Parques tecnológicos do Brasil: uma análise dos determinantes da avaliação de desempenho
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5585/iji.v10i1.19456Palavras-chave:
Parques tecnológicos, Políticas de inovação, Desenvolvimento econômico, Avaliação de desempenho.Resumo
Objetivo do estudo: O objetivo desse estudo foi desenvolver um framework sistêmico para compreender a natureza e dinâmica dos parques tecnológicos no Brasil e analisar os principais determinantes para avaliação de desempenho dos mesmos no processo de povoamento.
Relevância/Originalidade: Esse trabalho é inédito pela análise da disseminação dos parques tecnológicos no Brasil, ao longo de sua história, e pela aplicação da análise multivariada de dados para análise do desempenho no povoamento, medido pelo número de empresas residentes.
Metodologia: Foi realizado um survey junto aos parques tecnológicos, utilizando instrumentos de coleta de dados, desenvolvidos a partir dos fatores de sucesso da literatura e validados pela realização de múltiplos estudos de caso. Após a análise descritiva dos dados, foi utilizado o método de análise multivariada dos dados, a fim de verificar os determinantes que impactam no povoamento dos parques.
Principais resultados: A Análise de Correspondência Simples demonstrou que os dois determinantes que impactam no povoamento dos parques tecnológicos no Brasil são o financiamento e a idade do parque, confirmado a tese de que os parques tecnológicos são empreendimentos de longo prazo.
Contribuição metodológica: Este estudo caracteriza-se como uma combinação qualitativa e quantitativa de métodos de pesquisa, definida como exploratória combinada, realizada em duas fases. A abordagem qualitativa é realizada primeiramente, com o objetivo de explorar o tema da pesquisa a fim de fornecer subsídios para a fase quantitativa.
Contribuição social: Os resultados demonstram a importância dos parques tecnológicos no Brasil e a necessidade de manutenção das políticas públicas a longo prazo, a fim de aumentar o tamanho dos parques, em termos de concentração de novas empresas de base tecnológica, e atração de empresas âncoras, gerando emprego e renda qualificados.
Downloads
Referências
Albahari, A., Barge-Gil, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Modrego, A. (2018). The influence of science and technology park characteristics on firms’ innovation results. Papers in Regional Science, 97(2), pp. 253-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12253
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M., & Newton, R. (2002). Quantitative and qualitative research in the built environment: application of 'mixed' research approach. Study Work, 1, pp. 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/00438020210415488
ANGLE Technology. (2003). Evaluation of the past & future economic contribution of the UK Science Park Movement. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-09712-x
Associação Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Empreendimentos Inovadores (Anprotec) & Agência Brasileira de Desenvolvimento Industrial (ABDI). (2008). Parques Tecnológicos no Brasil – Estudo, Análise e Proposições. XVIII Seminário Nacional de Parques Tecnológicos e Incubadoras de Empresas. Brasília: Anprotec. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from http://www.anprotec.org.br/ArquivosDin/estudo-parques_pdf_16.pdf
Associação Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Empreendimentos Inovadores (Anprotec). (2016). Estudo de impacto econômico: segmento de incubadoras de empresas do Brasil. Brasília: Anprotec. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from http://www.anprotec.org.br/Relata/18072016%20Estudo_ANPROTEC_v6.pdf
Associação Nacional de Entidades Promotoras de Empreendimentos Inovadores (Anprotec). (2019). Mapeamento dos mecanismos de geração de Empreendimentos Inovadores no Brasil. Brasília: Anprotec. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from https://informativo.anprotec.org.br/mapeamento-dos-mecanismos-de-geracao-de-empreendimentos-inovadores
Association of University Research Parks (AURP) & Battelle Technology Partnership Practice (BTPP). (2013). Driving regional innovation and growth: the 2012 survey of North America University Research Parks. Retrieved March 30, 2020, from https://aurp.memberclicks.net/assets/documents/aurp_batelllestudy2012-final.pdf
Association of University Research Parks (AURP). (2018). Communities of Innovation a State of the Practice. Retrieved 30 de March de 2020, from https://www.aurp.net/assets/publications/2018_AURP_Benchmarking-FINAL2_rev.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-09-2017-0086
Bai, C., & Sarkis, J. (2013). A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management critical success factors. International Journal of Production Economics, 146(1), pp. 281-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.07.011
