Search Results
Run by the Triple Helix Association, in collaboration with the Chinese Association for Science of Science and S & T Policy (CASSSP), the aim of the Triple Helix Journal is to publish research for an international audience covering analysis, theory, measurements and empirical enquiry in all aspects of university-industry-government interactions. The objective is to unite key research on the transformations of universities, capitalization of knowledge, translational research, spin-off activities, intellectual property, knowledge and technology transfer, as well as the international bases and dimensions of Triple Helix relations, their impacts, social, economic, political, cultural, health and environmental implications as they arise from and shape Triple Helix interactions.
Open to all innovation authors, the special mission of the journal is to be an international outlet also for innovation scholars from developing countries.
Check out the 2023 Triple Helix Conference (26-29 June 2023)
1 Introduction Presented by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1995), the Triple Helix ( TH ) model has been used by academics and public managers (Cai and Etzkowitz, 2020) to classify and analyze the interactions among actors in the university-industry-government (U-I-G) spheres for innovation and
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
This article presents a practical approach on how to develop and explore an educational design combining Triple Helix theory and Educational Action Research for support of student learning and innovation activities in interaction with various actors. The design, termed EARTH, organizes systemic interactions between selected sectoral actors at the level of individuals in a context of innovative learning. Educational Action Research and Triple Helix theory share common principles seeking to generate change through collaboration, co-creation, equality, voluntarism, communication, and consensus-making between various actors. This creates a productive framework for supporting students’ innovation activities and learning experiences, educational research, and organizational development. The EARTH design provides a basis for open innovation projects between students, teachers, researchers, and external partners from different sectors. Research data indicate that Triple Helix dynamics of substitution support students’ competence and project developments. The design generates real-world innovation and entrepreneurship experiences for the students through mastery, social change, and vicarious learning. Furthermore, student teams organize self-initiated project interactions with diverse sectoral actors. The principles of Educational Action Research and Triple Helix are ideals that may be difficult to align due to asymmetries between involved partners unless such structural deficiencies are mutually addressed. This may be corrected by reorganizing the relations between Triple Helix spaces of knowledge, innovation, and consensus. The article concludes with a discussion of combining Educational Action Research with Triple Helix theory and some general perspectives for future developments of the EARTH design.
interpreted through the lens of the Triple Helix ( TH ) model. Original TH literature placed democratic governance as a precondition to the interactions of the government, industry, and higher education (Etzkowitz, 2003). Although TH as a framework was initially developed in the global west, a mature body
The purpose of this study is to examine the innovation financing system of China from a Triple Helix policy perspective. The analysis comparing the case with the USA, the world’s most innovative economy, provides interesting insights regarding the innovative performance of China. The study shows that while the Chinese government introduced many intervention policy initiatives after the country joined the World Trade Organization (WTO), a comparative study with the US model has shown the development of an innovation system through market mechanism with strong Triple Helix interactions in its industrial clusters. The study provides lessons and insights that are useful for other emerging economies to use as policy guidelines in strengthening their innovation financing systems.
While there is a common belief among policymakers and academics around the world that Triple Helix relationships between university, industry and government provide optimal conditions for innovation, it should be noted that the Triple Helix concept has been developed from the experience of advanced economies in the West. There is a lack of theoretical considerations and empirical evidence on whether the Triple Helix model is applicable in non-Western contexts. Following the understanding that the evolution of an ideal Triple Helix model is facilitated by certain institutional logics in Western societies, this paper takes China as an example to examine how the institutional logics in China are different from those of the West and how the institutional logics in China would promote or impede the development of the Triple Helix model in China in light of an extensive review of the relevant literature and policy documents. The study suggests that to optimise the Chinese innovation policies, China needs on the one hand to adjust some elements of its institutional environment to facilitate the interactions between key innovation actors and on the other hand to be innovative in developing its own Triple Helix modes given the unique Chinese institutional environment which will persist in the foreseeable future.
are thus central to any organizing effort. Adopting a perspective which takes accountability into account is a valuable tool which can be used to further understand the organizing process of a RIS and triple helix processes. Using this perspective, we can pose the following research question: How
In the age of Open Innovation, it is vital for a country in the lower middle-income bracket to free itself from those constraints which seriously weaken the links between science and industry. A descriptive analysis of these linkages in a post-Soviet economy—Armenia—sheds some light on developments in policy-making which reinforce the interests of the private sector in the academic research and development (R&D) sphere. However, the way of thinking is still predominantly the ‘science-push’ model—which is far removed from the (horizontal) Triple Helix concept. According to empirical analysis, the scarcity of innovative companies is a serious handicap for industry-science collaboration and if the private sector has little demand for knowledge or science, then the innovation system cannot be effective. Very few higher education institutions (HEIs) or research institutes have devoted attention to the management of technology transfer, including necessary human resources. Human capacity problems, outdated infrastructure and an ageing workforce are significant barriers in scientific organisations. The autonomy of scientific organisations is an important asset which only half-exists in Armenia. On the escape route from a command economy, there are two potential traps on the way of autonomy: one occurs when the state overarches legal autonomy and creates a semi-autonomous situation; the other arises when the state is reluctant to regulate the framework for autonomous scientific organisations. Both exist in Armenia.
JEL Classification: 03; 05
Russia and China both are endeavoring to transform Soviet-style R&D systems characterized by separate education, research and business spheres into something more suited to a knowledge economy supporting innovation. The Triple Helix model is an attractive configuration, derived from the practices of the most successful innovation systems, and suggesting that the three key actors—universities, business, and the state—might in some instances substitute for each other. A model placing the state at the center appeals to non-democratic regimes and countries endeavoring to catch up with OECD nations.
We compare the Chinese and Russian efforts to implement a Triple Helix program by examining institutional change, epistemic communities, funding, and the role of the state, with nanotechnology as a case study. While both nations have introduced major programs and allocated significant funding, we find that China has been vastly more successful than Russia in promoting collaboration among universities, business, and government to advance research and innovation. We attribute the difference to the quality of state policies that provide incentives for agents and epistemic communities to alter their behavior, an outcome facilitated by conditions at the beginning of reforms, which made the Chinese far more open to learning.