The place-based regional industrial strategies provide a novel approach to examining the role of science parks in enhancing regional innovation with place-based policies. With qualitative interviews and case analyses, this study investigates how a place-based science park affects innovation activities of technology-focused companies. Our research findings demonstrate paradoxical nature with both positive and negative aspects of firms’ strategies that cope with obstacles such as the lack of funding for R&D and weak policy on IP protection. These obstacles hinder the collaboration on innovation and strengthen the effect of economic uncertainty on companies’ short-term survival orientation. Important implications for both theory and practice are discussed with possible future research directions identified.
AguinisHSolarinoAM (2019) Transparency and replicability in qualitative research: The case of interviews with elite informants. Strategic Management Journal40: 1291–1315.
2.
BaileyDPitelisCTomlinsonP (2019) Strategic management and regional industrial strategy: Cross-fertilization to mutual advantage. Regional Studies54: 647–659.
3.
BaileyDPitelisCTomlinsonPR (2018) A place-based developmental regional industrial strategy for sustainable capture of co-created value. Cambridge Journal of Economics42: 1521–1542.
4.
BarcaFMcCannPRodríguez-PoseA (2012) The case for regional development intervention: Place-based versus place-neutral approaches. Journal of Regional Science52: 134–152.
5.
BeerAMcKenzieFBlažekJ, et al. (2020) What is place-based policy?Regional Studies Policy Impact Books2: 11–22.
6.
BezdekRH (1975) The 1980 economic impact-regional and occupational-of compensated shifts in defense spending. Journal of Regional Science15: 183–198.
7.
BraczykHJCookePNHeidenreichM (1998) Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governances in a Globalized World. London: UCL Press.
8.
BraunVClarkeV (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology3: 77–101.
9.
CadorinEKlofstenMLöfstenH (2019) Science Parks, talent attraction and stakeholder involvement: An international study. The Journal of Technology Transfer46: 1–28.
10.
CameronKSQuinnRE (1988) Organizational paradox and transformation. In: QuinnRECameronKS (eds) Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 12–18.
11.
CassellC (2015) Conducting Research Interviews for Business and Management Students. London: SAGE.
12.
ChenCJWuHLLinBW, et al. (2015) Evaluating the development of high-tech industries: Taiwan’s science park. Technology Forecasting and Social Change73: 452–465.
13.
ClarysseBWrightMBruneelJ, et al. (2014) Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy43: 1164–1176.
14.
Díez-VialIMontoro-SanchezA (2016) How knowledge links with universities may Foster innovation: The case of a science park. Technovation50–51: 4152.
15.
EisenhardtKMWestcottBJ (1988) Paradoxical demands and the creation of excellence: The case of just-in-time manufacturing. In: QuinnRECameronKS (eds) Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 169–194.
16.
EnrightMJRobertsBH (2001) Regional clustering in Australia. Australian Journal of Management26: 65–85.
17.
EtzkowitzHZhouC (2017) Innovation incommensurability and the science park. R&D Management48: 73–87.
18.
EversoleR (2021) Regional campuses and invisible innovation: Impacts of non-traditional students in ‘Regional Australia’. Regional Studies. Epub ahead of print 10February. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2021.1899156.
19.
FariaJMixonFUpadhyayaK (2019) Public policy and the university-industry R&D nexus. Knowledge Management Research & Practice17: 499–506.
20.
FelsensteinD (1994) University-related science parks: ‘Seedbeds’ or ‘enclaves’ of innovation?Technovation14: 93–110.
21.
ForayD (2014) Smart Specialization: Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Innovation Policy. London; New York: Routledge.
22.
GalbraithCS (1985) High-technology location and development: The case of Orange County. California Management Review28: 98–109.
23.
GaoYHuY (2017) The upgrade to hybrid incubators in China: A case study of Tuspark incubator. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management8: 331–351.
24.
GioiaDACorleyKGHamiltonAL (2012) Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods16: 15–31.
25.
HattabH (2012) Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: GEM Egypt Report 2012. London: Global Entrepreneurship Research Association, London Business School.
26.
HelmersC (2019) Choose the neighbor before the house: Agglomeration externalities in a UK science park. Journal of Economic Geography19: 31–55.
27.
HenriquesICSobreiroVAKimuraH (2018) Science and technology park: Future challenges. Technology in Society53: 144–160.
28.
Hesse-BiberSNLeavyPL (2011) The Practice of Qualitative Research. 2nd ed.Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
29.
HildrethPBaileyD (2013) The economics behind the move to ‘localism’ in England. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society6: 233–249.
30.
HorngJKiuCChouS, et al. (2014) Developing a novel hybrid model for industrial environment analysis: A study of the gourmet and tourism industry in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research19: 1044–1069.
KingN (2004) Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In: CassellCSymonG (eds) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. London: SAGE, pp. 256–270.
33.
KleinPGMahoneyJTMcGahanAM, et al. (2013) Capabilities and strategic entrepreneurship in public organizations. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal7: 70–91.
