Foresight for science parks: the case of Ankara University

Abstract

This paper reports a Foresight exercise, which was carried out to develop a research strategy and a business model for the science park of Ankara University (AU). Science parks have been crucial elements of innovation systems both in developed and developing countries because their role in bridging the gap between academia and business through knowledge spill-overs and spin-offs. Although there is a widespread consensus about the usefulness of the science park concept, the actual performance of science parks and how well they meet expectations have been controversial. This paper discusses the success factors for science parks. A three-dimensional policy framework, which includes ‘complementarity’, ‘networking’ and ‘strategic scalar positioning’ is suggested to be taken into account during the design and operation of science parks. The paper describes the Foresight process and the policies and strategies developed by using the three-dimensional policy framework proposed for the newly established science park at Ankara University.

Keywords:

• science park
• Ankara University
• Foresight
• complementarity
• networking
• strategic scalar positioning
• policy
• strategy

Acknowledgements

This paper uses part of the material produced by the Ankara University funded AU science park Foresight project (BAP, 2009) led by Professor Ali Argun Karacabey together with co-investigators Assistant Professor Hayat Ebru Erdost Çolak ÇOLAK, Assistant Professor Dilber Ulaş, Associate Professor Faz\i l Gökgöz, research assistant Kerem Kaptangil and ourselves. We are grateful to them and all other participants for providing tremendous support and for displaying important insights.

Notes

According to Radosevic and Myrzakhmet (2009, 1) the TP (techno park) movement ‘has generated conflicting evidence regarding their effects and there is a huge gap between policy makers’ optimism about TPs and their actual performance’ see also for example Massey, Quintas, and Wield (1992) where the performance asessement of UK TP's did not show any positive outcome in terms of technology development.

According to Radosevic and Myrzakhmet (2009, 3): ‘Unfortunately, there is no systematic, comparative overview of the effectiveness of TPs in developing, semi-developed or so-called emerging economies’. One might also add that overall even for the case of developed countries literature and evidence on technology park performance is not clear cut. Phan, Siegel, and Wright (2005, 165).

This concept is used to delienate possible complications that might emerge when foreign ‘best practices’ are imported into a host country through the use of international benchmarking efforts ‘where attempts (that) are made to replicate isolated successful institutions or mechanisms defined as global ‘best practices’ may lead to unintended and negative consequences (Lundvall and Tomlinson 2002)’ (Lundvall 2009, 3).

See Radosevic and Auriol (1999) and discussions in the next section below.

See Hollingsworth (2001) for an overview of institutional theory.

Similarly the recent experience of the new members from Central and Eastern European countries in the EU also show that even the EU's institutional assistance was not enough to create a strong NIS in these countries (Radosevic and Aurol 1999).

According to a recent research nearly 50% of the Turkish bureaucratic and civil élite are graduates of Ankara University Faculty of Political Sciences (Arslan and Gümüştekin 2004).