Pub Date : 2022-04-04DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10028
E. Carayannis, D. J. Campbell
Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems aim to optimize the design and operation of modern, democratic societies and economies in a smart, sustainable, inclusive, resilient and efficacious manner via the cyber-physical ecosystems that align with Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0 precepts. In this context, the Quintuple Innovation Helix Framework (which is part of the Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helix or Q2IH) represents the most comprehensive, meaningful and valuable construct and modality as it encompasses the five key core dimensions of modern, sustainable and democratic knowledge economies and societies. These are the Environment, the Civil Society as well as the Government, University and Industry dimensions. We strongly feel that it is appropriate and even critical, given current events in Europe that starkly highlight the conflict and struggle between democracies and autocracies, to enable, facilitate and even accelerate the further development of an Emerging Unified Theory of Helical Architectures (EUTOHA). The objective would be to bring clarity, coherence and consistency to the process of leveraging the helical architectures to advance and enhance the design of solutions for the digital transformation of modern knowledge economies and societies towards more democratic and sustainable (green) ones.
{"title":"Towards an Emerging Unified Theory of Helix Architectures (EUTOHA): Focus on the Quintuple Innovation Helix Framework as the Integrative Device","authors":"E. Carayannis, D. J. Campbell","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10028","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems aim to optimize the design and operation of modern, democratic societies and economies in a smart, sustainable, inclusive, resilient and efficacious manner via the cyber-physical ecosystems that align with Industry 5.0 and Society 5.0 precepts. In this context, the Quintuple Innovation Helix Framework (which is part of the Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helix or Q2IH) represents the most comprehensive, meaningful and valuable construct and modality as it encompasses the five key core dimensions of modern, sustainable and democratic knowledge economies and societies. These are the Environment, the Civil Society as well as the Government, University and Industry dimensions. We strongly feel that it is appropriate and even critical, given current events in Europe that starkly highlight the conflict and struggle between democracies and autocracies, to enable, facilitate and even accelerate the further development of an Emerging Unified Theory of Helical Architectures (EUTOHA). The objective would be to bring clarity, coherence and consistency to the process of leveraging the helical architectures to advance and enhance the design of solutions for the digital transformation of modern knowledge economies and societies towards more democratic and sustainable (green) ones.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46635218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-17DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10027
Lan Xue, Yuchen Gao
By decomposing and analyzing the quadruple helix model and N-tuple helices into interacting triple helices, Leydesdorff and Lawton Smith’s (2022) research promises to open further the black box inside the higher-order helices, and provides a theoretical basis and guidance for the subsequent governance on the innovation in the higher-order helices model. In this commentary, we have argued that a framework based on agile governance can be applied to the governance of this higher-order helices model with interactions among multiple triple helices. A set of flexible and adaptive actions or methods are necessary to make the governance on the higher-order helices model to be more agile to keep pace with the rapid changes of society.
{"title":"From Modeling the Interactions among Institutions to Modeling the Evolution of an Ecosystem: A Reflection on the Triple Helix Model and Beyond","authors":"Lan Xue, Yuchen Gao","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10027","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000By decomposing and analyzing the quadruple helix model and N-tuple helices into interacting triple helices, Leydesdorff and Lawton Smith’s (2022) research promises to open further the black box inside the higher-order helices, and provides a theoretical basis and guidance for the subsequent governance on the innovation in the higher-order helices model. In this commentary, we have argued that a framework based on agile governance can be applied to the governance of this higher-order helices model with interactions among multiple triple helices. A set of flexible and adaptive actions or methods are necessary to make the governance on the higher-order helices model to be more agile to keep pace with the rapid changes of society.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41282557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-04DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10026
H. Park, P. Stek
Quadruple collaboration has risen rapidly in place of the traditional triple helix model of institutional collaboration between universities, governments, and companies. Loet Leydesdorff and Helen Lawton Smith (2022) approach this challenge by aiming to resolve the issue of evaluating and analyzing various quadruple and n-tuple helices. This article seeks to recognize the increasing complexity of new and developing issues in quadruple and n-tuple helices as a response to their research. Higher order helices raise a number of important scientific difficulties, including conceptual and practical issues. The goal of this contribution is to highlight some of the major challenges involved with researching multiple helixes in terms of knowledge innovation, as well as to offer some alternative areas for future research on n-tuple helices measurement.
{"title":"Measuring Helix Interactions in the Context of Economic Development and Public Policies: From Triple to Quadruple and N-Tuple Helix vs. N-Tuple and Quadruple Helix to Triads","authors":"H. Park, P. Stek","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10026","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Quadruple collaboration has risen rapidly in place of the traditional triple helix model of institutional collaboration between universities, governments, and companies. Loet Leydesdorff and Helen Lawton Smith (2022) approach this challenge by aiming to resolve the issue of evaluating and analyzing various quadruple and n-tuple helices. This article seeks to recognize the increasing complexity of new and developing issues in quadruple and n-tuple helices as a response to their research. Higher order helices raise a number of important scientific difficulties, including conceptual and practical issues. The goal of this contribution is to highlight some of the major challenges involved with researching multiple helixes in terms of knowledge innovation, as well as to offer some alternative areas for future research on n-tuple helices measurement.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44965596","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-04DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10022
Loet Leydesdorff, Helen Lawton Smith
Carayannis and Campbell (2009; 2010) have argued for using quadruple and quintuple helices as models encompassing and generalizing triple-helix dynamics. In the meantime, quadruple and quintuple helices have been adopted by the European Committee for the Regions and the European Commission as metaphors for further strategy development such as in EU-programs in Smart Specialization, Plan S, Open Innovation 2.0, etc. Here we argue that the transition from a double helix to a triple helix can change the dynamic from a trajectory to a regime. However, next-order transitions (e.g., to quadruple, quintuple, or n-tuple helices) can be decomposed and recombined into interacting Triple Helices. For example, in the case of four helices A, B, C, and D, one can distinguish ABC, ABD, ACD, and BCD; each triplet can generate synergy. The triple-helix synergy indicator can thus be elaborated for more than three dimensions. However, whether innovation systems are national, regional, sectorial, triple-helix, quadruple-helix, etc., can inform policies with evidence if one proceeds to measurement. A variety of perspectives can be used to interpret the data. Software for testing perspectives will be introduced.
Carayannis and Campbell (2009;2010)主张使用四螺旋和五螺旋作为包含和推广三螺旋动力学的模型。与此同时，欧洲地区委员会和欧盟委员会采用了四螺旋和五螺旋作为进一步战略发展的隐喻，如欧盟的智能专业化、S计划、开放式创新2.0等计划。我们认为，从双螺旋结构到三螺旋结构的转变可以改变动力学从轨迹到制度。然而，下一阶转换(例如，四元组、五元组或n元组螺旋)可以被分解并重组为相互作用的三重螺旋。例如，在四个螺旋A、B、C和D的情况下，可以区分ABC、ABD、ACD和BCD;每个三元组都能产生协同效应。因此，三螺旋协同指标可以在三个以上的维度上加以阐述。然而，创新系统是国家的、区域的、部门的、三螺旋的还是四螺旋的等等，如果进行测量，就可以为政策提供证据。可以使用多种视角来解释数据。将介绍用于测试透视图的软件。
{"title":"Triple, Quadruple, and Higher-Order Helices: Historical Phenomena and (Neo-)Evolutionary Models","authors":"Loet Leydesdorff, Helen Lawton Smith","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10022","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Carayannis and Campbell (2009; 2010) have argued for using quadruple and quintuple helices as models encompassing and generalizing triple-helix dynamics. In the meantime, quadruple and quintuple helices have been adopted by the European Committee for the Regions and the European Commission as metaphors for further strategy development such as in EU-programs in Smart Specialization, Plan S, Open Innovation 2.0, etc. Here we argue that the transition from a double helix to a triple helix can change the dynamic from a trajectory to a regime. However, next-order transitions (e.g., to quadruple, quintuple, or n-tuple helices) can be decomposed and recombined into interacting Triple Helices. For example, in the case of four helices A, B, C, and D, one can distinguish ABC, ABD, ACD, and BCD; each triplet can generate synergy. The triple-helix synergy indicator can thus be elaborated for more than three dimensions. However, whether innovation systems are national, regional, sectorial, triple-helix, quadruple-helix, etc., can inform policies with evidence if one proceeds to measurement. A variety of perspectives can be used to interpret the data. Software for testing perspectives will be introduced.</p>","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138531396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-25DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10025
Małgorzata Runiewicz-Wardyn
Confronted with new global competitive environment, rising R&D costs, growing integration of different technologies, shorter life cycles, and increased pace of innovation, high-tech companies increasingly collaborate with external partners. Innovation networks became unconditional driver of technological dynamics and growth of high-tech industries. The article aims to explore the role of proximity in innovation networks formation in the two high-tech industries – biotechnology and aviation. Both industries are characterized by different stages of technological maturity, different product life-cycles and development periods, yet both equally depend on highly specialized human capital and collaborative innovation. The article addresses the following research questions: What is the role of proximity – geographical, cognitive, institutional, organizational, social and cultural – in facilitating innovation networks formation in the above mentioned high-tech industries? What type of proximities and the related network externalities assist these industries along their life-cycles? What is the relationship between technology dynamics and innovation networks formation?
{"title":"The Role of Proximity in Technology Dynamics of High-Tech Industries: the Case of Biotechnology and Aviation Industries","authors":"Małgorzata Runiewicz-Wardyn","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10025","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Confronted with new global competitive environment, rising R&D costs, growing integration of different technologies, shorter life cycles, and increased pace of innovation, high-tech companies increasingly collaborate with external partners. Innovation networks became unconditional driver of technological dynamics and growth of high-tech industries. The article aims to explore the role of proximity in innovation networks formation in the two high-tech industries – biotechnology and aviation. Both industries are characterized by different stages of technological maturity, different product life-cycles and development periods, yet both equally depend on highly specialized human capital and collaborative innovation. The article addresses the following research questions: What is the role of proximity – geographical, cognitive, institutional, organizational, social and cultural – in facilitating innovation networks formation in the above mentioned high-tech industries? What type of proximities and the related network externalities assist these industries along their life-cycles? What is the relationship between technology dynamics and innovation networks formation?","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2022-01-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44370385","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-17DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10024
Mandy Lalrindiki, Bill O’Gorman
While most innovation collaboration projects consist of partners who are located at close proximity, recent literature has explored the development of innovation collaboration in the context of non-spatial proximity. Using a longitudinal mixed methods design, this article explores the inter-regional collaboration of triple helix partners from four non-contiguous European regions (Bucharest-Ilfov, Romania; Central Hungary, Hungary; Castilla-La Mancha, Spain; and South East, Ireland) which worked together to develop an inter-regional innovation system. The results from the study identified three non-spatial forms of proximity (social, cognitive and organisational) that were key determinants for developing the successful inter- regional innovation collaboration studied in this research. Based on the findings derived from this research, an inter-regional innovation system framework was developed to facilitate collaboration between stakeholders based in non-contiguous regions without them having to depend on geographical proximity. The major contributions of this research to theory and practice are the development of a novel framework for inter-regional innovation systems (iRIS) which can be applied by stakeholders in regions that want to collaborate from a distance. Furthermore, the research suggests that the substitution mechanism of geographical proximity consists of not just one non-spatial form, but it consists of the three non-spatial forms identified in this research.
{"title":"The Role of Proximity in Developing an Inter-Regional Innovation System","authors":"Mandy Lalrindiki, Bill O’Gorman","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10024","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000While most innovation collaboration projects consist of partners who are located at close proximity, recent literature has explored the development of innovation collaboration in the context of non-spatial proximity. Using a longitudinal mixed methods design, this article explores the inter-regional collaboration of triple helix partners from four non-contiguous European regions (Bucharest-Ilfov, Romania; Central Hungary, Hungary; Castilla-La Mancha, Spain; and South East, Ireland) which worked together to develop an inter-regional innovation system. The results from the study identified three non-spatial forms of proximity (social, cognitive and organisational) that were key determinants for developing the successful inter- regional innovation collaboration studied in this research. Based on the findings derived from this research, an inter-regional innovation system framework was developed to facilitate collaboration between stakeholders based in non-contiguous regions without them having to depend on geographical proximity. The major contributions of this research to theory and practice are the development of a novel framework for inter-regional innovation systems (iRIS) which can be applied by stakeholders in regions that want to collaborate from a distance. Furthermore, the research suggests that the substitution mechanism of geographical proximity consists of not just one non-spatial form, but it consists of the three non-spatial forms identified in this research.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47841720","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-17DOI: 10.1163/21971927-12340005
E. Albats
Successful collaboration between government, industry and academia is an acknowledged source for innovation, for regional, national, and global economic growth as well as for social development (Miller et al., 2016; Perkmann & Walsh, 2007; Urbano & Guerrero, 2013). The Triple Helix Model introduced back in the 1990s (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995) provides a framework which not only visually grasps the phenomenon of University-Industry-Government relations but also opens avenues for further research on the phenomenon. Nowadays, celebrating nearly three decades of the Triple Helix model, this special issue looks at where we currently are in studying Triple Helix relations, where the research discourse is moving, and what are the futures for both the phenomenon and the concept. The Bayh-Dole Act introduced in the USA in 1980 allowed American universities to own and commercialise the results of federally funded research. The Act was followed by similar initiatives in Europe and globally, which further facilitated university-industry-government relations (Mowery & Sampat, 2004; Sampat, 2006). The decade of the 1980s, thus, being kicked-off with strong