34.
LewisMW (2000) Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review25: 760–776.
35.
LiL (2017) China’s manufacturing locus in 2025: With a comparison of ‘Made-in-China 2025’ and ‘Industry 4.0’. Technology Forecasting and Social Change135: 66–74.
36.
LinCLTzengGH (2009) A value-created system of science (technology) park by using DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications36: 9683–9697.
37.
LöfstenHLindelöfP (2003) Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science Parks and business policy in growing firms. Technovation23: 51–64.
38.
MansourAMHMKansoL (2018) Science park implementation: A proposal for merging research and industry in developing Arab countries. HBRC Journal14: 357–367.
39.
MasseyDQuintasPWieldD (2003) High-tech Fantasies: Science Parks in Society, Science and Space. Abingdon: Routledge.
40.
Mas-VerdúFRibeiro-SorianoDRoig-TiernoN (2015) Firm survival: The role of incubators and business characteristics. Journal Business Research68: 793–796.
41.
MilesMBHubermanAM (2004) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
42.
MitraJ (2000) Nurturing and sustaining entrepreneurship: University, science park, business and government partnership in Australia. Industry and Higher Education14: 183–190.
43.
MorissonADoussineauM (2019) Regional innovation governance and place-based policies: Design, implementation and implications. Regional Studies, Regional Science6: 101–116.
44.
MotohashiK (2013) The role of the science park in innovation performance of start-up firms: An empirical analysis of Tsinghua Science Park in Beijing. Asia Business Review19: 578–599.
45.
MurnighanJKConlonDE (1991) The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly36: 165–186.
46.
NonakaI (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science5: 14–37.
47.
OzyurtMACetingucBCalikE, et al. (2016) Technology-based-firms located off technology development zones: Reasons for not being a part of technology development area in Turkey. Journal of Economics, Business and Management4: 486–490.
48.
ParkSHChenRRGallagherS (2002) Firm resources as moderators of the relationship between market growth and strategic alliances in semiconductor start-ups. Academy of Management Journal45: 527–545.
49.
PitelisCNTomlinsonPR (2017) Industrial organization,the degree of monopoly and macroeconomic performance –Aperspective on the contribution of Keith Cowling (1936–2016). International Journal of Industrial Organisation55: 182–189.
50.
PrattMGRockmannKWKaufmannJB (2006) Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal49: 235–262.
51.
RobertsA (1986) Science parks: Research, development and change. Physics in Technology17: 24–31.
52.
SantoroMD (2000) Success breeds success: The linkage between relationship intensity and tangible outcomes in industry-university collaborative ventures. Journal of High Technology Management Research11: 255–273.
53.
SeoudiIMahmoudS (2016) Public policy for venture capital: A comparative study of Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Review of Business and Finance Studies7: 19–42.
54.
SmithWLewisM (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. The Academy of Management Review36: 381–403.
55.
StraussACorbinJ (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
56.
SuYSHungLC (2009) Spontaneous vs. policy-driven: The origin and evolution of the biotechnology cluster. Technological Forecast & Social Change76: 608–619.
57.
SussanFAcsZJ (2017) The digital entrepreneurial ecosystem. Small Business Economics49(1): 55–73.
58.
TangRWBeerA (2021) Regional innovation and the retention of foreign direct investment: A place-based approach. Regional Studies. Epub ahead of print 20December. DOI: 10.1080/00343404.2021.2006173.
59.
TsaiMTsaiC (2010) Innovation capability and performance in Taiwanese science parks: Exploring the moderating effects of industrial clusters fabric. International Journal of Organizational Innovation2: 80–103.
60.
VanderstraetenJMatthyssensP (2012) Service-based differentiation strategies for business incubators: Exploring external and internal alignment. Technovation32: 656–670.
61.
VillasaleroM (2014) University knowledge, open innovation and technological capital in Spanish science parks: Research revealing and technology selling?Journal of Intellectual Capital15: 479–496.
62.
VinceRBroussineM (1996) Paradox, defense and attachment: Accessing and working with emotions and relations underlying organizational change. Organization Studies17: 1–21.
63.
WestheadP (1997) R&D’ inputs’ and ‘outputs’ of technology-based firms located on and off Science Parks. R&D Management27: 45–62.
64.
WongCGohK (2015) Catch-up models of science and technology: A theorization of the Asian experience from bi-logistic growth trajectories. Technology Forecasting and Social Change95: 312–327.
65.
XieKSongYZhangW, et al. (2018) Technological entrepreneurship in science parks: A case study of Wuhan Donghu High-Tech Zone. Technological Forecasting & Social Change135: 156–168.
66.
YinR (2008) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed.Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
67.
ZahraSAGeorgeG (2002) Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy Management Review27: 185–203.
68.
ZengSXieXTamC (2010) Evaluating innovation capabilities for science parks: A system model. Baltic Journal of Sustainability16: 397–413.
