Mapping the conceptual structure of science and technology parks

  • Eva-María Mora-Valentín
  • Marta Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado
  • Juan-José Nájera-Sánchez


This paper aims to contribute to a better understanding of the literature on science and technology parks. The use of bibliometric analysis techniques is growing rapidly in management and organization research as a way of supplementing the subjective evaluation of literature reviews. Even though studies in some research fields such as innovation, entrepreneurship, and strategy have applied bibliometric methods considerably, other studies on subjects such as science and technology parks are in the process of using them. This paper has two main objectives. The first is to present a descriptive bibliometric analysis (number of authors per work and year, number of papers per author, top authors, author affiliations and top journals). The second objective is to analyze the conceptual structure of the field and the evolution of concepts and topics through a co-word analysis. Our work identifies the main topics explored by science and technology park literature and describes their relationships and evolution over time. Moreover, our results complement findings obtained through previous studies that have used other bibliometric methodologies such us methods of co-citation and bibliographical coupling.


Science park Technology park Innovation Co-word analysis 

JEL Classification

M15 O32 R12 


  1. 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. Scholar
  2. Albahari, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Landoni, P. (2010). Science and technology parks impacts on tenant organizations: A review of literature. MPRA paper 41914, posted 14.
  3. Alshumaimri, A., Aldridge, T., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010). The university technology transfer revolution in Saudi Arabia. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 35(6), 585–596. Scholar
  4. Barbero, J. L., Casillas, J. C., Wright, M., & Ramos García, A. (2014). Do different types of incubators produce different types of innovations? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(2), 151–168. Scholar
  5. Bauin, S. (1986). Aquaculture: A field by bureaucratic fiat. In M. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: Sociology of science in the real world (pp. 124–141). London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benavides-Velasco, C. A., Quintana-García, C., & Guzmán Parra, V. F. (2011). Trends in family business research. Small Business Economics, 40(1), 41–57. Scholar
  7. Caldera, A., & Debande, O. (2010). Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis. Research Policy, 39(9), 1160–1173. Scholar
  8. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics, 22, 155–205. Scholar
  9. Callon, M., Courtial, J., Turner, W. A., & Bauin, S. (1983). From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Social Science Information, 22(2), 191–235. Scholar
  10. Chan, K. Y. A., Oerlemans, L. A. G., & Pretorius, M. W. (2009). Explaining mixed results on science parks performance: Bright and dark sides of the effects of inter-organisational knowledge transfer relationships. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 20(2), 53–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Choi, J., Sang-Hyun, A., & Cha, M. S. (2013). The effects of network characteristics on performance of innovation clusters. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(11), 4511–4518. Scholar
  12. Choi, J., Yi, S., & Lee, K. C. (2011). Analysis of keyword networks in MIS research and implications for predicting knowledge evolution. Information & Management, 48, 371–381. Scholar
  13. Clark, J. J. (2014). Siting ‘scientific spaces’ in the US: The push and pull of regional development strategies and national innovation policies. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 32(5), 880–895. Scholar
  14. Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J., & Mahajan, A. (2014). Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43(7), 1164–1176. Scholar
  15. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). An approach for detecting, quantifying, and visualizing the evolution of a research field: A practical application to the Fuzzy Sets Theory field. Journal of Informetrics, 5(1), 146–166. Scholar
  16. Cobo, M. J., López-Herrera, A. G., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2012). SciMAT: A new science mapping analysis software tool. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1609–1630. Scholar
  17. Coulter, N., Monarch, I., & Konda, S. (1998). Software engineering as seen through its research literature: A study in co-word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 1206–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2011). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, A. (2016). How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park. Technovation, 50–51, 41–52. Scholar
  20. Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, A. (2017). Research evolution in science parks and incubators: Foundations and new trends. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1243–1272. Scholar
  21. Fernández-Esquinas, M., Merchán-Hernández, C., & Valmaseda-Andía, O. (2016). How effective are interface organizations in the promotion of university-industry links? Evidence from a regional innovation system. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(3), 424–442. Scholar
  22. 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. Scholar
  23. Fukugawa, N. (2016). Knowledge spillover from university research before the national innovation system reform in Japan: Localisation, mechanisms, and intermediaries. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 24(1), 100–122. Scholar
  24. Garfield, E. (1994). Scientography: Mapping the tracks of science. Current Contents: Social & Behavioural Sciences, 7, 5–10.Google Scholar
  25. Giaretta, E. (2014). The trust “builders” in the technology transfer relationships: An Italian science park experience. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 675–687. Scholar
  26. He, Q. (1999). Knowledge discovery through co-word analysis. Library Trends, 48(1), 133–159.Google Scholar
  27. Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017a). Science and technology parks: An annotated and analytical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 957–976. Scholar
  28. Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017b). The growth of US science and technology parks: Does proximity to a university matter? Annals of Regional Science, 59(2), 495–511. Scholar
  29. Huang, S. P. (2014). A study on the relations among the human resource management system, organizational commitment and business performance. Acta Oeconomica, 64(Supplement 2), 275–288. Scholar
