Pub Date : 2021-11-02DOI: 10.1163/21971927-12340003
M. Amaral, Yuzhuo Cai
Triple Helix – A Journal of University-Industry-Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship starts its eighth year of publication with several changes underway. We understand that, although the preceding editorial team has well run the journal, it is necessary to evolve permanently. The scholarly publications business has been undergoing unprecedented transformations; movements like open access publishing and preprint publication constantly impose the need to rethink our actions and performance. At the same time, these transformations allow us to seek the best experience for the editorial process and our readers, who are the reason for the journal’s existence at the end of the day. In addition to the new editorial team, the publication strategy is being changed, as already informed in the previous editorial (Cai & Amaral, 2020). Instead of a single annual issue bringing together the publications approved during the year, the editors decided to publish several issues. For this reason, there will be no more distinction between topical collections and regular issues, valuing all articles equally. However, these changes will not affect Triple Helix publication policy. Once being accepted, the articles will be published advance access and later included in an issue. This change will also allow the elaboration of presentation editorials, which we understand can be a communication channel with the research community and where we intend to discuss a vast array of subjects, ranging from the evolution of the publication itself to conceptual issues of the Triple Helix model. New changes are being implemented that will be informed in subsequent editorials. It is also important to inform about what will not change. In this
{"title":"Eight Years of Realizations and Challenges – The Dynamic Process of an Academic Journal Management","authors":"M. Amaral, Yuzhuo Cai","doi":"10.1163/21971927-12340003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-12340003","url":null,"abstract":"Triple Helix – A Journal of University-Industry-Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship starts its eighth year of publication with several changes underway. We understand that, although the preceding editorial team has well run the journal, it is necessary to evolve permanently. The scholarly publications business has been undergoing unprecedented transformations; movements like open access publishing and preprint publication constantly impose the need to rethink our actions and performance. At the same time, these transformations allow us to seek the best experience for the editorial process and our readers, who are the reason for the journal’s existence at the end of the day. In addition to the new editorial team, the publication strategy is being changed, as already informed in the previous editorial (Cai & Amaral, 2020). Instead of a single annual issue bringing together the publications approved during the year, the editors decided to publish several issues. For this reason, there will be no more distinction between topical collections and regular issues, valuing all articles equally. However, these changes will not affect Triple Helix publication policy. Once being accepted, the articles will be published advance access and later included in an issue. This change will also allow the elaboration of presentation editorials, which we understand can be a communication channel with the research community and where we intend to discuss a vast array of subjects, ranging from the evolution of the publication itself to conceptual issues of the Triple Helix model. New changes are being implemented that will be informed in subsequent editorials. It is also important to inform about what will not change. In this","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":"47314271","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 : 2021-09-28DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10020
Anna Thomasson, Caroline Wigren-Kristoferson, Chris Scheller
The focus of this article is to examine a specific case of a failing regional innovation system (RIS). Our study focuses on a specific project that was conducted in a triple helix constellation where public actors occupy the centre of the triple helix constellation. By examining and interpreting this single case, we aim to illustrate the consequences that result from uncertainty over who the triple helix constellation is accountable to as well as the consequences that has for the overall assessment of the outcome of the triple helix. We show how the overall initiative constituted a failure, but when one considers the activities that were organized and implemented by the RIS, then it is problematic to define it as a failure. This leads us to the conclusion that we should evaluate RIS from different perspectives and on different levels, and we need to consider the time dimension in our evaluation.
{"title":"What Constitutes Failure? The Influence of Public Interests in Securing Accountability in Triple Helix Initiatives","authors":"Anna Thomasson, Caroline Wigren-Kristoferson, Chris Scheller","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000The focus of this article is to examine a specific case of a failing regional innovation system (RIS). Our study focuses on a specific project that was conducted in a triple helix constellation where public actors occupy the centre of the triple helix constellation. By examining and interpreting this single case, we aim to illustrate the consequences that result from uncertainty over who the triple helix constellation is accountable to as well as the consequences that has for the overall assessment of the outcome of the triple helix. We show how the overall initiative constituted a failure, but when one considers the activities that were organized and implemented by the RIS, then it is problematic to define it as a failure. This leads us to the conclusion that we should evaluate RIS from different perspectives and on different levels, and we need to consider the time dimension in our evaluation.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41300864","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 : 2021-08-02DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10019
S. Virkkala, Å. Mariussen
In the quantitative, macro-oriented triple helix literature, synergy is measured indirectly, through patent data, firm data and other secondary statistical sources. These macro-level quantitative studies do not open up for understanding how different processes of cooperation create different outcomes, in terms of synergies. This article presents an alternative method of measuring quantitatively how different networks of innovation in a variety of ways create different types of complex synergies. This opens up for an empirical analysis of variations of synergy formation, seen as innovation networks with different structures, formed within and between helices, regions and geographical levels. Data was collected through a snapshot survey in 10 regional cases in the Baltic Sea Region. The analysis presents how different networks of innovation within and between helices are formed by different combinations of expectations, experiences and gaps.