Bakouros, Y. L., Mardas, D., & Varsakelis, N. (2002). Science park, a high tech fantasy?: an analysis of the science parks of Greece. Technovation, 22, 123–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(00)00087-0
Bellavista, J., & Sanz, L. (2009). Science and technology parks: habitats of innovation: introduction to special section. Science and Public Policy, 36(7), 499-510. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234209X465543
Bellgardt, F., Gohlke, J., Haase, H., Parzonka, R., & Schicketanz, J. (2014). Triple helix and residential development in a science and technology park: the role of intermediaries. Triple Helix, 1(10), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-014-0010-1
Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the world: the making of 21st century industrial complexes (1 ed.). London: Routledge. Retrieved April 01, 2020, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496180. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315832203
Chiochetta, J. C. (2010). Proposta de um modelo de governança para Parques Tecnológicos. 208 f. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia de Produção) –. Porto Alegre: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Produção, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Retrieved April 01, 2020, from https://www.lume.ufrgs.br/bitstream/handle/10183/28794/000770257.pdf?sequence=1
Colombo, M. G., & Marco Delmastro. (2002). How effective are technology incubators?: evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), pp. 1103-1122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00178-0
Creswell, J. W. (2010). Métodos qualitativo e quantitativo (3 ed.). (M. Lopes, Trad.) Porto Alegre: Artmed.
Dabrowska, J. (2011). Measuring the success of science parks: performance monitoring and evaluation. XXVIII IASP World Conference on Science and Technology Parks, pp. 1-23. Retrieved May 14, 2019, from http://repositorio.colciencias.gov.co/handle/11146/265
Dabrowska, J., & Faria, A. F. (Jun de 2020). Performance measures to assess the success of contemporary science parks. Triple Helix, pp. 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10006
Etzkowitz, H. (2003a). Innovation in innovation: the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293-337. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F05390184030423002
Etzkowitz, H. (2003b). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32, 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘‘Mode 2’’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
Etzkowitz, H., & Zhou, C. (2018). Innovation incommensurability and the science park. R&D Management, 48(1), pp. 73-87. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12266
Etzkowitz, H., de Mello, J. M., & Almeida, M. (2005). Towards “meta-innovation” in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a triple helix. Research Policy, 34(4), pp. 411-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.01.011
European Commission. (2007). Research intensive clusters regional and science parks. Belgium: EC 2008. Retrieved April 01, 2020, from https://ec.europa.eu/research/regions/pdf/publications/sc_park.pdf
European Commission. (2014). Setting up, managing and evaluating EU science and technology parks — An advice and guidance report on good practice. Luxemburgo: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2776/73401
Faria, A. F., Ribeiro, J. d., Amaral, M. G., & Sedyama, J. A. (2019). Success factors and boundary conditions for technology parks in the light of the triple helix model. Journal of Business and Economics, 10(1), 50-67. https://doi.org/10.15341/jbe(2155-7950)/01.10.2019/005
Faria, A. F., Rodrigues, M., & Pinheiro, W. (2015). Estudo, análise e proposições sobre as incubadoras de empresas de Minas Gerais. Viçosa: CenTev. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.ntg.ufv.br/wp-content/uploads/Estudo-dos-Ambientes-de-Inova%C3%A7%C3%A3o-de-MG.pdf
Faria, A. F., Sediyama, J. A., & Leonel, D. S. (2017a). Censo mineiro de startups e demais empresas de base tecnológica. Viçosa: NTG / UFV. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://repos.simi.org.br/Relat%C3%B3rio%20Censo%20-%2001-12-2017.pdf
Faria, A. F., Suzuki, J. A., Rodrigues, M. F., & Moura, R. (2017b). Estudo dos ambientes de inovação de Minas Gerais: empresas, incubadoras de empresas e parques tecnológicos. NTG, Viçosa. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.ntg.ufv.br/wp-content/uploads/Estudo-dos-Ambientes-de-Inova%C3%A7%C3%A3o-de-MG.pdf
Ferguson, R., & Olofsson, C. (2004). Science parks and the development of NTBFs — location, survival and growth. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000011178.44095.cd
Fukugawa, N. (2006). Science parks in Japan and their value-added. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24, 381– 400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2005.07.005
Greenacre, M. J. (1993). Theory and applicatiopns of correspondence analysis. London: Academic Press.
Guo, Y., & Verdini, G. (2015). The role of geographical proximity in the establishment and development of science parks –evidence from Nanjing, China. Asian Geographer, 2, pp. 117-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10225706.2015.1079726
Habib, F. (2012). Correspondence analysis: a new method for analyzing qualitative data in architecture. Em Digital Fabrication (pp. 517-538). Birkhäuser: Basel.
Hansson, F., Husted, K., & Vestergaard, J. (2005). Second generation science parks: from structural holes jockeys to social capital catalysts of the knowledge society. Technovation, 25, 1039–1049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.03.003
Helmers, C. (2011). "What makes science parks successful". Retrieved February 02, 2020, from https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=2011050709095848
Hobbs, K. G., Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2017). Science and technology parks: an annotated and analytical literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, pp. 957-976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9522-3
Hoffman, D. L., & Franke, G. (1986). Correspondence Analysis: graphical representation of categorical data in marketing research. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(3), pp. 213-227. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151480
Jia, N., Gao, J., & Cao, S. (2015). Tsinghua Science Park - source of chinese entrepreneurial innovation. Harvard Business Review - Study Case. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from https://store.hbr.org/product/tsinghua-science-park-source-of-chinese-entrepreneurial-innovation/tu0078?sku=TU0078-PDF-ENG. https://doi.org/10.1109/TST.20136449406
Jobson, J. D. (1996). Applied multivariate data analysis. v. I e II. New York: Springer Verlag.
Johnson, W. H. (2008). Roles, resources and benefits of intermediate organizations supportingtriple helix collaborative R&D: The case of Precarn. Technovation, 28, 495–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.02.007
Jongwanich, J., Kohpaiboon, A., & Yang, C.-H. (2014). Science park, triple helix, and regional innovative capacity: province-level evidence from China. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 19(2), pp. 333-352. https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2014.880285
Júnior, A. C., Porto, G. S., Pacífico, O., & Júnior, A. P. (2015). Project stakeholder management: a case study of a brazilian science park. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 10(2), pp. 39-49. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242015000200004
Kennedy, R., Riquier, C., & Byron, S. (1996). Practical applications of correspondence analysis to categorical data in market research. Journal of Targeting Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 5, pp. 56-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/2348490
Kharabsheh, R. (2012). Critical sucess factors of technology parks in Australia. Internacional Journal of Economic and Finance, 4(7), pp. 57-66. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v4n7p57
Kharabsheh, R., Magableh, I. K., & Arabiyat, T. S. (2011). Obstacles of sucess of technology parks: the case of Jordan. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 3(6). https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v3n6p219
Kroonemberg, P. M., & Lombardo, R. (1999). Nonsymmetric correspondence analysis: A tool for analysing contingency tables with a dependence structure. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34(3), pp. 367-396. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3403_4
Lahorgue, M. A. (2004). Pólos, parques e incubadoras: instrumentos de desenvolvimento do século XXI. Brasília: Anprotec. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from https://anprotec.org.br/site/publicacoes/polos-parques-e-incubadoras-instrumentos-de-desenvolvimento-do-seculo-xxi-2004/
Lamperti, F., Mavilia, R., & Castellini, S. (2017). The role of Science Parks: a puzzle of growth, innovation and R&D investments. The Journal of Technology Transfer, pp. 158-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9455-2
Lecluyse, L., Knockaert, M., & Spithoven, A. (2019). The contribution of science parks: a literature review and future research agenda. The Journal of Technology Transfer, pp. 559-595. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-09712-x
Leidecker, J. K., & Bruno, A. (1984). Identifying and using critical success factors. Long Range Planning, 17(1), pp. 23-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(84)90163-8
Leyden, D. P., Link, A. N., & Siegel, D. S. (2008). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the decision to locate on a university research park. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 55(1), pp. 23-28. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2007.912810
Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The triple helix: an evolutionary model of innovations. Research Policy, 29, 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00063-3
Liberati, D., Marinucci, M., & Tanzi, G. M. (2016). Science and technology parks in Italy: main features and analysis of their effects on the firms hosted. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, pp. 694-729. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-015-9397-8
Lindelöf, P., & Löfsten, H. (2004). Proximity as a resource base for competitive advantage: university–industry links for technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, pp. 311-326. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000034125.29979.ae
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. (2003b). U .S. science parks: the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21, 1323–1356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00085-7
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. (2005). Opening the ivory tower’s door: An analysis of the determinants of the formation of U.S. university spin-off companies. Research Policy, 34, 1106–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.015
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. (2006). U.S. university research parks. Journal of Productivity, 25, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11123-006-7126-x
Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003a). The growth of Research Triangle Park. Small Business Economics volume, 20, pp. 167-175. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022216116063
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2001). Science parks in Sweden – industrial renewal and development? R&D Management, 31(3), pp. 309-322. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00219
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00153-6
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2003). Determinants for an entrepreneurial milieu: Science Parks and. Technovation, 23(1), pp. 51-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(01)00086-4
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2005). R&D networks and product innovation patterns—academic and non-academic new technology-based firms on science parks. Technovation, 25(9), pp. 1025-1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.02.007
Martins, R. A. (2018). Abordagens quantitativa e qualitativa. Em P. A. Cauchick-Miguel, Metodologia de pesquisa em engenharia de produção e gestão de operações (p. 244). Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier.
Metcalfe, A. S. (2010). Examining the trilateral networks of the Triple Helix: intermediating organizations and academy-industry-government relations. Critical Sociology, 36(4), 503-519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920510365920
Mingoti, S. A. (2005). Analise de dados através de métodos de estatística multivariada: uma abordagem aplicada. Belo Horizonte: UFMG.
Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI) & Centro de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (CDT/UNB). (2014). Estudo de Projetos de Alta Complexidade: Indicadores de Parques Tecnológicos. Brasília: Brasil. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.anprotec.org.br/Relata/PNI_FINAL_web.pdf
Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI). (2015a). Parques tecnológicos e incubadoras para o desenvolvimento do Brasil: estudo de práticas de parques tecnológicos e incubadoras de empresas. Brasília: Brasil. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.anprotec.org.br/Relata/EstudoMelhoresPraticasParquesIncubadoras.pdf
Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI). (2015b). Parques tecnológicos e incubadoras para o desenvolvimento do Brasil: propostas de políticas públicas para parques tecnológicos e incubadoras de empresas. Brasília: Brasil. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://ppi.certi.org.br/4-PropostasPoliticasPublicasParquesIncubadoras.pdf
Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação (MCTI). (2016). Estratégia nacional de ciência, tecnologia e inovação 2016-2022: : Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação para o Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social. Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia e Inovação. Brasília: Brasil. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.finep.gov.br/images/a-finep/Politica/16_03_2018_Estrategia_Nacional_de_Ciencia_Tecnologia_e_Inovacao_2016_2022.pdf
Ministério de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovações e Comunicações (MCTIC) & Centro de Apoio ao Desenvolvimento Tecnológico (CDT/UNB). (2019). Indicadores de Parques Tecnológicos: Estudo de Projetos de Alta Complexidade - Fase 2. Brasília: Brasil. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.mctic.gov.br/mctic/export/sites/institucional/arquivos/MCTIC-UnB-ParquesTecnologicos-Portugues-final.pdf
National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practice: Report of a Symposium. Washington: National Academies Press. Retrieved February 15, 2016, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12546/understanding-research-science-and-technology-parks-global-best-practice-report
Parry, M. (Ed.). (2006). The planning, development and operation of science parks (2 ed.). Cambridge: UK Science Park Association.
Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 165-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.001
Ribeiro, J. A., Ladeira, M. B., & Faria, A. F. (2018). Modelo de referência para a gestão estratégica do desempenho de parques tecnológicos. Revista Eletrônica de Administração REAd, 24(3), 183-216. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-2311.232.84262
Ribeiro, J. d., Faria, A. F., Freitas, K. A., & Ladeira, M. B. (2019). A balanced scorecard model for science parks. 18(4), pp. 118-135. https://doi.org/10.21714/1984-6975FACES2019V18N4ART7232
Ribeiro, J., Higuchi, A., Bronzo, M., Veiga, R., & Faria, A. F. (2016). A Framework for the Strategic Management of Science & Technology Parks. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 11(4), 80-90. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242016000400011
Sale, J. E., Lohfeld, L. H., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and Quantity, 36, 43-53. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014301607592
Schmidt, S., & Balestrin, A. (2015). Brazilian incubators and science parks’ resources and R&D collaboration. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 10(3), 32-43. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242015000300004
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003a). Science Parks and the performance of new technology-based firms: a review of recent U.K. evidence and an agenda for future Research. Small Business Economics, 20, 177–184. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022268100133
Siegel, D. S., Westhead, P., & Wright, M. (2003b). Assessing the impact of university science parks on research productivity: exploratory firm-level evidence from the United Kingdom. 21, pp. 1357–1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-7187(03)00086-9
Squicciarini, M. (2008). Science parks’ tenants versus out-of-park firms: who innovates more? A duration model. pp. 45-71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-007-9037-z
Tsamis, A. (2009). Science and technology parks in the less favoured regions of Europe: an evaluation of their performance and the parameters of success. 458 f. Dissertation Publishing. The London School of Economics and Political Science, London. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://etheses.lse.ac.uk/2543/1/U615492.pdf
Vedovello, C. (1997). Science parks and university-industry interaction: geographical proximity between the agents as a driving force. Technovation, 17(9), 491-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(97)00027-8
Vedovello, C. A., Judice, V. M., & Maculan, A.-M. D. (2006). Revisão crítica às abordagens a parques tecnológicos: alternativas interpretativas às experiências brasileiras recentes. 3(2), 103-118. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from http://www.revistas.usp.br/rai/article/view/79066 https://doi.org/10.5773/rai.v3i2.58
Vilà, P. C., & Pagès, J. L. (2008). Science and technology parks: creating new environments favourable to innovation. Strategies for innovation - paradigmes(0), 141-149. Retrieved from https://www.raco.cat/index.php/Paradigmes/article/viewFile/226082/307655
Wasim, M. U. (2014). Factors for science park planning. World Technopolis Review, 3, 97-108. 10.7 https://doi.org/165/wtr2014.3.2.97
Westhead, P. (1995). New owner-managed businesses in rural and urban areas in Great Britain: a matched pairs comparison. Regional Studies, 29(4), pp. 367-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409512331349033
Westhead, P., & Cowling , M. (1995). Employment change in independent owner-managed high-technology firms in Great Britain. Small Business Economics, 7, pp. 111-140. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01108686
Westhead, P., & Storey, D. (1997). Financial constraints on the growth of high technology small firms in the United Kingdom. Applied Financial Economics, 7(2), pp. 197-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/096031097333763
Westhead, P., Storey, D., & Cowling, M. (1995). An exploratory analysis of the factors associated with the survival of independent high-technology firms in Great Britain. In F. Chittenden, M. Robertson, & I. Marshall, Small firms: partnerships for growth. London: Paul Chapman. Retrieved February 02, 2020, from https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA17151204&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=02662426&p=AONE&sw=w
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2022 International Journal of Innovation – IJI
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
