اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات38
تعداد شماره‌ها1,408
تعداد مقالات10,088
تعداد مشاهده مقاله11,909,048
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله6,961,204
یعقوبی, نورمحمد, سالارزهی, حبیب الله, رئیسی, ابوبکر, خواجه داد, فاطمه. (1405). شناسایی و تحلیل راهبردهای حکمرانی دانش بنیان در پارک های علم و فناوری با رویکرد فرا ترکیب. پدافند الکترونیکی و سایبری, 9(1), 24-51. doi: 10.47176/SMOK.2026.1974
نورمحمد یعقوبی; حبیب الله سالارزهی; ابوبکر رئیسی; فاطمه خواجه داد. "شناسایی و تحلیل راهبردهای حکمرانی دانش بنیان در پارک های علم و فناوری با رویکرد فرا ترکیب". پدافند الکترونیکی و سایبری, 9, 1, 1405, 24-51. doi: 10.47176/SMOK.2026.1974
یعقوبی, نورمحمد, سالارزهی, حبیب الله, رئیسی, ابوبکر, خواجه داد, فاطمه. (1405). 'شناسایی و تحلیل راهبردهای حکمرانی دانش بنیان در پارک های علم و فناوری با رویکرد فرا ترکیب', پدافند الکترونیکی و سایبری, 9(1), pp. 24-51. doi: 10.47176/SMOK.2026.1974
یعقوبی, نورمحمد, سالارزهی, حبیب الله, رئیسی, ابوبکر, خواجه داد, فاطمه. شناسایی و تحلیل راهبردهای حکمرانی دانش بنیان در پارک های علم و فناوری با رویکرد فرا ترکیب. پدافند الکترونیکی و سایبری, 1405; 9(1): 24-51. doi: 10.47176/SMOK.2026.1974

شناسایی و تحلیل راهبردهای حکمرانی دانش بنیان در پارک های علم و فناوری با رویکرد فرا ترکیب

مدیریت راهبردی دانش سازمانی
مقاله 2، دوره 9، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 32، فروردین 1405، صفحه 24-51    اصل مقاله (1.48 M)
نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی با اصالت
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.47176/SMOK.2026.1974
نویسندگان
نورمحمد یعقوبی1؛ حبیب الله سالارزهی1؛ ابوبکر رئیسی2؛ فاطمه خواجه داد* 2
1استاد مدیریت، دانشکده اقتصاد و علوم اداری، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، زاهدان، ایران
2دانشجوی دکتری، دانشکده اقتصاد و علوم اداری، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، زاهدان، ایران
تاریخ دریافت: 08 آبان 1404،  تاریخ بازنگری: 18 آذر 1404،  تاریخ پذیرش: 29 بهمن 1404 
چکیده
هدف:  این مطالعه به بررسی چگونگی تعامل لایه‌های نهادی، سازمانی، دیجیتال و بین‌المللی حکمرانی دانش‌بنیان می‌پردازد و نشان می‌دهد چگونه این راهبردها می‌توانند جریان هوشمند دانش را میان دانشگاه، صنعت و دولت تسهیل کرده و ظرفیت نوآوری و همکاری میان ذی‌نفعان را ارتقا دهند.
روش پژوهش: این مطالعه بر اساس پارادایم تفسیرگرایی و با رویکرد کیفی و از روش فراترکیب برای یکپارچه‌سازی یافته‌های مطالعات پیشین بهره گرفت. با استفاده از مدل هفت‌مرحله‌ای شامل تعیین پرسش تحقیق، مرور ادبیات، انتخاب منابع، استخراج داده‌ها، تحلیل و ترکیب یافته‌ها، کنترل کیفیت و ارائه نتایج بود.
یافته‌ها: تحلیل فراترکیب، نه بعد راهبردی کلیدی حکمرانی دانش‌بنیان را شناسایی کرد: شفافیت و پاسخگویی، ظرفیت‌سازی و توانمندسازی، نوآوری و شبکه‌سازی، دیجیتالی‌سازی و حکمرانی هوشمند، سیاست‌گذاری هوشمند، توسعه پایدار و مسئولیت اجتماعی، دیپلماسی علمی و همکاری بین‌المللی، تاب‌آوری و آینده‌نگری، و همگرایی اکوسیستم‌ها. این راهبردها جریان دانش، یادگیری سازمانی، هم‌آفرینی و نوآوری مشارکتی را تقویت می‌کنند و با ارتقای شفافیت، پاسخگویی و اعتماد نهادی، امکان تحقق اهداف اقتصادی، اجتماعی و زیست‌محیطی پارک‌ها را فراهم می‌سازند.
بحث: حکمرانی مبتنی بر دانش در پارک‌های علم و فناوری ذاتاً چندبعدی، پویا و عمیقاً در اکوسیستم‌های نوآوری پیچیده ریشه دارد. شناسایی نه بُعد استراتژیک مرتبط نشان می‌دهد که حکمرانی مؤثر فراتر از رویکردهای سنتی اداری یا سلسله مراتبی است و نیازمند چارچوبی یکپارچه است که شفافیت نهادی، ظرفیت‌سازی سازمانی، تحول دیجیتال و نوآوری مشارکتی را ترکیب کند. این نتایج با مطالعات قبلی که بر تغییر از مدل‌های حکمرانی خطی به سمت سیستم‌های شبکه‌ای، مشارکتی و دانش‌محور تأکید دارند، سازگار است.
نتیجه‌گیری: حکمرانی دانش‌بنیان زمانی تحقق می‌یابد که پارک‌های علم و فناوری از الگوی سنتی مدیریتی به سمت مدیریت شبکه‌ای، یادگیرنده و داده‌محور حرکت کنند. زیرساخت‌های دیجیتال، سامانه‌های داده باز، توانمندسازی منابع انسانی و شبکه‌سازی جهانی، ابزاری حیاتی برای بهبود تصمیم‌گیری، اشتراک دانش و نوآوری پایدار هستند.

تازه های تحقیق
  1. این مطالعه یک چارچوب جامع چندبعدی برای حکمرانی مبتنی بر دانش در پارک‌های علم و فناوری توسعه می‌دهد.
  2. نه بُعد استراتژیک کلیدی شناسایی شده‌اند که جنبه‌های نهادی، سازمانی، دیجیتال و بین‌المللی حکمرانی را ادغام می‌کنند.
  3. یافته‌ها بر تغییر از حکمرانی سلسله مراتبی به سمت مدل‌های شبکه‌ای، مشارکتی و داده‌محور تأکید دارند.
  4. این مطالعه نقش دیجیتالی شدن، شبکه‌های نوآوری و همگرایی اکوسیستم را در افزایش جریان‌های دانش و تصمیم‌گیری برجسته می‌کند.
  5. چارچوب پیشنهادی، بینش‌های عملی برای سیاست‌گذاران و متخصصان فراهم می‌کند تا ظرفیت نوآوری، تاب‌آوری و توسعه پایدار را بهبود بخشند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
حکمرانی دانش‌بنیان؛ پارک علم و فناوری؛ مدیریت دانش؛ زیست‌بوم نوآوری؛ یادگیری سازمانی
عنوان مقاله [English]
Identification and Analysis of Knowledge-Based Governance Strategies in Science and Technology Parks: A Meta-Synthesis Approach
نویسندگان [English]
Noor Mohammad Yghoubi1؛ Habibollah Salarzehi1؛ Aboobakr Raeesi2؛ Fatemeh Khajedad2
1Professor of Management, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran, E-mail: yaghoubi@mgmt.usb.ac.ir
2PhD Candidate, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences,, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran, E-mail: aboobakrma@gmail.com
چکیده [English]
Purpose: This study aims to identify, analyze knowledge-based governance strategies in science and technology parks using a meta-synthesis approach, emphasizing the multi-level and multi-dimensional nature of governance in knowledge-intensive innovation ecosystems. With the rapid advancement of digital technologies, the growing complexity of knowledge flows, and the increasing interdependence among universities, industries, and government agencies, traditional linear and hierarchical governance models have proven insufficient for addressing dynamic and heterogeneous challenges. Knowledge-based governance, therefore, is not merely a managerial or administrative mechanism but functions as an integrative platform for institutionalizing intelligent knowledge flows, fostering transparency, trust, accountability, and collaborative innovation, while also ensuring sustainable social, economic, and environmental outcomes across diverse stakeholders. This study provides a theoretically grounded and empirically informed framework for governance in science and technology parks, highlighting the alignment of institutional, organizational, digital, and international dimensions to enhance decision-making, knowledge sharing, learning, and ecosystemic resilience, ultimately contributing to innovation-driven regional development.
Methodology: Grounded in an interpretive qualitative paradigm, this research employs the meta-synthesis method to systematically integrate and re-interpret findings from prior empirical and theoretical studies related to knowledge-based governance in science and technology parks. The study adopts Sandelowski and Barroso’s seven-step meta-synthesis framework, encompassing: (1) formulation of research questions; (2) comprehensive literature review; (3) systematic source identification and selection based on relevance and rigor; (4) detailed extraction of relevant data and concepts; (5) qualitative analysis and synthesis of primary, secondary, and final codes; (6) rigorous quality control to ensure the reliability, validity, and transparency of the synthesis process; and (7) presentation of synthesized findings in a structured framework. Through this methodology, the study develops a multi-dimensional, integrative set of governance strategies that reflects the interactions among institutional structures, organizational processes, digital platforms, policy frameworks, and international collaboration, providing a holistic understanding of governance mechanisms in science and technology parks. A total of 152 primary studies were examined, from which 78 secondary codes were generated and subsequently distilled into 9 overarching strategic dimensions, capturing the complexity and diversity of knowledge-based governance practices.
Results: The meta-synthesis identifies nine interrelated strategic dimensions central to effective knowledge-based governance in science and technology parks:

Transparency and accountability: This dimension encompasses institutional and legal transparency, open access to data, stakeholder responsiveness, and mechanisms for continuous reporting and feedback. The findings emphasize that transparency, coupled with stakeholder accountability, establishes the foundation for trust, collective learning, and decision-making legitimacy within multi-stakeholder environments. 2. Capacity building and empowerment: Effective governance requires both institutional capacity development and human capital empowerment. Key strategies include organizational strengthening, knowledge management systems, specialized training programs, intra- and inter-park knowledge sharing, and leadership development initiatives. These mechanisms enhance absorptive capacity, enable systematic learning, and facilitate the alignment of organizational objectives with broader governance goals. 3. Innovation and networking: The study underscores the role of open innovation, co-creation, and ecosystem-based networking as critical enablers of knowledge circulation and technology commercialization. By fostering interactions between startups, universities, research institutes, and industry partners, parks can support collaborative innovation, bridge gaps between knowledge producers and users, and accelerate the translation of knowledge into tangible economic and social value. 4. Digitalization and intelligent governance: Digital infrastructure, platform-based governance, and data-driven decision-making constitute the core of this dimension. The findings highlight how artificial intelligence, Internet of Things (IoT), and other digital technologies can optimize knowledge flows, enhance process efficiency, and support adaptive governance, while also enabling predictive analytics for strategic human capital planning and operational management within parks. 5. Smart policy-making: Adaptive and evidence-based policy frameworks, regulatory flexibility, and incentive structures are identified as essential for effective governance. Policies that integrate top-down guidance with participatory mechanisms allow for iterative learning, mitigate governance gaps, and align stakeholder interests while facilitating innovation and sustainable development. 6. Sustainable development and social responsibility: Governance strategies must incorporate environmental sustainability, ethical innovation, and social inclusion. Green technologies, low-carbon solutions, equitable access to resources, and socially responsible practices strengthen the legitimacy and long-term viability of parks, ensuring that knowledge-based growth is not solely economic but also socially and environmentally balanced. 7. Scientific diplomacy and international collaboration: Parks serve as nodes for global knowledge exchange, facilitating international technology transfer, cross-border learning, and collaborative innovation networks. Strategic partnerships at regional and international levels enhance the competitiveness of parks, allow for contextualized learning from diverse environments, and support the global positioning of national innovation systems. 8. Resilience and foresight: Governance frameworks must integrate adaptive capacities, risk management, strategic planning, and foresight mechanisms to address technological uncertainty, economic fluctuations, and evolving stakeholder expectations. Resilience is achieved not merely through robustness but by enabling rapid reconfiguration of resources, processes, and policies in response to emerging challenges. 9. Ecosystem convergence: Finally, the study highlights the convergence of university-industry-government networks and cross-sectoral collaborations as a central mechanism for integrated knowledge-based governance. Multi-level interactions among diverse actors facilitate trust, reduce conflicts of interest, accelerate knowledge transfer, and foster systemic innovation, ensuring that science and technology parks function as dynamic, learning-driven ecosystems rather than isolated entities.

Collectively, these nine dimensions provide a multi-level framework that guides the design, implementation, and evaluation of knowledge-based governance strategies in science and technology parks. They emphasize the interplay between institutional structures, digital tools, human capital development, policy frameworks, and international cooperation, establishing a foundation for participatory, transparent, and sustainable governance capable of enhancing regional innovation capacity.
Discussion: The findings of this meta-synthesis highlight that knowledge-based governance in science and technology parks is inherently multi-dimensional, dynamic, and deeply embedded in complex innovation ecosystems. The identification of nine interrelated strategic dimensions demonstrates that effective governance extends beyond traditional administrative or hierarchical approaches and requires an integrated framework combining institutional transparency, organizational capacity building, digital transformation, and collaborative innovation. These results are consistent with prior studies emphasizing the shift from linear governance models toward networked, participatory, and knowledge-driven systems.
A key contribution of this study lies in revealing the synergistic interaction among governance dimensions. For instance, transparency and accountability not only enhance trust but also enable more effective knowledge sharing and stakeholder engagement, which in turn strengthens innovation networks and ecosystem convergence. Similarly, digitalization and intelligent governance act as enablers that amplify the effectiveness of other dimensions by facilitating data-driven decision-making and optimizing knowledge flows. This interconnectedness suggests that governance strategies cannot be implemented in isolation but must be designed as part of a coherent and adaptive system.
Moreover, the findings underscore the critical role of contextual factors such as institutional structures, policy environments, and regional innovation capacities. The heterogeneity observed across science and technology parks indicates that while the proposed framework provides a comprehensive reference, its practical implementation should be tailored to local conditions. This aligns with the broader literature that emphasizes context-sensitive governance models in innovation ecosystems.
Importantly, this study bridges a significant gap in the literature by integrating fragmented perspectives on knowledge management, innovation, and governance into a unified analytical framework. It advances the understanding of how knowledge-based governance can simultaneously promote innovation, resilience, and sustainable development. The emphasis on dimensions such as scientific diplomacy, sustainability, and foresight further expands the scope of governance beyond economic performance toward long-term societal and environmental impact.
Conclusion: This research contributes to the literature by presenting a novel, multi-dimensional, and integrative framework for knowledge-based governance in science and technology parks. Unlike prior studies that primarily focus on operational efficiency or sector-specific interventions, this study emphasizes governance as a participatory, dynamic, and sustainability-oriented system. By detailing strategic dimensions across institutional, organizational, digital, policy, and international domains, the findings provide actionable guidance for designing resilient, transparent, and socially responsible governance mechanisms. The study enhances understanding of how knowledge-based governance can simultaneously support innovation, learning, and sustainable development, offering a roadmap for the strategic transformation of science and technology parks into knowledge-intensive ecosystems that balance economic, social, and environmental objectives.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
Knowledge-Based Governance, Science and Technology Park, Knowledge Management, Innovation Ecosystem, Organizational Learning
مراجع

Alatawi, F. M. H. (2025). Knowledge-Oriented Leadership and Innovation in Digital Governance: Empowering Women-Led Startups Through Knowledge-Driven Strategies. International Journal of Electronic Government Research (IJEGR), 21(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEGR.384514

Albahari, A. (2019). Heterogeneity as a key for understanding science and technology park effects. In Science and technology parks and regional economic development: An international perspective (pp. 143-157). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-30963-3_9

Aristana, I. N., Puspitawati, N. M. D., Salain, P. P. P., Koval, V., Konarivska, O., & Paniuk, T. (2024). Improving Innovative Work Behavior in Small and Medium Enterprises: Integrating Transformational Leadership, Knowledge Sharing, and Psychological Empowerment. Societies, 14(11), 228. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14110228

Allam, Z., Sharifi, A., Bibri, S. E., & Chabaud, D. (2022). Emerging trends and knowledge structures of smart urban governance. Sustainability, 14(9), 5275. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095275

Berkes, F. (2009). Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. Journal of environmental management, 90(5), 1692-1702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.12.001

Barra, C., & Ruggiero, N. (2022). On the impact of knowledge and institutional spillovers on RIS efficiency. Evidence from Italian regional level. Growth and Change, 53(2), 702-752. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12603

Burgos-Ayala, A., Jiménez-Aceituno, A., Torres-Torres, A. M., Rozas-Vásquez, D., & Lam, D. P. (2020). Indigenous and local knowledge in environmental management for human-nature connectedness: a leverage points perspective. Ecosystems and people, 16(1), 290-303. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1817152

Bokhari, S. A. A., & Myeong, S. (2022). Artificial intelligence-based technological-oriented knowledge management, innovation, and e-service delivery in smart cities: Moderating role of e-governance. Applied Sciences, 12(17), 8732. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12178732

Bellini, N., Teräs, J., & Ylinenpää, H. (2012). Science and Technology Parks in the age of open innovation. The finnish case. Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, (1), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.4468/2012.1.03bellini.teras.ylinenpaa

Champenois, C., & Etzkowitz, H. (2018). From boundary line to boundary space: The creation of hybrid organizations as a Triple Helix micro-foundation. Technovation, 76, 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.11.002

Costa, J., & Matias, J. C. (2020). Open innovation 4.0 as an enhancer of sustainable innovation ecosystems. Sustainability, 12(19), 8112. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198112

Chang, Y., Chen, L., Zhou, Y., & Meng, Q. (2022). Elements, characteristics, and performances of inter-enterprise knowledge recombination: Empirical research on green innovation adoption in China's heavily polluting industry. Journal of Environmental Management, 310, 114736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114736

Dvarionienė, J., Dvarionas, D., & Kamičaitytė, K. (2023). Transformative capacity building by systematic use of urban living labs: A case study of Alytus, Lithuania. Environmental Research, Engineering and Management, 79(2), 99-110. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.erem.79.2.33867

Dameri, R. P., & Demartini, P. (2020). Knowledge transfer and translation in cultural ecosystems. Management Decision, 58(9), 1885-1907. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2019-1505

Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2015). Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: how can firms benefit most?. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 70-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9329-4

Fang, S. C., Yang, C. W., & Hsu, W. Y. (2013). Inter-organizational knowledge transfer: the perspective of knowledge governance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(6), 943-957. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2013-0138

Fachinelli, A. C., Yigitcanlar, T., Sabatini-Marques, J., Cortese, T. T. P., Sotto, D., & Libardi, B. (2023). Urban smartness and city performance: identifying Brazilian smart cities through a novel approach. Sustainability, 15(13), 10323. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310323

Fartash, K. (2024). An analysis of technology and innovation development governance in Iranian science and technology parks. Journal of Knowledge Governance, 2(3), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.22034/jokog.2024.201819  (In Persian)

Garcia-Perez, A., Ghio, A., Occhipinti, Z., & Verona, R. (2020). Knowledge management and intellectual capital in knowledge-based organisations: a review and theoretical perspectives. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(7), 1719-1754. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2019-0703

Guedes Laimer, C. (2016). Governance of interorganizational relationships: The case of science and technology parks. Cuadernos de Administración (Universidad del Valle), 32(56), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.25100/cdea.v32i56.4278  

Gifford, E., McKelvey, M., & Saemundsson, R. (2021). The evolution of knowledge-intensive innovation ecosystems: Co-evolving entrepreneurial activity and innovation policy in the West Swedish maritime system. Industry and Innovation, 28(5), 651-676. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2020.1856047

Grandclement, A., & Grondeau, A. (2022). From production to consumption-oriented development: New planning strategies in science parks? The case of Sophia-Antipolis. European Urban and Regional Studies, 29(2), 152-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764211037135

Holguín Rengifo, Y. X., Herrera Vargas, J. F., & Valencia-Arias, A. (2023). Proposal for a Comprehensive Tool to Measure Smart Cities under the Triple-Helix Model: Capacities Learning, Research, and Development. Sustainability, 15(18), 13549. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813549

Henriques, I. C., Sobreiro, V. A., & Kimura, H. (2018). Science and technology park: Future challenges. Technology in Society, 53, 144-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.01.009

Ji, C., & Liu, S. (2025). Non-state shareholder governance and corporate innovation efficiency under the background of mixed ownership reform: evidence from China. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 37(5), 524-537. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2023.2290165

King, W. R. (2009). Knowledge management and organizational learning. In Knowledge management and organizational learning (pp. 3-13). Boston, MA: Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0011-1_1

Khanmirzaee, S., Jafari, M., & Akhavan, P. (2022). Analyzing the competitive advantage’s criteria of science and technology parks and incubators using DEMATEL approach. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(3), 2302-2318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00802-0

Li, R., & Tao, Q. (2020). The Impact of Configuration of Ties With Different Types of Actors in an Innovation Network on Technology Newness Based on QCA. International Journal of Information Systems in the Service Sector (IJISSS), 12(1), 75-88. https://doi.org/ 10.4018/IJISSS.2020010106

Leceta, J. M., & Könnölä, T. (2021). EIT Digital: leveraging ecosystems for international entrepreneurial innovation. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 34(4), 454-474. https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2020.1842177

Lecluyse, L., & Knockaert, M. (2020). Disentangling satisfaction of tenants on science parks: A multiple case study in Belgium. Technovation, 98, 102156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102156

Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2007). The economics of university research parks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 23(4), 661–674.  https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grm030

Lam, L., Nguyen, P., Le, N., & Tran, K. (2021). The relation among organizational culture, knowledge management, and innovation capability: Its implication for open innovation. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 7(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7010066

Leite, T. Q., Silva, A. L., Silva, J. R., & Silva, S. E. (2023). A multilevel analysis of the interaction between science parks and external agents: a study in Brazil and Portugal. Journal of the knowledge economy, 14(2), 1790-1829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-021-00867-x

Li, L., Taeihagh, A., & Tan, S. Y. (2022). What factors drive policy transfer in smart city development? Insights from a Delphi study. Sustainable Cities and Society, 84, 104008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104008

Mazhar, S., Sher, A., Abbas, A., Ghafoor, A., & Lin, G. (2022). Empowering Shepreneurs to achieve the sustainable development goals: Exploring the impact of interest‐free start‐up credit, skill development and ICTs use on entrepreneurial drive. Sustainable Development, 30(5), 1235-1251. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2313

Molaei, S., Shakeri, R., & Yaghoubi, N. M. (2018). The effect of personal knowledge management on culture and innovative performance in knowledge-based companies. Management Researches in Iran, 22(4), 129–150. (in Persian). https://doi.org/20.1001.1.2322200.1397.22.4.6.1

Naqshbandi, M. M., & Jasimuddin, S. M. (2018). Knowledge-oriented leadership and open innovation: Role of knowledge management capability in France-based multinationals. International business review, 27(3), 701-713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibusrev.2017.12.001

Nave, E., Torres, P., Querido, A. R., Ferreira, J. J., & Fernandes, G. (2024). Entrepreneurial ecosystems governance: critical perspectives and steps forward. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-024-10172-9

Osorno, R., & Medrano, N. (2020). Open innovation platforms: A conceptual design framework. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 69(2), 438-450. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2020.2973227

Pardo Martínez, C. I., & Cotte Poveda, A. (2021). Science, technology, innovation, theory and evidence: the new institutionality in Colombia. Quality & Quantity, 55(3), 845-876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-020-01032-3

Pemsel, S., Wiewiora, A., Müller, R., Aubry, M., & Brown, K. (2014). A conceptualization of knowledge governance in project-based organizations. International journal of project management, 32(8), 1411-1422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.010

Pellegrini, M. M., Ciampi, F., Marzi, G., & Orlando, B. (2020). The relationship between knowledge management and leadership: mapping the field and providing future research avenues. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24(6), 1445-1492. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2020-0034

Pemsel, S., Müller, R., & Söderlund, J. (2016). Knowledge governance strategies in project-based organizations. Long range planning, 49(6), 648-660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.01.001

Pique, J. M., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Etzkowitz, H. (2018). Triple Helix and the evolution of ecosystems of innovation: the case of Silicon Valley. Triple Helix, 5(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-018-0060-x

Pan, X., & Jiang, L. (2025). Unveiling the Path to Carbon Neutrality: The Role of Institutional Innovation, Knowledge & Technology Innovation, and Voice & Accountability. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2025.3587499

Pinto, H., Laranja, M., & Uyarra, E. (2024). Smart specialization, public authorities, and innovation intermediaries in developing regions. Regional Sustainability, 5(4), 100175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100175

Persaud, A., & Zare, J. (2023). Institutional varieties, governance quality, and firm‐level innovation in emerging economies: Case of India. Growth and Change, 54(1), 234-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12649

Ramezanpour Nargesi, G., Fallah Haghighi, N., & Sharifi, Z. (2022). Factors affecting the success of knowledge-based companies (Case study: Incubators of the Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology and Guilan Science and Technology Park). Innovation Management, 11(3), 91–117. (in Persian). https://doi.org/20.1001.1.23225386.1401.11.3.5.1

Rui, C., Lokshin, B., & Mohnen, P. (2023). Heterogeneity in performance of science and technology parks in China: Is there “club” convergence?. Papers in Regional Science, 102(6), 1145-1168. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12759

Raelin, J. A. (2000). Work-based learning: The new frontier of management development. Prentice Hall. https://doi.org/10.1108/jwl.2001.13.6.260.2

Williams, P., & Sullivan, H. (2011). Lessons in leadership for learning and knowledge management in multi‐organisational settings. International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 7(1), 6-20. https://doi.org/10.5042/ijlps.2011.0089

Ravi, R., & Janodia, M. D. (2025). Science, technology and innovation (STI) in ASEAN member states–Indonesia, Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, Brunei and Myanmar: a comparative study. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-05-2023-0079

Sun, B., & Baker, M. (2021). Multilevel governance framework for low-carbon development in urban China: A case study of Hongqiao Business District, Shanghai. Cities, 119, 103405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103405

Segarra-Ciprés, M., & Bou-Llusar, J. C. (2018). External knowledge search for innovation: the role of firms’ innovation strategy and industry context. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 280-298. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2017-0090

Simao, L., & Franco, M. (2018). External knowledge sources as antecedents of organizational innovation in firm workplaces: a knowledge-based perspective. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 237-256. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2017-0002

Schwella, E. (2014). Knowledge based governance, governance as learning: the leadership implications. International Journal of Leadership in Public Services, 10(2), 84-90. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLPS-05-2014-0004

Solis-Navarrete, J. A., Bucio-Mendoza, S., Ruiz-López, C. F., & Nava-Acevedo, L. I. (2023). Institutional changes in science, technology and innovation policy towards SDGs: evidence from Michoacán. International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 17(4), 447-471. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJISD.2023.133783

Shkabatur, J., Bar-El, R., & Schwartz, D. (2022). Innovation and entrepreneurship for sustainable development: Lessons from Ethiopia. Progress in Planning, 160, 100599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2021.100599

Saha, A., Raut, R., Kumar, M., & Ghoshal, S. (2025). To Explore the Relationship Between Sustainability, Digital Technology, and Sustainable Development Goals. Business Strategy & Development, 8(1), e70076. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.70076

Santos, D. (2022). Building entrepreneurial ecosystems: the case of Coimbra. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 13(1), 73-89. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-02-2020-0028

Tsygankov, S., Syropyatov, V., & Volchik, V. (2021). Institutional Governance of Innovations: Novel Insights of Leadership in Russian Public Procurement. Economies, 9(4), 189. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies9040189

Vicente-Saez, R., Gustafsson, R., & Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2021). Opening up science for a sustainable world: An expansive normative structure of open science in the digital era. Science and Public Policy, 48(6), 799-813. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab049

Van Kerkhoff, L., & Pilbeam, V. (2017). Understanding socio-cultural dimensions of environmental decision-making: A knowledge governance approach. Environmental Science & Policy, 73, 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.03.011

Vajda, B., Drăgan, G., Vajda, L., Gáspár, M. M., & Bagoly, M. L. (2025). The Role of Entrepreneurial Clusters in Advancing Circular Bioeconomy and Innovation: A Case Study from Romania. Sustainability, 17(9), 3787. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17093787

Vicente-Saez, R., Gustafsson, R., & Van den Brande, L. (2020). The dawn of an open exploration era: Emergent principles and practices of open science and innovation of university research teams in a digital world. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 156, 120037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120037

Wang, S., & Zhang, H. (2024). Green entrepreneurship success in the age of generative artificial intelligence: The interplay of technology adoption, knowledge management, and government support. Technology in Society, 79, 102744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102744

Wu, X., Zheng, Y., & Wang, X. (2025). Government–Industry–Academia Collaboration for Sustainable Autonomous Vehicle Development: A Qualitative Case Study in Suzhou, China. Sustainability, 17(12), 5348. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17125348

Yaghoubi, N. M., Mahdibeygi, N., Aramesh, H., & Yaghoubi, E. (2022). Identification of the requirements for creating an intelligent organization in the light of the learning organization and knowledge management. Iranian Journal of Public Administration Studies, 5(4), 95–120. https://doi.org/10.22034/jipas.2023.315159.1290 (In Persian)

Yigitcanlar, T., Kankanamge, N., & Vella, K. (2022). How are smart city concepts and technologies perceived and utilized? A systematic geo-Twitter analysis of smart cities in Australia. In Sustainable smart city transitions (pp. 133-152). Routledge.

Zhu, Y., Tang, R. W., & Xing, K. (2023). Effective coordination and innovation-facilitating role of science parks: The place-based approach with paradoxical outcomes. Australian Journal of Management, 48(1), 171-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962221098134

Zhu, Y., & Cheng, Z. (2025). What drives the development of university science parks in China: from the perspective of evolutionary economic geography. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05839-z

Zhang, Y., Li, J., & Tong, T. W. (2022). Platform governance matters: how platform gatekeeping affects knowledge sharing among complementors. Strategic Management Journal, 43(3), 599-626. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3191

Zhu, K., Zhang, F., & Wu, F. (2023). Creating a state strategic innovation space: The development of the Zhangjiang Science City in Shanghai. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 27(4), 599-621. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2022.2132988

Zhu, Y., Tang, R. W., & Xing, K. (2023). Effective coordination and innovation-facilitating role of science parks: The place-based approach with paradoxical outcomes. Australian Journal of Management, 48(1), 171-195. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962221098134

آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 155
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 99