{"title":"Networks of Innovation: Measuring Structure and Dynamics between and within Helices, Regions and Spatial Levels. Empirical Evidence from the Baltic Sea Region","authors":"S. Virkkala, Å. Mariussen","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10019","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 In the quantitative, macro-oriented triple helix literature, synergy is measured indirectly, through patent data, firm data and other secondary statistical sources. These macro-level quantitative studies do not open up for understanding how different processes of cooperation create different outcomes, in terms of synergies. This article presents an alternative method of measuring quantitatively how different networks of innovation in a variety of ways create different types of complex synergies. This opens up for an empirical analysis of variations of synergy formation, seen as innovation networks with different structures, formed within and between helices, regions and geographical levels. Data was collected through a snapshot survey in 10 regional cases in the Baltic Sea Region. The analysis presents how different networks of innovation within and between helices are formed by different combinations of expectations, experiences and gaps.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42821221","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 : 2021-08-02DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10011
Tero Rantala, Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila
As part of contemporary Triple Helix operations, universities are more and more frequently asked to collaborate with other social actors to generate knowledge that supports their innovation and development activities and to foster economic growth. In addition to research and education tasks, universities are developing formal and informal collaborations with industrial organizations to fulfill the third mission of societal effectiveness and to receive funding from research grants. These university-industry research and development projects, at the societal level and from the viewpoints of policymakers and financiers, aim to create economic growth and to support the innovation and learning capabilities of the organizations, among other benefits. One key challenge to managing these collaborative activities between universities and other societal organizations is related to measuring and evaluating them. Therefore, this study focuses on supporting the future development of evaluation and performance measurement for the operational-level activities of university–industry–government relationships. The study explores the performance measurement practices currently used by universities and financiers and intends to increase the understanding of both current performance measurement practices and the challenges regarding university–industry (UI) collaboration projects. The empirical data for this study were gathered from UI research projects in Finland. As part of the management of university–industry–government relations and Triple Helix operations, the results of this study reveal some challenges in the evaluation and measurement of the collaborative projects in the three phases explored: before the project, during the project, and after the project. The study’s results indicate that UI collaboration projects’ performance evaluation practices are based mainly on the tasks promised in the projects’ applications. Furthermore, measurements are mainly used for external-reporting purposes. To support the future development of the evaluation and performance measurement of university–industry–government relations, some propositions for overcoming these challenges are presented, and the potential implications of the findings for scholars, university members, financier representatives, and policy makers are discussed.
{"title":"The Role of Performance Measurement in University–Industry Collaboration Projects as a Part of Managing Triple Helix Operations","authors":"Tero Rantala, Juhani Ukko, Minna Saunila","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10011","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 As part of contemporary Triple Helix operations, universities are more and more frequently asked to collaborate with other social actors to generate knowledge that supports their innovation and development activities and to foster economic growth. In addition to research and education tasks, universities are developing formal and informal collaborations with industrial organizations to fulfill the third mission of societal effectiveness and to receive funding from research grants. These university-industry research and development projects, at the societal level and from the viewpoints of policymakers and financiers, aim to create economic growth and to support the innovation and learning capabilities of the organizations, among other benefits. One key challenge to managing these collaborative activities between universities and other societal organizations is related to measuring and evaluating them. Therefore, this study focuses on supporting the future development of evaluation and performance measurement for the operational-level activities of university–industry–government relationships. The study explores the performance measurement practices currently used by universities and financiers and intends to increase the understanding of both current performance measurement practices and the challenges regarding university–industry (UI) collaboration projects. The empirical data for this study were gathered from UI research projects in Finland. As part of the management of university–industry–government relations and Triple Helix operations, the results of this study reveal some challenges in the evaluation and measurement of the collaborative projects in the three phases explored: before the project, during the project, and after the project. The study’s results indicate that UI collaboration projects’ performance evaluation practices are based mainly on the tasks promised in the projects’ applications. Furthermore, measurements are mainly used for external-reporting purposes. To support the future development of the evaluation and performance measurement of university–industry–government relations, some propositions for overcoming these challenges are presented, and the potential implications of the findings for scholars, university members, financier representatives, and policy makers are discussed.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45741089","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 : 2021-08-02DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10018
M. Rothgang, B. Lageman
A kairos constellation designates a temporarily existing opportunity for a group of actors to take advantage of a coincidence of favourable circumstances in order to realise a shared target. Starting from the observation that kairos constellations are ubiquitous in human individual and social life, the research question of this paper is how the Triple Helix and the wider innovation policy research literature deals with such constellations. The authors develop a conceptual framework for kairos constellations and discuss empirical evidence that kairos constellations have been scrutinized in innovation research literature. Then, the concept is applied to an example from the Triple Helix – based cluster policy. The key message of this paper is that Triple Helix researchers should systematically study kairos constellations because they are a critical force in the evolution of innovations systems as well as business firms, which has not yet been systematically examined.
{"title":"Kairos in Innovation Policy","authors":"M. Rothgang, B. Lageman","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10018","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 A kairos constellation designates a temporarily existing opportunity for a group of actors to take advantage of a coincidence of favourable circumstances in order to realise a shared target. Starting from the observation that kairos constellations are ubiquitous in human individual and social life, the research question of this paper is how the Triple Helix and the wider innovation policy research literature deals with such constellations. The authors develop a conceptual framework for kairos constellations and discuss empirical evidence that kairos constellations have been scrutinized in innovation research literature. Then, the concept is applied to an example from the Triple Helix – based cluster policy. The key message of this paper is that Triple Helix researchers should systematically study kairos constellations because they are a critical force in the evolution of innovations systems as well as business firms, which has not yet been systematically examined.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46553934","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 : 2021-06-18DOI: 10.1163/21971927-12340002
Yuzhuo Cai, M. Amaral
As new Co-Editors-in-Chief, replacing Professor Henry Etzkowitz, the former Editor-in-Chief of the Triple Helix journal run by the Triple Helix Association (THA), we are pleased to write the editorial on this issue. While we are thrilled about assuming such an important position for promoting knowledge advancement in research on innovation and entrepreneurship in the contexts of interactions between university, industry and government, we are clearly aware of our responsibilities for carrying forward the official journal of the THA. We feel obligated to the THA for entrusting us to take this task at a crucial time. In the past two years, the Triple Helix Journal has encountered extraordinary challenges, and, meanwhile, reached milestones. The first challenge was related to the change of publisher. The Triple Helix Journal was initiated in 2014 with Springer. At that time, a generous sponsorship granted to the THA enabled the journal to be “Triple free access”: Free to readers as the journal is open access; free to authors as there is no article processing charge (APC); free to the publisher as the operation cost is covered by the THA. However, due to the discontinuation of the sponsorship, the model of “Triple free access” was no longer sustainable. In order to lessen the financial burden of APCs for authors, we accepted Brill’s offer of a very reasonable APC rate which still allows the journal to remain open access. However, the transition from Springer to Brill did cause confusion to readers and this led to a significant drop in submitted manuscripts in 2019. Thankfully, 2020 saw a visible increase of submitted papers and special issue proposals. This is a sign that the journal has got out of the hardships. The second challenge is related to the pandemic caused by COVID-19. The fast scenario change, hitting badly the THA and its members like many other organizations, has required quick moves and thought decisions. The THA’s
{"title":"EditorialMilestones of Triple Helix in a year of hardships","authors":"Yuzhuo Cai, M. Amaral","doi":"10.1163/21971927-12340002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-12340002","url":null,"abstract":"As new Co-Editors-in-Chief, replacing Professor Henry Etzkowitz, the former Editor-in-Chief of the Triple Helix journal run by the Triple Helix Association (THA), we are pleased to write the editorial on this issue. While we are thrilled about assuming such an important position for promoting knowledge advancement in research on innovation and entrepreneurship in the contexts of interactions between university, industry and government, we are clearly aware of our responsibilities for carrying forward the official journal of the THA. We feel obligated to the THA for entrusting us to take this task at a crucial time. In the past two years, the Triple Helix Journal has encountered extraordinary challenges, and, meanwhile, reached milestones. The first challenge was related to the change of publisher. The Triple Helix Journal was initiated in 2014 with Springer. At that time, a generous sponsorship granted to the THA enabled the journal to be “Triple free access”: Free to readers as the journal is open access; free to authors as there is no article processing charge (APC); free to the publisher as the operation cost is covered by the THA. However, due to the discontinuation of the sponsorship, the model of “Triple free access” was no longer sustainable. In order to lessen the financial burden of APCs for authors, we accepted Brill’s offer of a very reasonable APC rate which still allows the journal to remain open access. However, the transition from Springer to Brill did cause confusion to readers and this led to a significant drop in submitted manuscripts in 2019. Thankfully, 2020 saw a visible increase of submitted papers and special issue proposals. This is a sign that the journal has got out of the hardships. The second challenge is related to the pandemic caused by COVID-19. The fast scenario change, hitting badly the THA and its members like many other organizations, has required quick moves and thought decisions. The THA’s","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48892643","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 : 2021-05-21DOI: 10.1163/21971927-BJA10017
T. Malik, Sajal Kabiraj, Chunhui Huo
We explored whether university populations (intensity) moderate the link between FDI (foreign direct investment) or DDI (domestic direct investment) and the city’s innovativeness in the ICT sector. With the moderating role of universities between resources and the city’s development level, we relied on institutional theory. Institutional theory combines the technical and symbolic concepts (network structure) of the university. With panel data based on 5166 observations from 287 Chinese cities over 18 years (1999 to 2016), we used the maximum likelihood method to test hypotheses for direct and indirect effects. The direct effect of baseline hypotheses represents the FDI and DDI; university intensity has a moderating effect. In the former case, the FDI and DDI positively correlate with the city’s innovativeness in China’s ICT sector. In the latter case, the population of universities in the city positively moderates the relation between these resources and the city’s development level. These findings contributed to the literature at three levels. First, the study contributes to ICT development and the city’s innovativeness in the research context. Second, the study contributes to university intensity as a resource mobilizer in institutional theory, emphasising that interinstitutional interaction supports resource flow for better performance in certain geographical locations. Third, the study contributes to policy- and practice-related issues related to city development, the smart environment, and ICT development as an enabling infrastructure.
{"title":"Chinese Universities Mobilise FDI and DDI for the City’s Innovativeness in the ICT Sector","authors":"T. Malik, Sajal Kabiraj, Chunhui Huo","doi":"10.1163/21971927-BJA10017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-BJA10017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000We explored whether university populations (intensity) moderate the link between FDI (foreign direct investment) or DDI (domestic direct investment) and the city’s innovativeness in the ICT sector. With the moderating role of universities between resources and the city’s development level, we relied on institutional theory. Institutional theory combines the technical and symbolic concepts (network structure) of the university. With panel data based on 5166 observations from 287 Chinese cities over 18 years (1999 to 2016), we used the maximum likelihood method to test hypotheses for direct and indirect effects. The direct effect of baseline hypotheses represents the FDI and DDI; university intensity has a moderating effect. In the former case, the FDI and DDI positively correlate with the city’s innovativeness in China’s ICT sector. In the latter case, the population of universities in the city positively moderates the relation between these resources and the city’s development level. These findings contributed to the literature at three levels. First, the study contributes to ICT development and the city’s innovativeness in the research context. Second, the study contributes to university intensity as a resource mobilizer in institutional theory, emphasising that interinstitutional interaction supports resource flow for better performance in certain geographical locations. Third, the study contributes to policy- and practice-related issues related to city development, the smart environment, and ICT development as an enabling infrastructure.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41245121","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 : 2021-05-06DOI: 10.1163/21971927-bja10015
A. Jasiński
In this article, we are analyzing an influence of various factors on the contents, structure and organization of the contemporary innovation process. The main hypothesis assumes that the contemporary innovation more and more often comes as a result of a quite loose set of dispersed processes and not of a put-in-order, several-phase innovation process. The article starts with a literature survey followed by four empirical illustrations. On the basis of this, the multi-process model of technological innovation is presented. Afterwards, we identify implications for practice, especially the main challenges to be faced by innovation managers in industrial firms.
{"title":"Can we still Speak about the Innovation Process per se?","authors":"A. Jasiński","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000In this article, we are analyzing an influence of various factors on the contents, structure and organization of the contemporary innovation process. The main hypothesis assumes that the contemporary innovation more and more often comes as a result of a quite loose set of dispersed processes and not of a put-in-order, several-phase innovation process. The article starts with a literature survey followed by four empirical illustrations. On the basis of this, the multi-process model of technological innovation is presented. Afterwards, we identify implications for practice, especially the main challenges to be faced by innovation managers in industrial firms.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49194159","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 : 2021-04-07DOI: 10.1163/21971927-BJA10012
Evgeniya, Sam, Cinzia Dal
How should a cluster be designed to foster the innovativeness of its members? In this article, we view self-aware and organised clusters as “meta-organisations” which can deliberately shape their internal structures through design-based interventions. To formulate interventions for cluster design fostering its innovativeness, we adopt a methodology combining a systematic literature review and a design-oriented synthesis. We distinguish between six cluster business model elements: actors and their roles, resources and capabilities, value flows, governance, value propositions and value-creating activities. To gain insight into the properties of these elements conducive to cluster innovativeness, we review literature at the intersection of cluster, meta-organisation, business model and innovation studies. Our study allows to consolidate the extant research into “organised” clustering and the drivers of the cluster actors’ innovativeness. It also helps identify several important unanswered questions in the literature and to suggest potentially fruitful directions for further work.
{"title":"Innovation-Centric Cluster Business Model: Findings from a Design-Oriented Literature Review","authors":"Evgeniya, Sam, Cinzia Dal","doi":"10.1163/21971927-BJA10012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-BJA10012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000How should a cluster be designed to foster the innovativeness of its members? In this article, we view self-aware and organised clusters as “meta-organisations” which can deliberately shape their internal structures through design-based interventions. To formulate interventions for cluster design fostering its innovativeness, we adopt a methodology combining a systematic literature review and a design-oriented synthesis. We distinguish between six cluster business model elements: actors and their roles, resources and capabilities, value flows, governance, value propositions and value-creating activities. To gain insight into the properties of these elements conducive to cluster innovativeness, we review literature at the intersection of cluster, meta-organisation, business model and innovation studies. Our study allows to consolidate the extant research into “organised” clustering and the drivers of the cluster actors’ innovativeness. It also helps identify several important unanswered questions in the literature and to suggest potentially fruitful directions for further work.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49175838","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 : 2021-03-31DOI: 10.1163/21971927-BJA10014
Oluwayemisi Adebola, Mammo
Scholars have highlighted the need for a clearer knowledge, conceptualization and theorizing on the practicality of integrating arts entrepreneurship education in university programs. The objective of this study is to identify the themes in the Arts Entrepreneurship (AE) and to develop these themes to a conceptual model that describes the Arts Entrepreneurship Education (AEE). This research article fills the existing gap in the literature on the AEE through the research question: What are the key themes in AEE, and how can these themes be linked to the conceptual development of the AEE literature? This study argues that if entrepreneurship is to be viewed as a fundamental part of AEE, teachers need to have proper knowledge of the importance and inclusion in the University’s art subject curriculum. The findings identified pertinent themes, subthemes and trends several scholars have worked on finding the best practices to promote the development of AEE.
{"title":"Development of Arts Entrepreneurship Education: Excavating and Unravelling the Knowledge Basis","authors":"Oluwayemisi Adebola, Mammo","doi":"10.1163/21971927-BJA10014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-BJA10014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000Scholars have highlighted the need for a clearer knowledge, conceptualization and theorizing on the practicality of integrating arts entrepreneurship education in university programs. The objective of this study is to identify the themes in the Arts Entrepreneurship (AE) and to develop these themes to a conceptual model that describes the Arts Entrepreneurship Education (AEE). This research article fills the existing gap in the literature on the AEE through the research question: What are the key themes in AEE, and how can these themes be linked to the conceptual development of the AEE literature? This study argues that if entrepreneurship is to be viewed as a fundamental part of AEE, teachers need to have proper knowledge of the importance and inclusion in the University’s art subject curriculum. The findings identified pertinent themes, subthemes and trends several scholars have worked on finding the best practices to promote the development of AEE.","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2021-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47519004","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：