  30. Huang, S. Z., Wu, T. J., & Tsai, H. T. (2016). Hysteresis effects of R&D expenditures and patents on firm performance: An empirical study of Hsinchu Science Park in Taiwan. Filomat, 30(15), 4265–4278. Scholar
  31. Koçak, Ö., & Can, Ö. (2014). Determinants of inter-firm networks among tenants of science technology parks. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23(2), 467–492. Scholar
  32. Lai, Y. L., Hsu, M. S., Lin, F. J., Chen, Y. M., & Lin, Y. H. (2014). The effects of industry cluster knowledge management on innovation performance. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 734–739. Scholar
  33. Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2017). The role of science parks: A puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(1), 158–183. Scholar
  34. Lee, H., & Kang, P. (2017). Identifying core topics in technology and innovation management studies: A topic model approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer. Scholar
  35. León Serrano, G. (2011). Nuevos enfoques para la gestión estratégica de la I + D e innovación en las universidades. Revista de Educación, 355(mayo-agosto), 83–108.Google Scholar
  36. Leone, R. P., Robinson, L. M., Bragge, J., & Somervuori, O. (2012). A citation and profiling analysis of pricing research from 1980 to 2010. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 1010–1024. Scholar
  37. Link, A. N. (2016). Competitive advantages from university research parks. In D. B. Audretsch, A. N. Link, & M. L. Walshok (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of local competitiveness (pp. 337–344). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Link, A. N., & Link, K. R. (2003). On the growth of U.S. science parks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 81–85. Scholar
  39. 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. Scholar
  40. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2006). U.S. university research parks. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 25(1–2), 43–55. Scholar
  41. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674. Scholar
  42. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2015). Research, science, and technology parks: Vehicles for technology transfer. In A. N. Link, D. S. Siegel, & M. Wright (Eds.), The Chicago handbook of university technology transfer and academic entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Link, A. N., & Yang, U. Y. (2017). On the growth of Korean technoparks. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. Scholar
  44. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323.Google Scholar
  45. Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Research excellence and university-industry collaboration in UK science parks. Research Evaluation, 24(2), 181–196. Scholar
  46. Mukherjee, V., & Ramani, S. V. (2011). R&D cooperation in emerging industries, asymmetric innovative capabilities and rationale for technology parks. Theory and Decision, 71(3), 373–394. Scholar
  47. Olcay, G. A., & Bulu, M. (2016). Technoparks and technology transfer offices as drivers of an innovation economy: Lessons from Istanbul’s innovation spaces. Journal of Urban Technology, 23(1), 71–93. Scholar
  48. Persson, O., Danell, R., & Schneider, J. W. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In F. Aström, R. Danell, B. Larsen, & J. W. Schneider (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday, 5-S, pp. 9–24.Google Scholar
  49. Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182. Scholar
  50. Price, D. J. S. (1973). Hacia una ciencia de la ciencia. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
  51. Quintas, P., Wield, D., & Massey, D. (1992). Academic-industry link and innovation: Questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12(3), 161–175. Scholar
  52. Radosevic, S., & Myrzakhmet, M. (2009). Between vision and reality: Promoting innovation through technoparks in an emerging economy. Technovation, 29(10), 645–656. Scholar
  53. Ramirez, M., Li, X., & Chen, W. (2013). Comparing the impact of intra- and inter-regional labour mobility on problem-solving in a Chinese science park. Regional Studies, 47(10), 1734–1751. Scholar
  54. Schwartz, M., & Hornych, C. (2010). Cooperation patterns of incubator firms and the impact of incubator specialization: Empirical evidence from Germany. Technovation, 30(9–10), 485–495. Scholar
  55. Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003). 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(2), 177–184. Scholar
  56. Squicciarini, M. (2008). Science parks’ tenants versus out-of-park firms: Who innovates more? A duration model. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(1), 45–71. Scholar
  57. Squicciarini, M. (2009). Science parks: Seedbeds of innovation? A duration analysis of firms’ patenting activity. Small Business Economics, 32(2), 169–190. Scholar
  58. Sternitzke, C., & Bergmann, I. (2009). Similarity measures for document mapping: A comparative study on the level of an individual scientist. Scientometrics, 78(1), 113–130. Scholar
  59. Stokan, E., Thompson, L., & Mahu, R. J. (2015). Testing the differential effect of business incubators on firm growth. Economic Development Quarterly, 29(4), 317–327. Scholar
  60. Tang, M. F., Lee, J., Liu, K., & Lu, Y. (2014). Assessing government-supported technology-based business incubators: Evidence from China. International Journal of Technology Management, 65(1–4), 24–48. Scholar
  61. Ubeda, J. E., Gieure, C., De-la-Cruz, C., & Sastre, O. (2013). Communication in new technology based-firms. Management Decision, 51(3), 615–628. Scholar
  62. Vásquez-Urriago, A. R., Barge-Gil, A., & Modrego Rico, A. (2016). Science and technology parks and cooperation for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Research Policy, 45(1), 137–147. Scholar
  63. Vásquez-Urriago, A. R., Barge-Gil, A., Modrego Rico, A., & Paraskevopoulou, E. (2014). The impact of science and technology parks on firms’ product innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24(4), 835–873. Scholar
  64. Wallin, M. (2012). The bibliometric structure of spin-off literature. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 14(177), 162. Scholar
  65. Wang, Y. L., Ellinger, A. D., & YC, Jim Wu. (2013). Entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: An empirical study of R&D personnel. Management Decision, 51(2), 248–266. Scholar
  66. Zimmermann, H. D., & Pucihar, A. (2015). Open innovation, open data and new business models. In D. Petr, C. Gerhard, & O. Vaclav (Eds.), IDIMT-2015: Information Technology and Society Interaction and Interdependence, Schriftenreihe Informatik, vol. 44, pp. 449–458.Google Scholar
  67. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometrics methods in management and organizations. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y SocialesUniversidad Rey Juan CarlosMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations