Mapping the network structure of science parks

Abstract

Purpose -This study introduces a method based on link analysis to investigate the structure of the R&D support infrastructure associated with science parks in order to determine whether this webometric approach gives plausible results. Design/Methodology/Approach -Three science parks from Yorkshire and the Humber in the UK were analysed with webometric and social network analysis techniques. Interlinking networks were generated through the combination of two different data sets extracted from three sources (Yahoo!, Bing, SocSciBot). Findings -These networks suggest that institutional sectors, representing business, universities and public bodies, are primarily tied together by a core formed by research institutions, support structure organisations and business developers. The comparison of the findings with traditional indicators suggests that the web-based networks reflect the offline conditions and policy measures adopted in the region, giving some evidence that the webometric approach is plausible to investigating science park networks. Originality/value -This is the first study that applies a web-based approach to investigate to what extent the science parks facilitate a closer interaction between the heterogeneous organisations that converge in R&D networks. This indicates that link analysis may help to get a first insight into the organisation of the R&D support infrastructure provided by science parks.

Social Network Analysis and the Study of University Industry Relations

“…Finally, there is a search for alternative methodological approaches and indicators in the studies of networks of university-industry relations. Some authors propose the use of webometric approaches (Kim, 2012;Minguillo & Thelwall, 2012) and other authors propose the use of simultaneous indicators of relational characteristics, such as citations, project participation, questionnaires or other data (Almodovar & Teixeira, 2014;Furukawa, Shirakawa, & Okuwada, 2011;Heimeriks et al, 2003), arguing that analysis based on a single indicator underestimate the level and may not capture all of the complexities of the collaboration patterns.…”

“…Public research organizations as central actors in innovation networks (Breschi & Catalini, 2010;De Stefano & Zaccarin, 2013;Lissoni, 2010;Minguillo & Thelwall, 2012;Protogerou et al, 2013) • Academic authors-inventors assume more brokerage positions.…”

“…Methodological contributions (Heimeriks et al, 2003;Kim, 2012;Minguillo & Thelwall, 2012) Asides from patents indicators, other indicators and data unmask fundamental structural or relational properties. Coleman (1988) claimed that cohesive groups and strong ties were effective ways to coordinate an exchange of knowledge flows, while Burt (1992) argued that strong ties resulted in redundant information and that innovation required new knowledge inflows and perspectives coming from weak ties.…”

“…The central position of public research organizations shows up in descriptive analyses of networks that involve heterogeneous actors. Both a study of the network structure of science parks (Minguillo & Thelwall, 2012), using web links as indicators of connections, and a study of the collaborative networks established during the seven Framework Programme on Research and Technological Development of European Commission, show the central position of public research organizations. In the study of science parks, governmental agencies also play an important role, and in the case of the Framework Programmes, although firms are present in larger numbers, they are not the central actors.…”

The relationship between favorable conditions for innovation in technology parks, the innovation produced, and companies’ performance

“…However, the international literature has shown that many experiences with technology parks failed to achieve the expected results (European Commission, 2007;Gaino and Pamplona, 2012). In this sense, some researchers suggest that future studies should address the assessment of research and development networks (where technology parks are located) and develop ways to identify the interactions that may be relevant for innovation in technology park environments (Chen and Huang, 2004;Minguillo and Thelwall, 2012). Some authors recommend new studies to address innovative assessments and practices regarding the operation of technology parks, to help park-based companies develop more efficient and effective forms of work and results (Gkypali et al, 2016;Yan and Chien, 2013).…”