Triple helix model of innovation

Last updated

The triple helix model of innovation refers to a set of interactions between academia (the university), industry and government, to foster economic and social development, as described in concepts such as the knowledge economy and knowledge society. [1] [2] [3] In innovation helical framework theory, each sector is represented by a circle (helix), with overlapping showing interactions. The initial modelling has advanced from two dimensions to show more complex interactions, for example over time. The framework was first theorized by Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff in the 1990s, with the publication of "The Triple Helix, University-Industry-Government Relations: A laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development". [4] Interactions between universities, industries and governments have given rise to new intermediary institutions, such as technology transfer offices and science parks, and Etzkowitz and Ledersdorff theorized the relationship between the three sectors and explained the emergence of these new hybrid organizations. [5] The triple helix innovation framework has been widely adopted and as applied by policy makers has participated in the transformation of each sector. [6] [7] [8]

Contents

Three components of the model

The triple helix model of innovation, as theorized by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, is based on the interactions between the three following elements and their associated 'initial role': [9] universities engaging in basic research, industries producing commercial goods and governments that are regulating markets. [2] As interactions increase within this framework, each component evolves to adopt some characteristics of the other institution, which then gives rise to hybrid institutions. Bilateral interactions exist between university, industry and government.

University-industry interactions

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff argue that the initial role of universities is to provide education to individuals and basic research. Therefore, interactions between university and industry revolve initially around those two elements. In a linear model of innovation, universities are supposed to provide the research which industry will build upon to produce commercial goods. The other interactions take place through the involvement of industry managers and university faculty in both sectors. According to Etzkowitz, the transfer of people between university and industry constitutes a very important transfer of knowledge. This can be a permanent move in one direction or the other, or in other cases, entire careers spent between the two spheres. He gives the example of Carl Djerassi, a research director for a pharmaceutical company who joined Stanford University while continuing his industrial activity. [2]

However, other scholars have pointed out that consulting activities of faculty members could also have drawbacks, like a reduced focus on educating the students, and potential conflict of interests relating to the use of university resources for the benefit of industry. [10] Additional transfer of knowledge between university and industry happens through informal communication, conferences or industrial interest in university publications. [11] Another type of interaction, for example, is the creation of co-op programs like the MIT-General Electric course [12] which aims at integrating an industry approach into the students' curricula.

University-government interactions

The strength of the interactions between the government and universities depends on the government's general relationship to and policy towards higher education. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff's model uses a spectrum to define the extent of these interactions. On the one hand, when higher education is largely public, as in continental western Europe, the government has a higher influence on universities and the research they conduct by being the main source of funding. [6] On the other end of the spectrum, typically associated with the United States, universities still receive some government funding but overall have a higher degree of independence from government influence. However, the two ends of this spectrum are used as ideal-types that are not necessarily reflective of the reality. [13] The changing circumstances can push the government to create closer ties with academia, for example in wartime, and/or through funding of strategic disciplines, like physics. For example, in the United States, the Department of Defense has extensively funded physics research during World War II and the Cold War. [14] Another example of state involvement in higher education is the establishment of new universities, as through the Morrill Land-Grant Acts of 1862 encouraging the creation of land-grant colleges. [15] Cornell University, the University of Florida and Purdue University are three of the seventy-six institutions created under the land-grant.

Government-industry interactions

The relationship between governments and industry depends on the government's attitude towards the market. In liberal economies the role of the government will be limited to preventing market failures. On the other hand, where the government is more involved in the economy, the government's role is the regulation of the industry. These are also two ends of a spectrum, leaving room for substantial variation, based on circumstances and disciplines. [6] For example, as pointed out by Bhaven Sampat, in the 1960s, the government created a regulation to prevent patenting by or licensing to industry of university research funded by the National Institutes of Health. [11] One key role of the government in its interaction with industry is the establishment of intellectual property law and its enforcement.

Strength of interaction

Figure 1:Triple Helix Interactions in a Developing Country (Silo Confinement) Triple Helix Interactions in a Developing Country (Silo Confinement).png
Figure 1:Triple Helix Interactions in a Developing Country (Silo Confinement)
Figure 2:Beginning of Triple Helix Strategic Interactions in a Middle Income Country (Push-Pull) Beginning of Triple Helix Strategic Interactions in a Middle Income Country (Push-Pull).png
Figure 2:Beginning of Triple Helix Strategic Interactions in a Middle Income Country (Push-Pull)
Figure 3:Triple Helix Strategic Interactions in a Developed Country (Red Indicates Science Park) Triple Helix Strategic Interactions in a Developed Country (Red Indicates Science Park).png
Figure 3:Triple Helix Strategic Interactions in a Developed Country (Red Indicates Science Park)

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff initially argued that the strength of the interactions between governments, industry and university depends on which component is the driving force in the framework. In a statist model, a strong state is driving interactions between the three components in a top-down implementation. [13] It creates stronger ties and a more integrated model. In a laissez-faire model, in which the industry and market forces are the leading forces, the ties are weaker and each institution tends to remain very independent. However, the distinction between the two models is not always clear cut, as the government can choose to adopt a strong or a weak stance depending on the context and the industry. [6] Strength of interactions can also vary according to the development of a country, with a silo model predominating in an underdeveloped country, moderate interactions developing in a middle-income country due to the push for economic growth on the one hand and the pull for a competitive market-driven technological advancement on the other, and strong interactions developing in a developed country, for example in the form of a science park. [16] In a recent paper, Etzkowitz emphasized that the shift towards a knowledge-based society has given a bigger role to universities. Indeed, as innovation is increasingly based on scientific knowledge, the role of universities as creators of knowledge is more valued. [17] As a result, he argues that university, industry and government are more equal, [5] and that no particular element is necessarily the driving force of the triple helix model of innovation.

Evolution and hybridization

The triple helix model of innovation also blurred the boundaries of the traditional basic roles of university, industry and government. According to Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, this marks the second step in the triple helix of innovation framework. [17] For example, universities increasingly take part in commercial activity through patenting and licensing, moving beyond the production of basic research. The next step is the emergence of intermediaries between the three elements as well as the hybridization of the three entities. [9] Nevertheless, each entity retains a strong primacy in its original field of expertise: the university remains the main source of knowledge production, industry is the primary vehicle of commercialization and the government retains its regulatory role.

Technology transfer offices have been established by universities to foster the transformation of university basic or applied research with a commercial value into commercial goods. One of the aims of TTOs is to create some revenues for the university, thus enhancing its role as an economic actor. However, the average profitability of TTOs remains very low. [11] For example, the revenues earned through the licensing of patents by TTOs in American universities are, on average, ten times larger than for European TTOs according to the Innovation Policy Platform. [18] Science parks have also emerged as the result of the collaboration of industries and universities with the government. [5] They can stem from the initiative of an industrial region to modernize itself with the impulse of a university. On the other hand, they can be the result of a university initiative to attract industry, as was the case with the development of Stanford's science park around the university or the Research Triangle in North Carolina. [19]

The 'entrepreneurial university' is another hybrid element which Etzkowitz defines around the following elements: the capitalization of knowledge, strong ties with industry and governments, a high degree of independence, and permanent evolution of the relationships between universities, industry and government. Etzkowitz recognizes MIT as a great example of an 'entrepreneurial university'. [6]

Extensions of the model

Quadruple helix model

Building on the triple helix model, the quadruple helix model adds a fourth component to the framework of interactions between university, industry and government: the public, consisting of civil society and the media. [3] [20] It was first suggested in 2009 by Elias G. Carayannis and David F.J. Campbell. [21] The framework aims to bridge the gaps between innovation and civil society, and it claims that under the triple helix model, the emerging technologies do not always match the demands and needs of society, thus limiting their potential impact. The framework consequently emphasizes a societal responsibility of universities, in addition to their role of educating and conducting research. The quadruple helix is the approach that the European Union has intended to take for the development of a competitive knowledge-based society. [22] Subsequently, the quadruple helix has been applied to European Union-sponsored projects and policies, including the EU-MACS (EUropean MArket for Climate Services) project, [23] a follow-up project of the European Research and Innovation Roadmap for Climate Services, and the European Commission's Open Innovation 2.0 (OI2) policy for a digital single market that supports open innovation. [24]