政府、工业界和学术界之间的成功合作是创新、区域、国家和全球经济增长以及社会发展的公认来源（Miller et al.，2016；Perkman&Walsh，2007；Urbano&Guerrero，2013）。早在20世纪90年代引入的三重螺旋模型（Etzkowitz&Leydesdorff，1995）提供了一个框架，不仅直观地掌握了大学与行业政府关系的现象，而且为进一步研究这一现象开辟了途径。如今，在庆祝三重螺旋模型近三十年的今天，本期特刊着眼于我们目前在研究三重螺旋关系方面的进展，研究话语的进展，以及这一现象和概念的未来。1980年美国出台的《贝赫·多尔法案》允许美国大学拥有联邦资助的研究成果并将其商业化。该法案之后，欧洲和全球也采取了类似的举措，进一步促进了大学与行业的政府关系（Mowery&Sampat，2004年；Sampat（2006年）。因此，20世纪80年代的十年以强劲的
{"title":"Triple Helix Futures","authors":"E. Albats","doi":"10.1163/21971927-12340005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-12340005","url":null,"abstract":"Successful collaboration between government, industry and academia is an acknowledged source for innovation, for regional, national, and global economic growth as well as for social development (Miller et al., 2016; Perkmann & Walsh, 2007; Urbano & Guerrero, 2013). The Triple Helix Model introduced back in the 1990s (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995) provides a framework which not only visually grasps the phenomenon of University-Industry-Government relations but also opens avenues for further research on the phenomenon. Nowadays, celebrating nearly three decades of the Triple Helix model, this special issue looks at where we currently are in studying Triple Helix relations, where the research discourse is moving, and what are the futures for both the phenomenon and the concept. The Bayh-Dole Act introduced in the USA in 1980 allowed American universities to own and commercialise the results of federally funded research. The Act was followed by similar initiatives in Europe and globally, which further facilitated university-industry-government relations (Mowery & Sampat, 2004; Sampat, 2006). The decade of the 1980s, thus, being kicked-off with strong","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41835476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-25DOI: 10.1163/21971927-12340004
Yuzhuo Cai,Marcelo Amaral
Based on their early explorations on new perspectives on the role of academia and organised knowledge production in regional innovation, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorfff had consolidated the Triple Helix concept through either collaborative works (e.g. Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995, 2000) or individual publications (e.g. Etzkowitz, 2008; Leydesdorff, 2000). They developed the Triple Helix model to explain the dynamic interactions between academia, industry, and government that foster entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth in a knowledge-based economy (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). In research communities, there are continuous efforts to apply/enhance the Triple Helix model as well as criticisms on its limits or limitations. Probably, there is no other place more suitable than the Triple Helix journal, which bears the model’s name, to play the role of provoking discussions on the Triple Helix model, especially for understanding the future of innovation in society. While our initial plan was to write a short editorial to introduce the special issue on the theme ‘the Triple Helix model and the future of innovation’, we have decided to include our Editors-in-Chiefs’ reflection on the Triple Helix research agenda for two reasons. First, reading the articles collected in the special issue reminds us that those researchers involved in Triple Helix studies not only deal with the Triple Helix concept itself but also engage with the concepts either embedded in or derived from it. Thus, one may wonder: What are the core concepts within the umbrella of Triple Helix? Second, while the articles, in the special issue and also in the journal, deal with a wide range of themes in
{"title":"The Triple Helix Model and the Future of Innovation: A Reflection on the Triple Helix Research Agenda","authors":"Yuzhuo Cai,Marcelo Amaral","doi":"10.1163/21971927-12340004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-12340004","url":null,"abstract":"Based on their early explorations on new perspectives on the role of academia and organised knowledge production in regional innovation, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorfff had consolidated the Triple Helix concept through either collaborative works (e.g. Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1995, 2000) or individual publications (e.g. Etzkowitz, 2008; Leydesdorff, 2000). They developed the Triple Helix model to explain the dynamic interactions between academia, industry, and government that foster entrepreneurship, innovation, and economic growth in a knowledge-based economy (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). In research communities, there are continuous efforts to apply/enhance the Triple Helix model as well as criticisms on its limits or limitations. Probably, there is no other place more suitable than the Triple Helix journal, which bears the model’s name, to play the role of provoking discussions on the Triple Helix model, especially for understanding the future of innovation in society. While our initial plan was to write a short editorial to introduce the special issue on the theme ‘the Triple Helix model and the future of innovation’, we have decided to include our Editors-in-Chiefs’ reflection on the Triple Helix research agenda for two reasons. First, reading the articles collected in the special issue reminds us that those researchers involved in Triple Helix studies not only deal with the Triple Helix concept itself but also engage with the concepts either embedded in or derived from it. Thus, one may wonder: What are the core concepts within the umbrella of Triple Helix? Second, while the articles, in the special issue and also in the journal, deal with a wide range of themes in","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138543180","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-25DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10023
E. Kopczynska, Joao J. Ferreira
Nowadays, countries across the world aspire to increase their innovation for the common good. In this scope, and among others, the Triple Helix thesis emphasizes the role of collaboration between stakeholders from academia, industry and government to bring about effective innovation. Despite efforts to encourage university-industry (U-I) collaboration, bridging U-I barriers remains among the relevant economic and policy challenges. Among other aspects, it has been argued that the tendency to transfer tools from developed to underdeveloped countries hinders the capacity to obtain the full potential of U-I collaboration. As no empirical study validating such hypothesis has been identified, our study tests i/ whether U-I collaboration has a different impact on growth depending on the level of economic development, ii/ whether the impacts of specific governmental measures on U-I collaboration differ at different levels of economic development. Our findings suggest that up till now the potential of U-I collaboration remains underutilized across all levels of development. Our results show that diversified policy measures are relevant at different development levels. Furthermore, their relevance may also evolve over time. However, such factors as quality of research institutions and private R&D investments are critical across development levels and time.
{"title":"The Role of Government Measures in University-Industry Collaboration for Economic Growth: A Comparative Study across Levels of Economic Development","authors":"E. Kopczynska, Joao J. Ferreira","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10023","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Nowadays, countries across the world aspire to increase their innovation for the common good. In this scope, and among others, the Triple Helix thesis emphasizes the role of collaboration between stakeholders from academia, industry and government to bring about effective innovation. Despite efforts to encourage university-industry (U-I) collaboration, bridging U-I barriers remains among the relevant economic and policy challenges. Among other aspects, it has been argued that the tendency to transfer tools from developed to underdeveloped countries hinders the capacity to obtain the full potential of U-I collaboration. As no empirical study validating such hypothesis has been identified, our study tests i/ whether U-I collaboration has a different impact on growth depending on the level of economic development, ii/ whether the impacts of specific governmental measures on U-I collaboration differ at different levels of economic development. Our findings suggest that up till now the potential of U-I collaboration remains underutilized across all levels of development. Our results show that diversified policy measures are relevant at different development levels. Furthermore, their relevance may also evolve over time. However, such factors as quality of research institutions and private R&D investments are critical across development levels and time.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42778268","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-02DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10021
Danielle Lewensohn, Ebba Sjögren, C. Sundberg
Previous literature has attributed differences in individuals’ inventive productivity to a range of environmental, organizational and individual traits. However, the behavior of individuals with different inventive productivity has not been empirically explored in detail. Based on interviews with twenty Swedish academic inventors of diverse patenting experience, this paper analyses how serial and occasional inventors acted in patent initiation, patent application and subsequent patent management for specific inventions. Two modes of behavior are identified: passive and active. Individuals’ inventive productivity was not aligned with behavioral mode, with both modes of behavior exhibited by occasional as well as serial academic inventors. Individual academic inventors also varied in mode of behavior across different patent processes. These findings suggest that commonly used volume-based classifications of academic inventors obscure potentially relevant behavioral differences. This insight has implications for contemporary policy and organizational practice. It also highlights the need for further investigation of when academic inventors assume an active or passive mode of behavior in processes of academic commercialization.
{"title":"Does Productive Mean Active? The Behavior of Occasional and Serial Academic Inventors in Patenting Processes","authors":"Danielle Lewensohn, Ebba Sjögren, C. Sundberg","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10021","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Previous literature has attributed differences in individuals’ inventive productivity to a range of environmental, organizational and individual traits. However, the behavior of individuals with different inventive productivity has not been empirically explored in detail. Based on interviews with twenty Swedish academic inventors of diverse patenting experience, this paper analyses how serial and occasional inventors acted in patent initiation, patent application and subsequent patent management for specific inventions. Two modes of behavior are identified: passive and active. Individuals’ inventive productivity was not aligned with behavioral mode, with both modes of behavior exhibited by occasional as well as serial academic inventors. Individual academic inventors also varied in mode of behavior across different patent processes. These findings suggest that commonly used volume-based classifications of academic inventors obscure potentially relevant behavioral differences. This insight has implications for contemporary policy and organizational practice. It also highlights the need for further investigation of when academic inventors assume an active or passive mode of behavior in processes of academic commercialization.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44987224","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：