Teknoparklarda Kurumsal Aracılık ve Oluşan Yapısal Kilitlenme: Derin Teknoloji Girişimlerinde Destekten Bağımlılığa

Abstract

Derin teknoloji girişimleri hedefledikleri pazarlarda başarılı olabilmeleri için kurucularının bilgi birikimi ve öz sermayesinden fazlasına ihtiyaç duymaktadırlar. Finansal teşvikler, laboratuvar olanakları, güvenilirlik sağlama ve yatırımcı ağlarına erişim gibi ihtiyaçlar bunlardan en önemlileridir. Türkiye’de teknoparklar, bu ihtiyaçları gidermeyi hedefleyen başlıca kanallardan biri olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Ancak teknoparkların sağladığı bu destekleyici aracılık rolü, misafir ettikleri teknoloji girişimcilerinin özerkliklerini kaybederek teknoparklara bağımlılık geliştirmelerine sebep olabilmektedir. Bu çalışma, bu bağımlılığın nasıl oluştuğunu incelemektedir. Araştırma verileri, teknoparklarda faaliyet gösteren derin teknoloji girişimlerinin kurucuları ve üst düzey yöneticileriyle gerçekleştirilen 18 yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme ile toplanmıştır. Bu veriler refleksif tematik analiz yoluyla incelenmiştir. Bu incelemede birbiriyle ilişkili üç örüntüye odaklanılmıştır: bağımlılığın oluşumu, teknoparkların aracılık rolünün destekleyici ve kısıtlayıcı işleyişi ve girişimcilerin özerklik-bağımlılık ekseninde verdikleri tepkiler. Analiz sonuçları, girişimlerin teknoparklardan destek alarak erken aşamadaki belirsizlikleri azalttığını göstermektedir. Ancak zaman içinde başka seçenekler geliştirmeden her seferinde teknoparklardan destek almaya devam etmeleri, girişimcilerin teknoparktan çıkış maliyetlerini ve aldıkları altyapı hizmetine olan bağımlılığı artırabilmekte, teknoparka karşı pazarlık gücünü düşürebilmekte ve kurdukları destek ilişkilerini bırakmayı zorlaştırabilmektedir. Girişimciler bu bağımlılıktan tek bir seferde kurtulmak yerine, faaliyetlerini farklı yerleşkelere dağıtmayı, alternatif destek kanalları aramayı ve bazı durumlarda kademeli bir çıkış yapmayı tercih etmektedirler. Makalenin literatüre en önemli katkısı, teknoparkları bir yandan derin teknoloji girişimlerinin gelişimini destekleyen, diğer yandan kritik kaynaklara erişimi yöneten kurumsal aracılar olarak kavramsallaştırması ve bu erişimin zamanla oluşan bir kilitlenmeye nasıl dönüşebildiğini göstermesidir.

Keywords

• Derin teknoloji girişimleri
• kaynak bağımlılığı kuramı
• kurumsal aracılık
• yapısal kilitlenme
• girişimcilik.

Institutional Intermediation and Emergent Structural Lock-in in Technoparks: From Support to Dependence in Deep-Tech Ventures

Abstract

Deep-tech startups need more than the founders’ know-how and financial resources to succeed in their target markets. Financial incentives, laboratory facilities, credibility and access to investor networks rank among their most pressing needs. Technoparks are considered a critical path to meet these requirements in Türkiye. But the facilitating role of technoparks can lead to the technology entrepreneurs they host losing their autonomy and becoming dependent on the parks. This research investigates how this dependence develops. The data for the paper were collected through 18 semi-structured interviews with the founders and senior executives of deep-tech startups based in technoparks. The data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. The analysis focused on three interconnected patterns: the formation of dependency, the facilitating and constraining roles of the technopark as an intermediary and the reactions of entrepreneurs along the autonomy-dependency continuum. The results show that technoparks support startups in reducing the uncertainties in the early stages of their development. However, consistently relying on technoparks without developing alternative channels could increase exit costs, deepen dependence on infrastructure, reduce bargaining power and make it more difficult to dismantle entrenched support networks. Entrepreneurs rarely exit overnight. They spread operations across different locations, look for other forms of support and sometimes plan for a gradual withdrawal. The main contribution of the article is the conceptualization of technoparks as institutional intermediaries that support deep-tech startups and govern access to critical resources, and the demonstration of how such access can lead to an emergent lock-in.

Keywords

• Deep technology ventures
• resource dependence theory
• institutional intermediation
• structural lock-in
• entrepreneurship.

Ethical Statement

The study was approved by the institutional ethics committee (institution name withheld for blind review; Decision No. 25-118, dated November 28, 2025). All interviews were conducted in accordance with the principles of voluntary participation, informed consent, and confidentiality.

References

1. Albahari, A., Barge-Gil, A., Pérez-Canto, S., & Landoni, P. (2023). The effect of science and technology parks on tenant firms: A literature review. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(4), 1489–1531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09949-7
2. Albahari, A., Klofsten, M., & Rubio-Romero, J. C. (2019). Science and technology parks: A study of value creation for park tenants. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44(4), 1256–1272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9661-9
3. Arkalı Olcay, G., & Bulu, M. (2016). Technoparks and technology transfer offices as drivers of an innovation economy: Lessons from Istanbul’s innovation spaces. Journal of Urban Technology, 23(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2015.1090195
4. Armanios, D. E., Eesley, C. E., Li, J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2017). How entrepreneurs leverage institutional intermediaries in emerging economies to acquire public resources. Strategic Management Journal, 38(7), 1373–1390. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2575
5. Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234208
6. 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
7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
8. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

9. Bruneel, J., Ratinho, T., Clarysse, B., & Groen, A. (2012). The evolution of business incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations. Technovation, 32(2), 110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.11.003
10. Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependence theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167–199. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.2.167
11. Doh, J., Rodrigues, S., Saka-Helmhout, A., & Makhija, M. (2017). International business responses to institutional voids. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(3), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-017-0074-z
12. Drees, J. M., & Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. (2013). Synthesizing and extending resource dependence theory: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 39(6), 1666–1698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312471391
13. European Commission. (2026, March 18). Commission recommendation on the definition of innovative enterprises, innovative startups and innovative scaleups (C(2026) 1800 final). https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/4e3cd140-47ed-4de2-be02-af1f344a2990_en
14. Fosfuri, A., & Nagar, J. P. (2026). Timing is key: Navigating venture capital funding for science-based startups. Research Policy, 55(3), Article 105402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2025.105402
15. Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A., & Karnøe, P. (2010). Path dependence or path creation? Journal of Management Studies, 47(4), 760–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00914.x
16. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311
17. Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004). A systematic review of business incubation research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 55–82. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOTT.0000011181.11952.0f
18. Hernández-Chea, R., Mahdad, M., Minh, T. T., & Hjortsø, C. N. (2021). Moving beyond intermediation: How intermediary organizations shape collaboration dynamics in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Technovation, 108, Article 102332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102332
19. Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309343469
20. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
21. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
22. Kılıç, A. S., & Duran, C. (2021). An analysis of similarities and dissimilarities among categories of deep tech entrepreneurship: Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 10(2), 87–109. https://doi.org/10.15659/jeim.10.2.005
23. Kleiner-Schaefer, T., & Schaefer, K. J. (2022). Barriers to university–industry collaboration in an emerging market: Firm-level evidence from Turkey. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 47, 872–905. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09919-z
24. Klerkx, L., & Leeuwis, C. (2009). Establishment and embedding of innovation brokers at different innovation system levels: Insights from the Dutch agricultural sector. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(6), 849–860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2008.10.001
25. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). U.S. science parks: The diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(9), 1323–1356. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(03)00085-7
26. Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
27. Mian, S., Lamine, W., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Technology business incubation: An overview of the state of knowledge. Technovation, 50–51, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.005
28. Mrkajic, B. (2017). Business incubation models and institutionally void environments. Technovation, 68, 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.09.001
29. Myers, A., Albats, E., Kozlova, M., & Yeomans, J. (2026). Initial opportunity selection for deep technologies: Deep Technology Opportunity Navigator (DTON). Technovation, 151, Article 103464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2025.103464
30. OECD. (2025). OECD Economic Surveys: Türkiye 2025. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/d01c660f-en Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145– 179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002
31. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
32. Phan, P. H., Siegel, D. S., & Wright, M. (2005). Science parks and incubators: Observations, synthesis and future research. Journal of Business Venturing, 20(2), 165–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.12.001
33. Republic of Türkiye. (2001). Teknoloji Geliştirme Bölgeleri Kanunu [Technology Development Zones Law] (Law No. 4691). Resmî Gazete, 24454, 6 July 2001.
34. Romme, A. G. L., Bell, J., & Frericks, G. (2023). Designing a deep-tech venture builder to address grand challenges and overcome the valley of death. Journal of Organization Design, 12, 217–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41469-023-00144-y
35. Rothaermel, F. T., & Thursby, M. (2005). Incubator firm failure or graduation? The role of university linkages. Research Policy, 34(7), 1076–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.012
36. Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167
37. Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484
38. Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: Opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34(4), 689–709. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.34.4.zok689
39. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
40. Ünlü, H., Temel, S., & Miller, K. (2023). Understanding the drivers of patent performance of university science parks in Turkey. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 48(3), 842–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09929-x
41. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393808
42. van Rijnsoever, F. J. (2022). Intermediaries for the greater good: How entrepreneurial support organizations can embed constrained sustainable development startups in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Research Policy, 51(2), Article 104438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104438
43. van Weele, M., van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Nauta, F. (2017). You can't always get what you want: How entrepreneur's perceived resource needs affect the incubator's assertiveness. Technovation, 59, 18–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.08.004
44. Villani, E., Rasmussen, E., & Grimaldi, R. (2017). How intermediary organizations facilitate university–industry technology transfer: A proximity approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.004