The authors outline the establishment of the University of Iceland Science Park (UISP) and trace the main ideas that have guided its creation and development. With the Science Park still in an early phase of growth, the article explores the extent to which its development has been in line with concepts such as the entrepreneurial university and the Triple Helix as well as the body of knowledge on science parks. The authors consider science parks as knowledge-based ecosystems with an emphasis on openness, inclusiveness and co-creation. A review of UISP in light of the theoretical discussion reveals that certain aspects of its development are in accordance with the body of knowledge, but that there are also patterns of activity and ideas worthy of further research.
AlleschJ (1985) Innovation centres and science parks in the Federal Republic of Germany: current situation and ingredients for success. In GibbJM (ed), Science Parks and Innovation Centres: Their Economic and Social Impact. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
2.
AmirahmadiHSaffG (1993) Science parks: a critical assessment. Journal of Planning Literature8(2): 107–123.
3.
BahlmannMDHuysmanMH (2008) The emergence of a knowledge-based view of clusters and its implications for cluster governance. The Information Society24(5): 304–318.
4.
BecattiniG (1990) The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. In: PykeFBecattiniGSengenbergerW (eds) Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Co-operation in Italy, Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies, pp. 37–51.
5.
BøllingtoftAUlhøjJ (2005) The networked business incubator-leveraging entrepreneurial agency?Journal of Business Venturing20: 265–290.
6.
CarayannisEGCampbellD (2010) Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a transdisciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development1(1): 41–69.
7.
CarayannisEGRakhmatullinR (2014) The quadruple/quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialization strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy5: 212–239.
8.
CreswellJW (2013) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
9.
EisenhardtKM (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review14(4): 532–550.
10.
EtzkowitzH (2003) The European entrepreneurial university. Industry & Higher Education17(5): 325–335.
11.
EtzkowitzHLeydesdorffL (1999) The future of location of research and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer24(2–3): 111–123.
12.
EtzkowitzHLeydesdorffL (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy29: 109–123.
13.
EtzkowitzHWebsterAGebhardtC. (2000) The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy29: 313–330.
GuerreroMUrbanoDFayolleA. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities: emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economics47: 551–863.
16.
GustonDH (2000) Between Politics and Science: Assuring the Integrity and Productivity of Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
HanssonFHustedKVestergaardJ (2005) Second generation science parks: from structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society. Technovation25(9): 1039–1049.
18.
JosephRA (1989) Technology parks and their contribution to the development of technology-oriented complexes in Australia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy7(2): 173–192.
19.
KalarBAntoncicB (2015) The entrepreneurial university, academic activities and technology and knowledge transfer in four European countries. Technovation36–37: 1–11.
20.
KohFCCKohWTHTschangFT (2005) An analytical framework for science parks and technology districts with an application to Singapore. Journal of Business Venturing20: 217–239.
21.
LöfstenHLindelöfP (2002) Science parks and the growth of new technology-based firms – academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research Policy31(6): 859–876.
22.
MonckCSPPorterRBQuintasP. (1988) Science Parks and the Growth of High Technology Firms. London: Croom Helm.
23.
OECD Science Technology and Industry Scoreboard (2015) Innovation for Growth and Society. Paris: OECD publication.
24.
OhDSPhilippsFParkS. (2016) Innovation ecosystems: a critical examination. Technovation54: 1–6.
25.
PenroseET (1959) The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26.
PhanPHSiegelDSWrightM (2005) Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis, and future research. Journal of Business Venturing20(2): 165–182.
27.
PitelisC (2012) Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability: a conceptual framework. Industrial and Corporate Change21(6): 1359–1388.
28.
PorterME (1990) The Competitive Advantage of Nations. London: Macmillan.
29.
PowellWKoputKWSmith-DoerrL (1996) Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of learning in Biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly41(1): 116–145.
30.
RangaMEtzkowitzH (2013) Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the Knowledge Society. Industry and Higher Education27(3): 237–262.
31.
RichardsonG (1972) The organisation of industry. Economic Journal82: 883–896.
32.
SarasvathySD (2008) Effectuation: Elements of Entrepreneurial Expertise. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
33.
SiegelDSWestheadPWrightM (2003) Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Industrial Organization21: 1357–1369.
34.
Statistics Iceland (2016a). Impartiality – Credibility – Service. Available at: http://www.statice.is/(accessed 18 May 2016).
UrbanoDGuerreroM (2013) Entrepreneurial universities: socioeconomic impacts of academic entrepreneurship in a European Region. Economic Development Quarterly27(1): 40–55.
40.
ValkokariK (2015) Business, innovation, and knowledge ecosystems: how they differ and how to survive and thrive within them. Technology Innovation Management Review5(8): 17–24.
41.
YinRK (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
