Save

The “Endless Perspective” to University – Industry – Government Relations

In: Triple Helix
Authors:
Pedro Costa Simões School of Economics and Management (EEG), University of Minho Braga Portugal

Search for other papers by Pedro Costa Simões in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8114-3470
,
António Carrizo Moreira Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism, University of Aveiro Aveiro Portugal
INESCTEC-Institute for Systems and Computer Engineering, Technology and Science Porto Portugal

Search for other papers by António Carrizo Moreira in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6613-8796
, and
Carlos Mendes Dias Instituto Superior de Ciências da Informação e Administração (ISCIA) Aveiro Portugal

Search for other papers by Carlos Mendes Dias in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1546-9162
Open Access

Abstract

Since the emergence of the Triple Helix, expansions to Quadruple, Quintuple, N-tuple helices, and models decomposing higher-order helices into multiple interrelated triple helices, or two-layer triple helices have been proposed. Albeit presenting alternative conceptual frameworks these different Helix models seem unsuited to address internal boundaries to the institutional spheres of the university, industry, and government. Addressing this circumstance, the present article pursues the research purpose of conceptualizing a perspective that opens the possibility of analysis to occur between but also within the boundaries of the institutional spheres. To that effect it advocates the application of different reference frames (scopes) to capture the dynamics that empirically emerge from the system under research. The novelty of this study is that it expands the existing theory by proposing that adding “scopes” (instead of introducing new helices) can increase the analytical potential of the Triple Helix.

1 Introduction

The Triple Helix was introduced in the 1990s by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (Etzkowitz, 1993; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1995) to describe the innovation model based on the dynamic relationships between university – industry – government institutions. It emerged from the observation of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s actions and their relationships with the high-tech industries clusters surrounding the MIT. By then, the MIT was already working in accordance with the Triple Helix, although using neither the terminology nor the theory behind the Triple Helix (Etzkowitz, 2010). Indeed, elements of this thought may be identified in pioneering works, such as in the Sábato Triangle – in which the government takes on the top position, and the lower vertices are the scientific and technologic infrastructure and the industrial infrastructure (Sábato and Botana, 1968) – and in Lowe’s work (1982), which addressed the triangular organization of interests (industry, universities and government) present in biomedical research carried out in the USA.

The model reflects the change from an industrial society, where the relationships established by the industry – government dyad prevailed, into a knowledge-based society, characterized by the university – industry – government triadic relationship, in which institutions develop intersections preserving not only their identities and main roles, but also assuming others institutions’ roles as a result of weakened positions or insufficient performance (Etzkowitz, 2003, 2008; Ranga and Etzkowitz, 2013).

One might say that unlike National Innovation Systems (Lundvall, 1988, 1992; Nelson, 1993), that give predominance to companies, and unlike the Sabato Triangle (1968), that focuses on the government sphere, the Triple Helix model emphasizes the roles of universities as essential institutions, a source of entrepreneurship and technology, which introduce a sieve of critical analysis associated with the scientific progress through review mechanisms. Universities are further recognized to have a pivotal role in crossing the functions established between the parties involved in the triad for the creation of new formats and for knowledge production, transfer and application (Etzkowitz, 2008; Ranga and Etzkowitz, 2013).

The Triple Helix model is applied as the scientific basis of research and innovation strategies across nations (Mccann and Ortega-Argilés, 2014). We are thus facing a model in line with the importance that knowledge, a crucial resource (Bollinger and Smith, 2001; Hanushek and Woessmann, 2015; Lundvall and Johnson, 1994; Moustaghfir and Schiuma, 2013), assumes in advanced economies, which recognizes that it is the basis for the emergence of new industries (Colombelli et al., 2014; Guerzoni et al., 2014; Powell and Snellman, 2004) and it is directly related to countries’ economic performance (Foray and Lundvall, 1996; Hulten, 2013; Strulik, 2014).

In academic communities there is a continuous research engagement on the Triple Helix, focusing particularly the future of innovation in society with a constant effort to employ and develop the model combined with criticisms on its limits or limitations (Cai and Amaral, 2021). As accelerated changes occurred in our societies, the Helix models, as analytical instruments aiming to describe the mechanisms of innovation, ought to be reviewed and developed (Amaral and Cai, 2022).

Although established for decades the Triple Helix is a vibrant and thriving academic field with novel and distinct prospects for developing theoretical and practical applications of helical concepts, welcoming contributions linking the Triple Helix with alternative approaches in innovation studies (Amaral and Cai, 2022)

Developing Triple Helix concepts is known to be challenging as is common in interdisciplinary approaches (Cai, 2020). Within the framework of transition from innovation systems to innovation ecosystems Zheng and Cai (2022) expressed that although in innovation systems boundaries are frequently establish spatially or according to their sector, in innovation ecosystems knowledge and innovation take place across boundaries that can encompass multiple geographical locations or a global context.

Triple Helix boundaries in terms of analysis scope have been thoroughly researched as the model is considered effective in understanding the dynamics of innovation at the regional, national, or international level but also designed to address transformations and dynamics within each of the helices providing a conceptual body to frame the nature of university, industry and government (Cai and Amaral, 2021). In this respect, Triple Helix is used to address the transformation: in university as an instrument to study the capitalization of knowledge, in industry to depict the boundary-spanning, and to address the ‘innovation state’ that implies the government as a regulator but also as an active agent (Cai and Amaral, 2021; Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017)

The current academic discussion is centered on relations between Triple, Quadruple, Quintuple and N-tuple helices models researching options as sticking to simple Helix models, or adding further helices especially when considering higher-order dynamics, either decomposing higher-order helices into multiple interrelated triple helices (Amaral and Cai, 2022; Park and Stek, 2022).

For Carayannis and Campbell (2022) Triple Helix boundaries should be expanded with environment and civil society to address “modern, sustainable and democratic knowledge economies and societies” but as Cai (2022) develops a neo-Triple Helix model with its triads within triads or two-layer triple helices it present a scope perspective although without unequivocally expressing the concept.

Within the scope perspective, works as neo-Triple Helix model (Cai, 2022), or Triple Helix Twins (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2006; Zhou and Etzkowitz, 2021) are relevant as they foreseen the application of different reference frames to capture the dynamics that empirically emerge from the system under research although doing so using multiple interrelated Triple Helices.

Addressing this gap, engaging the discussions promoted by Amaral and Cai (2022) on the relations between the different Helix models, the present article questions the opportunity of considering a scope perspective within boundaries of a “simple” Triple Helix framework.

This perspective distinguish itself from its emphasis in developing a conceptual framework within the borders of the university – industry – government as the Triple Helix Twins combines the “traditional” university – industry – government with the university – public – government Triple Helix (Zhou and Etzkowitz, 2021), and the neo-Triple Helix comprises two sets of triads, the “classic” university – industry – government, and the interactions of innovation genes, social structures and the natural environment (Cai, 2022).

2 Research Method

The Triple Helix model has been developed following multidisciplinary approaches. The challenge for developing interdisciplinary approaches is that concepts are eminently either unclearly defined or defined as self-statements (Cai, 2020). Main academic journals recognize the need for conceptual research able to bridge theories, connect concepts across disciplines, provide multidisciplinary approaches, and broaden the scope of knowledge. As powerful methods of theory development conceptual articles are challenging endeavors due to the lack of common recognized development models, as they do not drive from data but require assimilating and combining previously developed concepts. That is the reason because is difficult to write rigorous conceptual articles and they are often circumscribed to a literature review or to compelling but inconsistent ideas (Jaakkola, 2020).

To address these limitations the research under the present article was driven following Jaakkola (2020) methodological considerations as the author develops a systematic approach to a conceptual article, instructing that one crucial function of the research design is to “explain how and why the theories and concepts on which it is grounded were selected” and how they are linked to clarify the key stages in the argument.

Contemplating the methodological challenges, we follow the Theory Adaptation one of the four potential templates for conceptual articles that Jaakkola (2020) proposes, as addressing the research question requires to enhance the Triple Helix model by introducing and applying the ‘scope’ perspective as a new or innovative lens by informing it with other theories or perspectives. Such an approach is suitable for our research as theory-based adaptation articles establish contribution by developing existing knowledge by proposing a new perspective from alternative frames of reference (Macinnis, 2011).

Within this methodological framework we proceed (in Section 3) to the characterization of the main systemic models of innovation, applying an inductive reasoning to infer adaptability as a distinctive Triple Helix characteristic due to its versatility and flexibility.

In Section 4 we introduce the perspective that the progress of innovation models from an endless frontier (Bush, 1945) to an endless transition (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1998) induced an evolution to relations among the academia, industry, and university proposing that relations will evolve to accommodate new societal changes.

Departing from the Triple Helix adaptability and the perspective that the model will adjust to societal changes (theories and perspectives established in previous sections) in Chapter 5 we engage with the discussions promoted by Amaral and Cai (2022) on the relations between the different Helix models to establish that of a couple of academic publications giving attention to relations within the boundaries of the institutional spheres (Lee and Kim, 2016; Simões, Moreira, and Mendes Dias, 2020) were not adequately addressed in the existing Triple Helix conceptual framework. Identifying this situation as the focal