Quintuple helix model

The quintuple helix model was co-developed by Elias G. Carayannis and David F.J. Campbell in 2010. [3] It is based on the triple and quadruple helix models and adds as fifth helix the natural environment. The quintuple helix views the natural environments of society and the economy as drivers for knowledge production and innovation, thus defining socio-ecological opportunities for the knowledge society and knowledge economy, such as innovation to address sustainable development, including climate change. [25] The quintuple helix can be described in terms of the models of knowledge that it extends, the five subsystems (helices) it incorporates, and the steps involved in the circulation of knowledge. [26] How to define both the quadruple and quintuple helices has been debated, and some researchers see them as additional helices, while others see them as different types of helix which overarch the previous helices. [27] [28]

Triple helix and policy making

Figure 4: DOE National Laboratories' Relationship to Universities and Industry in the Energy Innovation System DOE National Laboratories' Relationship to Universities and Industry in the Energy Innovation System.png
Figure 4: DOE National Laboratories' Relationship to Universities and Industry in the Energy Innovation System

The triple helix model has been used as a lens through which evolving relationships between university, industry and government can be analyzed. [3] However, according to Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, it can also be a policy making tool. It has been applied for both purposes by government organizations, such as the United States Department of Energy. [29] Etzkowitz argues that after the end of the Soviet Era, triple helix inspired policies were implemented in Eastern Europe to promote their growth. In Sweden, the triple helix policy aimed at tying together innovation initiatives at different scales to increase their overall efficiency. [5] [6] The triple helix model has also been applied to developing countries and regions. [8]

Criticism of the model

The triple helix model as a policy-making tool for economic growth and regional development has been criticized by many scholars. [3] One main criticism is that Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff's framework was developed within Western developed countries, which means that it is based on a particular set of infrastructures and under circumstances. For example, the model takes for granted that knowledge intensive activities are linked to economic growth, that intellectual property rights will be protected, and that the state has a democratic and market oriented culture. [30] Further scholarly criticism of the model focuses on the conditions that enable the implementation of a triple helix innovation policy. It argues that Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff's model is too vague and takes for granted those necessary preconditions within their model. [31] [32] Therefore, according to critics, the triple helix model is not a relevant policy making tool for developing countries where at least one of these conditions is missing. However, others have argued that the triple helix model is capable of both describing the situation in developing countries and is useful for planning policy. [8]

See also

Related Research Articles

The knowledge economy, or knowledge-based economy, is an economic system in which the production of goods and services is based principally on knowledge-intensive activities that contribute to advancement in technical and scientific innovation. The key element of value is the greater dependence on human capital and intellectual property as the source of innovative ideas, information and practices. Organisations are required to capitalise on this "knowledge" in their production to stimulate and deepen the business development process. There is less reliance on physical input and natural resources. A knowledge-based economy relies on the crucial role of intangible assets within the organisations' settings in facilitating modern economic growth.

Technology transfer (TT), also called transfer of technology (TOT), is the process of transferring (disseminating) technology from the person or organization that owns or holds it to another person or organization, in an attempt to transform inventions and scientific outcomes into new products and services that benefit society. Technology transfer is closely related to knowledge transfer.

The National Innovation System is the flow of technology and information among people, enterprises and institutions which is key to the innovative process on the national level. According to innovation system theory, innovation and technology development are results of a complex set of relationships among actors in the system, which includes enterprises, universities and government research institutes.

The concept of the innovation system stresses that the flow of technology and information among people, enterprises, and institutions is key to an innovative process. It contains the interactions between the actors needed in order to turn an idea into a process, product, or service on the market.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social complexity</span> Conceptual framework

In sociology, social complexity is a conceptual framework used in the analysis of society. In the sciences, contemporary definitions of complexity are found in systems theory, wherein the phenomenon being studied has many parts and many possible arrangements of the parts; simultaneously, what is complex and what is simple are relative and change in time.

Open innovation is a term used to promote an information age mindset toward innovation that runs counter to the secrecy and silo mentality of traditional corporate research labs. The benefits and driving forces behind increased openness have been noted and discussed as far back as the 1960s, especially as it pertains to interfirm cooperation in R&D. Use of the term 'open innovation' in reference to the increasing embrace of external cooperation in a complex world has been promoted in particular by Henry Chesbrough, adjunct professor and faculty director of the Center for Open Innovation of the Haas School of Business at the University of California, and Maire Tecnimont Chair of Open Innovation at Luiss.

Technology trajectory refers to a single branch in the evolution of a technological design of a product/service, with nodes representing separate designs. With Technology trajectory referring to a single branch we do expect the development of new technologies to precede recent uses and advance future technologies. The development of future technologies allows for the innovation of new ideas, research, and much more. It also can be defined as the paths by which innovations in a given field occur.

A knowledge productionmode is a term from the sociology of science which refers to the way (scientific) knowledge is produced. So far, three modes have been conceptualized. Mode 1 production of knowledge is knowledge production motivated by scientific knowledge alone which is not primarily concerned by the applicability of its findings. Mode 1 is founded on a conceptualization of science as separated into discrete disciplines. Mode 2 was coined in 1994 in juxtaposition to Mode 1 by Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott and Martin Trow. In Mode 2, multidisciplinary teams are brought together for short periods of time to work on specific problems in the real world for knowledge production in the knowledge society. Mode 2 can be explained by the way research funds are distributed among scientists and how scientists focus on obtaining these funds in terms of five basic features: knowledge produced in the context of application; transdisciplinarity; heterogeneity and organizational diversity; social accountability and reflexivity; and quality control. Subsequently, Carayannis and Campbell described a Mode 3 knowledge in 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Loet Leydesdorff</span>

Louis André (Loet) Leydesdorff (21 August 1948, Batavia was a Dutch sociologist, cyberneticist, communication scientist and Professor in the Dynamics of Scientific Communication and Technological Innovation at the University of Amsterdam. He is known for his work in the sociology of communication and innovation, especially for his Triple helix model of innovation developed with Henry Etzkowitz in the 1990s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Italy–Pakistan relations</span> Bilateral relations

The term Italy–Pakistan relations refers to bilateral relations between the Republic of Italy and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The nations have cordial relations.

The technological innovation system is a concept developed within the scientific field of innovation studies which serves to explain the nature and rate of technological change. A Technological Innovation System can be defined as ‘a dynamic network of agents interacting in a specific economic/industrial area under a particular institutional infrastructure and involved in the generation, diffusion, and utilization of technology’.

Science-to-business marketing entails the marketing of research conducted at research institutions, particularly universities, to industry or other interested parties. The acronym S2B follows a series of marketing acronyms used to shorten and popularise marketing specialisations, including (B2C) and (B2B).

Mode 3 may refer to:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Triple helix</span> Set of three congruent geometrical helices with the same axis

In the fields of geometry and biochemistry, a triple helix is a set of three congruent geometrical helices with the same axis, differing by a translation along the axis. This means that each of the helices keeps the same distance from the central axis. As with a single helix, a triple helix may be characterized by its pitch, diameter, and handedness. Examples of triple helices include triplex DNA, triplex RNA, the collagen helix, and collagen-like proteins.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Caroline S. Wagner</span>

Caroline S. Wagner is an American academic and author specializing in public policy related to science, technology, and innovation. As of 2011, Wagner holds the endowed chair in international affairs named for Milton A. Wolf and Roslyn Z. Wolf at the John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

The CWTS Leiden Ranking is an annual global university ranking based exclusively on bibliometric indicators. The rankings are compiled by the Centre for Science and Technology Studies at Leiden University in the Netherlands. The Clarivate Analytics bibliographic database Web of Science is used as the source of the publication and citation data.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Filipe Teles</span> Political scientist

Filipe Teles is a political scientist and associate professor in the Department of Social, Political and Territorial Sciences at the University of Aveiro, Portugal, where he teaches courses in the fields of public policy and political science. He is acting as Prorector for Regional Development and Urban Policies at the University.

Industry funding of academic research in the United States is one of the two major sources of research funding in academia along with government support. Currently, private funding of research accounts for the majority of all research and development funding in the United States as of 2007 overall. Overall, Federal and Industrial sources contribute similar amounts to research, while industry funds the vast majority of development work.

The quadruple and quintuple innovation helix framework describes university-industry-government-public-environment interactions within a knowledge economy. In innovation helix framework theory, first developed by Henry Etzkowitz and Loet Leydesdorff and used in innovation economics and theories of knowledge, such as the knowledge society and the knowledge economy, each sector is represented by a circle (helix), with overlapping showing interactions. The quadruple and quintuple innovation helix framework was co-developed by Elias G. Carayannis and David F.J. Campbell, with the quadruple helix being described in 2009 and the quintuple helix in 2010. Various authors were exploring the concept of a quadruple helix extension to the triple helix model of innovation around the same time. The Carayannis and Campbell quadruple helix model incorporates the public via the concept of a 'media-based democracy', which emphasizes that when the political system (government) is developing innovation policy to develop the economy, it must adequately communicate its innovation policy with the public and civil society via the media to obtain public support for new strategies or policies. In the case of industry involved in R&D, the framework emphasizes that companies' public relations strategies have to negotiate ‘reality construction’ by the media. The quadruple and quintuple helix framework can be described in terms of the models of knowledge that it extends and by five subsystems (helices) that it incorporates; in a quintuple helix-driven model, knowledge and know-how are created and transformed, and circulate as inputs and outputs in a way that affects the natural environment. Socio-ecological interactions via the quadruple and quintuple helices can be utilized to define opportunities for the knowledge society and knowledge economy, such as innovation to address sustainable development, including climate change.

Elias G. Carayannis is a Greek-American economist who is presently a full Professor of Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the George Washington University School of Business in Washington, D.C.

References

  1. ↑ "The Triple Helix Concept". Stanford University Triple Helix Research Group. 11 July 2011.
  2. 1 2 3 Leydesdorff, Loet (2012). "The Knowledge-Based Economy and the Triple Helix Model" (PDF). University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam School of Communications Research. arXiv: 1201.4553 . Bibcode:2012arXiv1201.4553L.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 Galvao, Anderson; Mascarenhas, Carla; Marques, Carla; Ferreira, João; Ratten, Vanessa (2019-10-02). "Triple helix and its evolution: a systematic literature review". Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management. 10 (3): 812–833. doi:10.1108/jstpm-10-2018-0103. ISSN   2053-4620. S2CID   203101066.
  4. ↑ Etzkowitz, Henry; Leydesdorff, Loet (1995-01-01). "The Triple Helix -- University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development". SSRN   2480085.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Etzkowitz, Henry. "University-Industry-Government: The Triple Helix Model of Innovation" (PDF). European Organization for Quality. S2CID   18694456. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-05-09.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Etzkowitz, Henry (2008). The triple helix: university-industry-government innovation in action. New York: Routledge. ISBN   978-0-415-96450-0. OCLC   173749026.
  7. ↑ Etzkowitz, Henry; Zhou, Chunyan. The triple helix: university-industry-government innovation and entrepreneurship (Second ed.). Abingdon, Oxon. ISBN   978-1-315-62018-3. OCLC   959698460.
  8. 1 2 3 Saad, Mohammed; Zawdie, Girma, eds. (2011-02-25). Theory and Practice of the Triple Helix Model in Developing Countries. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203838211. ISBN   978-0-203-83821-1.
  9. 1 2 Leydesdorff, Loet; Lawton Smith, Helen. "The Triple Helix in the context of global change: dynamics and challenges" (PDF).
  10. ↑ Boyer, Carol M.; Lewis, Darrell R. (1984). "Faculty Consulting: Responsibility or Promiscuity?". The Journal of Higher Education. 55 (5): 637–659. doi:10.2307/1981827. JSTOR   1981827.
  11. 1 2 3 Sampat, Bhaven N. (2006). "Patenting and US academic research in the 20th century: The world before and after Bayh-Dole". Research Policy. 35 (6): 772–789. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.009.
  12. ↑ Carlson, W. Bernard (1988). "Academic Entrepreneurship and Engineering Education: Dugald C. Jackson and the MIT-GE Cooperative Engineering Course, 1907-1932". Technology and Culture. 29 (3): 536–567. doi:10.2307/3105273. JSTOR   3105273. S2CID   113017673.
  13. 1 2 Etzkowitz, Henry (2002–2011). "The Triple Helix of University - Industry - Government Implications for Policy and Evaluation" (PDF). Institutet för Studier av Utbildning och Forskning.
  14. ↑ Leslie, Stuart W. (1993). The Cold War and American science: the military-industrial-academic complex at MIT and Stanford. Columbia University Press.
  15. ↑ Kargon, Robert H.; Knowles, Scott G. (2002-01-01). "Knowledge for Use: Science, Higher Learning, and America's New Industrial Heartland, 1880-1915". Annals of Science. 59 (1): 1–20. doi:10.1080/00033790010028188. ISSN   0003-3790. S2CID   143669117.
  16. ↑ Kimatu, Josphert Ngui (2016-04-01). "Evolution of strategic interactions from the triple to quad helix innovation models for sustainable development in the era of globalization". Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 5 (1): 16. doi: 10.1186/s13731-016-0044-x . hdl: 10419/146858 . ISSN   2192-5372.
  17. 1 2 Etzkowitz, Henry (2003-09-01). "Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations". Social Science Information. 42 (3): 293–337. doi:10.1177/05390184030423002. ISSN   0539-0184. S2CID   143817817.
  18. ↑ "Technology transfer offices - Policy Brief" (PDF). Innovation Policy Platform.
  19. ↑ Leslie, Stuart W.; Kargon, Robert H. (1996). "Selling Silicon Valley: Frederick Terman's Model for Regional Advantage". The Business History Review. 70 (4): 435–472. doi:10.2307/3117312. JSTOR   3117312. S2CID   144219746.
  20. ↑ Cavallini, Simona; Soldi, Rossella; Friedl, Julia; Volpe, Margherita (2016). "Using the Quadruple Helix Approach to Accelerate the Transfer of Research and Innovation Results to Regional Growth" (PDF). European Union Committee of the Regions.
  21. ↑ Carayannis, E.G.; Campbell, D.F.J. (2009). "'Mode 3' and 'Quadruple Helix': toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem" (PDF). International Journal of Technology Management. 46 (3/4): 201–234. doi:10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374.
  22. ↑ Cresson, Edith (17 November 1997). "Towards a Knowledge-based Europe. Lecture by Mrs Edith Cresson at the London School of Economics and Political Science".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  23. ↑ "GUIDELINES FOR LIVING LABS IN CLIMATE SERVICES – EU MACS". eu-macs.eu. Retrieved 2019-03-09.
  24. ↑ hubavem (2013-12-04). "Open Innovation 2.0". Digital Single Market - European Commission. Retrieved 2019-03-09.
  25. ↑ Carayannis, Elias G; Barth, Thorsten D; Campbell, David FJ (2012). "The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation". Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 1 (1): 2. doi: 10.1186/2192-5372-1-2 . hdl: 10419/78609 . ISSN   2192-5372.
  26. ↑ Carayannis, Elias G; Barth, Thorsten D; Campbell, David FJ (2012). "The Quintuple Helix innovation model: global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation". Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 1 (1): 2. doi: 10.1186/2192-5372-1-2 . hdl: 10419/78609 . ISSN   2192-5372.
  27. ↑ Höglund, Linda; Linton, Gabriel (2017-12-27). "Smart specialization in regional innovation systems: a quadruple helix perspective". R&D Management. 48 (1): 60–72. doi:10.1111/radm.12306. ISSN 0033-6807.
  28. ↑ Leydesdorff, Loet (March 2012). "The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy?". Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 3 (1): 25–35. arXiv: 1012.1937 . doi:10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4. ISSN   1868-7865. S2CID   53142456.
  29. ↑ United States. Department of Energy. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. United States. Department of Energy. Office of Scientific and Technical Information. (2017). Annual Report on the State of the DOE National Laboratories. United States. Dept. of Energy. Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. p. 12. OCLC   982478894.
  30. ↑ Yuzhuo Cai (10 July 2013). "Enhancing context sensitivity of the Triple Helix model: An institutional logics perspective" (PDF). Triple Helix Conference.
  31. ↑ Cai, Yuzhuo; Ough, Rihannon; Liu, Cui. "Enabling conditions for regional triple helix systems". Triple Helix Association.
  32. ↑ Williams, Logan D. A.; Woodson, Thomas S. (2012). "The Future of Innovation Studies in Less Economically Developed Countries". Minerva. 50 (2): 221–237. doi:10.1007/s11024-012-9200-z. JSTOR   43548641. S2CID   59420797.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.