Triple Helix Journal

A Journal of University-Industry-Government Innovation and Entrepreneurship


ISSN: 2197-1927 (electronic version)

Henry Etzkowitz, International Triple Helix Institute (ITHI), USA and Birkbeck College, UK

Managing Editor
Anne Rocha Perazzo, Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France

Advisory Editors
Carlota Perez, Technological University of Tallinn, Estonia Hebe Vessuri, Venezuelan Institute of Scientific Research, Venezuela

Associate Editors
Christiane Gebhardt, Malik Management Institute, Switzerland/associated Heidelberg University, Germany Loet Leydesdorff, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands Riccardo Viale, Fondazione Rosselli, Italy Chunyan Zhou, International Triple Helix Institute, China

Editorial Board
Irina Dezhina, Institute of International Relations and World Economy, Russia Han Woo Park, YeungNam University, South Korea Alexander Uvarov, TUSUR University, Russia Jarunee Wonglimpiyarat, Thammasat University, Thailand Girma Zawdie, University of Strathclyde, UK

Recently published papers:
The Triple Helix model and the competence set: human spare parts industry under scrutiny
Markku Sotarauta and Tuomo Heinonen
Different network typologies in patenting activity of academic inventors through time: the case of Italian chemists in the period 2000–2011
Saveria Capellari and Domenico De Stefano
Assessing economic impact of research and innovation originating from public research institutions and universities – case of Singapore PRIs
Sarah Cheah and Christopher Yu

The Efficiency of Triple-Helix Relations in Innovation Systems: Measuring the Connection between a Country’s Net Income and its Knowledge Base

Inga A Ivanova, Øivind Strand, Duncan Kushnir,Loet Leydesdorff

The Authors apply the Method of Reflections developed by Hidalgo and Hausmann for measuring economic complexity to a Triple Helix system of innovations by defining the Patent Complexity Index in analogy and addition to the Economic Complexity Index and extending MR to three dimensions. PCI is operationalized in terms of patent groups instead of product groups. PCI and ECI are computed for three groups of countries. The authors find no correlation between economic complexity and technological complexity which means that the two measures capture different information. Adding the third dimension of governance to the Method of Reflections, one can incorporate knowledge dimension in Hidalgo and Hausmann defined ECI and use MR for evaluation the efficiency of Triple-Helix system of innovations. The Method of Reflections can thus be used for evaluating the efficiency of a TH system of innovations in terms of its contribution to the net national income.

The Globalization of Academic Entrepreneurship? The Recent Growth (2009-2014) in University Patenting Decomposed

Loet Leydesdorff, Henry Etzkowitz, Duncan Kushnir

The contribution of academia to US patents has become increasingly global. Following a pause, with a relatively flat rate, from 1998 to 2008, the long-term trend of university patenting rising as a share of all patenting has resumed, driven by the internationalization of academic entrepreneurship and the persistence of US university technology transfer. We disaggregate this recent growth in university patenting at the US Patent and Trademark Organization (USPTO) in terms of nations and patent classes. Foreign patenting in the US has almost doubled during the period 2009-2014, mainly due to patenting by universities in Taiwan, Korea, China, and Japan. These nations compete with the US in terms of patent portfolios, whereas most European countries – with the exception of the UK – have more specific portfolios, mainly in the bio-medical fields. In the case of China, Tsinghua University holds 63% of the university patents in USPTO, followed by King Fahd University with 55.2% of the national portfolio. (under submission)

Innovation Lodestar: The Entrepreneurial University in a Stellar Knowledge Firmament

Henry Etzkowitz

Technological Forecasting and Social Change
ReferenceTFS18515 Online publication: June-2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.04.026

This article analyzes the stages and phases of development of the entrepreneurial university, incorporating the classic Humboldtian dualistic academic model that unites teaching and research, into a Triple Helix of university–industry–government interactions. The MIT and Stanford cases provide empirical data for the extrapolation of a knowledge-based regional development model that has become increasingly widespread in the US and globally. The societal implications of the dialectic between the ‘capitalization of knowledge’ and the ‘cogitization of capital’ are explored, in conclusion.

The Entrepreneurial University: Vision and Metrics

Henry Etzkowitz

Industry and Higher Education
Vol 30, no 2, April 2016, pp 83-97(15)
IP Publishing Limited

Forged in different academic and national traditions, the university is arriving at a common entrepreneurial format that incorporates and transcends its traditional missions. The academic entrepreneurial transition arises from the confluence of the internal development of higher education institutions and external influences on academic structures associated with the emergence of ‘knowledge-based’ innovation. Policies, practices and organizational innovations designed to translate knowledge into economic activity as well as addressing problems from society have spread globally. The objective is to enable universities to play a creative role in economic and social development from an independent perspective while still being responsive to government and industry priorities. The entrepreneurial university model paradoxically includes both increased university autonomy and greater involvement of external stakeholders. However, to facilitate the successful development of the entrepreneurial university, the dominant metrics used to determine university rankings and academic performance need radical revision. This article concludes with a summary of the critical questions to be addressed by the recently launched Global Entrepreneurial University Metrics Initiative in its effort to develop a metrics system that will facilitate the evolution of the entrepreneurial university and emphasize the role of higher education in economic and social development.

“Open Innovation” and “Triple Helix” Models of Innovation: Can Synergy in Innovation Systems Be Measured?

Loet Leydesdorff, Inga A Ivanova

The model of “Open Innovations” (OI) can be compared with the “Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations” (TH) as attempts to find surplus value in bringing industrial innovation closer to public R&D. Whereas the firm is central in the model of OI, the TH adds multi-centeredness: in addition to firms, universities and (e.g., regional) governments can take leading roles in innovation eco-systems. In addition to the (transversal) technology transfer at each moment of time, one can focus on the dynamics in the feedback loops. Under specifiable conditions, feedback loops can be turned into feedforward ones that drive innovation eco-systems towards self-organization and the auto-catalytic generation of new options. The generation of options can be more important than historical realizations (“best practices”) for the longer-term viability of knowledge-based innovation systems. A system without sufficient options, for example, is locked-in. The generation of redundancy – the Triple Helix indicator – can be used as a measure of unrealized but technologically feasible options given a historical configuration. Different coordination mechanisms (markets, policies, knowledge) provide different perspectives on the same information and thus generate redundancy. Increased redundancy not only stimulates innovation in an eco-system by reducing the prevailing uncertainty; it also enhances the synergy in and innovativeness of an innovation system.

A Global Call for Action to include Gender in Research Impact Assessment

Pavel V Ovseiko et al

Health Research Policy and Systems 2016 14:50
DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0126-z
Published: July 2016

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we – a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe – argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.