, R., & Westlake, S. (2009). The connected university driving recovery and growth in the UK economy. London.

  • Lambert, R. (2003). Lambert review of business-university collaboration. Norwich: H. M. Treasury.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leibovitz, J. (2004). “Embryonic” knowledge-based clusters and cities: The case of biotechnology in Scotland. Urban Studies, 41(5–6), 1133–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    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(9), 1323–1356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.

    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(6), 859–876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marston, L. (2011). All together now: Improving cross-sector collaboration in the UK biomedical industry. London: NESTA report London.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 conference—13th international conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics, Durban, South Africa, July 4–8 (pp. 570–583). South Africa.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2002). Frascati manual: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development (p. 252). Paris: OECD.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phan, P., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182.

    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, 673–680. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497299000620.

  • Porter, M. E., & Ketels, C. H. M. (2003). UK competitiveness: Moving to the next stage. London.

  • Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry links and innovation: Questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radosevic, S., & Myrzakhmet, M. (2009). Between vision and reality: Promoting innovation through technoparks in an emerging economy. Technovation, 29(10), 645–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Sainsbury, D. (1999). Biotechnology cluster: Report of a team led by Lord Sainsbury. London: Minister for Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saublens, C. (2007). Regional research intensive clusters and science parks. Brussels.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Suvinen, N., Konttinen, J., & Nieminen, M. (2010). How Necessary are Intermediary Organizations in the Commercialization of Research? European Planning Studies, 18(9), 1365–1389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UKSPA. (2003). Evaluation of the past and future economic contribution of the UK Science Park movement.

  • UKSPA. (2012). UKSPA: Annual statistics 2010–2011.

  • 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.

  • Vedovello, C. (1997). Science Parks and university-industry interaction: Geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westhead, P., & Storey, D. J. (1995). Links between higher education institutions and high technology firms. Omega, 23(4), 345–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willetts, D. (2013). Eight great technologies (p. 57). London.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Emma Angus for her comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, STECH, University of Wolverhampton, Wulfruna Street, Wolverhampton, WV1 1SB, UK

    David Minguillo & Mike Thelwall

  2. Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, PO Box 905, 2300 AX, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Robert Tijssen

Authors
  1. David Minguillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Tijssen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mike Thelwall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Minguillo.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 468 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Minguillo, D., Tijssen, R. & Thelwall, M. Do science parks promote research and technology? A scientometric analysis of the UK. Scientometrics 102, 701–725 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1435-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1435-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation