Second generation science parks: From structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society

Technovation

Volumn 25, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 1039-1049

  Hansson, Finn ^a   Husted, Kenneth ^a   Vestergaard, Jakob ^a  

^a Department of International Economics and Management   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Entrepreneurship; Regional development; Science parks; Training

Indexed keywords

COMMERCE; INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT; STUDENTS; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT; URBAN PLANNING;

ENTREPRENEURSHIP; KNOWLEDGE SOCIETY; REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT; SCIENCE PARKS;

TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS;

EID: 13444280272     PISSN: 01664972     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2004.03.003     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Autio E., Klofsten M. A comparative study of two European business incubators. Journal of Small Business Management. 36:(1):1998;30-43
2. Bakouros Y.L., Mardas D.C., Varsakelis N.C. Science park, a high tech fantasy? An analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation. 22:2002;123-128
3. Brown J.S., Duguid P. Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute of Management Sciences. 1:2001;198-213
4. Burt R.S. The social capital of structural holes. Guillén M.F., Collins R., England P., Meyer M. The New Economic Sociology. 2002;149-190 Russell Sage Foundation, New York
5. Castells P., Hall P. Technopoles of the World: The Making of the 21st Century Industrial Complexes. 1994;Routledge, London
6. Cohen W.M., Levinthal D.A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly. 35:1990;128-152
7. Dearing Report, 1997. Higher Education in the Learning Society, London.
8. EC, 1996. Comparative study of science parks in Europe: keys to a community innovation policy. European Commission Directorate General XIII, Brussels.
9. EC, 2002. Benchmarking of Business Incubators, Final report, Bruxelles.
10. Frederiksen F., Husted K. Academic publishing activities among Danish research-based companies: a preliminary assessment. Journal for Science and Technology Studies. 15:(2):2002;9-25
11. GEM, 2001. Denmark 2001 GEM National Report, http://www.gemconsortium. org/download/1056983210219/GEM2001.pdf.
12. GHK. Estate Development Strategy - Estate Development and Property Implications. 2002;University of Newcastle
13. Gower S., Harris F. The funding of, and investment in, British science parks. Journal of Property Finance. 5:(3):1994;7-18
14. Guston D.H. Between politics and science - assuring the integrity and productivity of research. 2000;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
15. INEX, 2003. http://www.inex.org.uk. University of Newcastle.
16. Jacob M., Lundqvist M., Hellsmark H. Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish University system: the case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research Policy. 32:(9):2003
17. Kline S.J., Rosenberg N. An overview of innovation. The Positive Sum Strategy. 1986;National Academy Press, Washington
18. Kogut B. The network as knowledge: generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal. 2:2000;405-425
19. Lindelöf P., Löfsten H. Science park location and new technology-based firms in Sweden - implications for strategy and performance. Small Business Economics. 20:2003;245-258
20. Löfsten H., Lindelof P. Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based firms - academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy. 31:(6):2002;859
21. Link A.N., Scott J.T. U.S. science parks: the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization. 21:2003;1323-1356
22. Monck C.S.P., Porter R.B., Quintas P., Storey D.J., Wynarczyk P. Science Parks and the Growth of High Technology Firms. 1988;Croom Helm, London
23. Mønsted M. Strategic Networking in Small High Tech Firms. 2003;Samfundslitteratur, Copenhagen
24. Nonaka I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science. 5:1994;14-37
25. Nowotny et al., 2001. Re-thinking science: knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge.
26. OECD, 2002. Benchmarking Industry-Science Relationships, Paris.
27. Shearmur R., Doloreux D. Science parks: actors or reactors? Canadian science parks in their urban context. Environment and Planning. 32:(6):2000;1065-1082
28. Siegel D.S., Westhead P., Wright M. Science parks and the performance of new technology-based firms: a review of recent UK evidence and an agenda for future research. Small Business Economics. 20:2003;177-184
29. Siegel D.S., Westhead P., Wright M. Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization. March:2003
30. Snowdon K. Spin-off and entrepreneurial training model. Working Paper. 2003;University of Newcastle
31. Storey D.J., Tether B.S. Public policy measures to support new technology-based firms in the European Union. Research Policy. 26:1998;1037-1057
32. Symbion, 2003a. The Symbion website, http://www.symbion.org.
33. Symbion, 2003b. Entrepreneurship survey, Internal report, Copenhagen.
34. Westhead P. R&D inputs and outputs of technology-based firms located in and off science parks. R&D Management. 27:(1):1997;45-62