Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The VEGA-VEnice GAteway for Science and Technology Park: Is It a Generative Infrastructure?

  • Chapter
Knowledge-creating Milieus in Europe

  • 1038 Accesses

Abstract

Most literature has analysed Science Parks (SPs) as an economic space. However, I propose to analyse them as a relational place where knowledge and productive processes are intertwined. Applying the concept of infrastructure–as defined in Science and Technology Studies (STS)–this chapter is devoted to understanding if SPs are generative infrastructures which enact innovation. This concept is related to the seedbed metaphor meaning an environment where innovation can grow through convergence between people and things. This theoretical framework will frame the analysis of empirical data collected from my qualitative research on Italian SPs, conducted from 2011 to 2013. Precisely, I will present the case-study of VEGA-VEnice GAteway for Science and Technology and the failure of its project regarding the construction of the smart building Pandora. The case-study embodies common dynamics of Italian SPs, and it contributes to addressing challenges for future research.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    According to Edwards, Jackson, Bowker, and Knobel (2007) the metaphor of “growing” rather than design or building infrastructure enables to capture, in their words, the “sense of an organic unfolding within an existing (and changing) environment (2007, 369).

  2. 2.

    The capacity for appreciating differences in other’s mental habit compared with one’s own, and questioning them, is crucial for a hermeneutic approach, as suggested by Cusinato in this book.

  3. 3.

    This is the term generally referring to organizations and institutions (such as companies, universities, research and development units, foundations and associations) working in different lines of business and fields of science and technology, located in a science park.

  4. 4.

    A standard definition of “University spin-off” can be retrieved in Wikipedia: “University spin-offs transform technological inventions developed from university research that are likely to remain unexploited otherwise” (Wikipedia, 2013b). The number of University spin-offs’ founders that I have interviewed at that time corresponds to the total number of spin-off localized into the involved Parks, taking into account one “unattainable” spin-off.

  5. 5.

    One interviewed Coordinator is also Director of one involved park: I counted this person two times. Overall, there are seven APSTI Committees.

  6. 6.

    In two cases, I interviewed the Director’s spokesperson instead of the Director.

  7. 7.

    At that time, one park didn’t have an internal Incubator. A basic definition of “Business Incubator” or “Incubator” can be retrieved in Wikipedia: “Business incubators are programs designed to support the successful development of entrepreneurial companies through an array of business support resources and services, developed and orchestrated by incubator management and offered both in the incubator and through its network of contacts. Incubators vary in the way they deliver their services, in their organizational structure, and in the types of clients they serve” (Wikipedia, 2013a).

  8. 8.

    Anas is the technical manager of the Italian road and highway network.

  9. 9.

    State Railways.

  10. 10.

    By courtesy of Maggioli Editore and the author, Michele Vianello.

  11. 11.

    “Il VEGA, l’innovazione, il riuso del territorio” and “Pandora un organismo vivente a Marghera”.

  12. 12.

    Venice Mayor Giorgio Orsoni’s answer about the Michele Vianello’s responsibilities (http://consiglio.comune.venezia.it/?pag=risp_1_2437&m=; accessed 19 November 2013).

  13. 13.

    In general, it is very hard to obtain such information from a park’s administration and this is the reason why I have drawn such details from newspapers and other public sources.

References

  • Allesch, J. (1985). Innovation centers and science parks in the Federal Republic of Germany: Current situation and ingredients for success. In J. M. Gibb (Ed.), Science parks and innovation centers: Theirs economic and social impact (pp. 58–68). Amsterdan: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amirahmadi, H., & Saff, G. (1993). Science parks: A critical assessment. Journal of Planning Literature, 8(2), 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, G., & Callon, M. (1994). Techno-economic networks and science and technology policy. STI Review, 14, 67–126.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out. Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. C., Baker, K., Millerand, F., & Ribes, D. (2010). Toward information infrastructure studies: Ways of knowing in a networked environment. In J. Hinsinger, L. Klastrup, & M. Allen (Eds.), International handbook of internet research (pp. 97–117). London: Springer. Accessed July 2, 2013, from http://interoperability.ucsd.edu/docs/07BowkerBaker_InfraStudies.pdf

  • Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2003). Crossing boundaries: An integrative framework for studying technological change. Social Studies of Science, 33, 95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, A., & Charmaz, K. (Eds.). (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded theory. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestification of the scallops and fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. E., & Star, S. L. (2008). The social world framework: A theory/methods package. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 113–137). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31, 1103–1122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durão, D., Sarmento, M., Varela, V., & Maltez, L. (2005). Virtual and real-estate science and technology parks: A case study of Taguspark. Technovation, 25, 237–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, P., Jackson, J. S., Bowker, G., & Williams, R. (2009). Introduction: An agenda for infrastructure studies. Journal of the Association for Information Systems (JAIS), 10, 364–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, P. N., Jackson, S. J., Bowker, G. C., & Knobel, C. P. (2007, January). Understanding Infrastructure: Dynamics, tensions, and design. NSF Report of a Workshop on “History & Theory of Infrastructure: Lessons for New Scientific Cyberinfrastructures”. Accessed July 3, 2013, from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/49353

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic. A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, E. M., & Star, S. L. (1986). Analysing due process in the workplace. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(3), 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategy for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. (1991). Three systems, three separate paths. APA Journal, 16, 16–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E., & Hatling, M. (1996). Developing information infrastructure: The tension between standardization and flexibility. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21(4), 407–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karasti, H., Baker, K. S., & Millerand, F. (2010). Infrastructure time: Long-term matters in collaborative development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 19, 377–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kihlgren, A. (2003). Promotion of innovation activity in Russia through the creation of science parks: The case of St. Petersburg. Technovation, 23, 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5, 379–393.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacDonald, S. (1987). British science parks: Reflections of the politics of high technology. R&D Management, 17, 25–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro, E., Pollock, N., Hanseth, O., & Williams, R. (2013). From artifacts to infrastructures. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 22, 575–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28, 1435–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellegrino, G. (2008). Convergence and saturation. Ecologies of artefacts in mobile and ubiquitous interaction. In K. Nyíri (Ed.), Integration and ubiquity. Towards a philosophy of telecommunications convergence (pp. 75–82). Vienna: Passagen Verlag.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (1992). Taking CSCW seriously. Supporting articulation work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1, 7–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (1999). The ethnography of infrastructure. American Behavioural Scientist, 43(3), 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L. (2007). Living grounded theory: Cognitive and emotional forms of pragmatism. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The Sage handbook of grounded theory (pp. 75–93). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “Translation” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Ruhleder, K. (1996). Steps toward an ecology of infrastructure: Design and access for large information spaces. Information Systems Research, 7, 111–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Strauss, A. (1999). Layers of silence, arenas of voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., Bowker, G. C., & Neumann, L. J. (2003). Transparency beyond the individual level of scale: Convergence between information artifacts and communities of practice. In A. Peterson-Kemp, N. A. van Van House, B. P. Buttenfield, & B. Schatz (Eds.), Digital library use. Social practice in design and evaluation (pp. 241–269). Cambridge, MA: Massachussets Institute Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. (1978). A social world perspective. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 1, 119–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. (1988). The articulation of project work: An organizational process. The Sociological Quarterly, 29(2), 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L., & Trigg, R. (1993). Artificial intelligence as craft-work. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 144–172). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. (2000). Organizing alignment: A case of bridge building. Organization, 7(2), 311–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaidyanathan, G. (2008). Technology parks in a developing country: The case of India. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 285–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vianello, M. (2013). Smart Cities. Gestire la complessità urbana nell’era di Internet. Maggioli Editore: Santarcangelo di Romagna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins-Mathys, L., & Foster, M. J. (2006). Entrepreneurship: The missing ingredient in China’s STIPs? Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 18, 249–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikipedia. (2013a). Business incubator. Accessed August 3, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_incubator

  • Wikipedia. (2013b). University spin-off. Accessed August 3, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_incubator

  • Zittrain, J. L. (2006). The generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, 119, 1974–2040.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Engineering and Computer Science, University of Trento, Trento, Italy

    Michela Cozza

Authors
  1. Michela Cozza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michela Cozza .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Design and Planning in Complex Environments, Iuav University, Venezia, Italy

    Augusto Cusinato

  2. School of Law, University of Westminster, London, United Kingdom

    Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cozza, M. (2016). The VEGA-VEnice GAteway for Science and Technology Park: Is It a Generative Infrastructure?. In: Cusinato, A., Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A. (eds) Knowledge-creating Milieus in Europe. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45173-7_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation