Publication Opportunities

Special Issue – Call for Papers – Triple Helix Journal

Entrepreneurial Societies: Bridging the gaps between entrepreneurial universities’ activities and their stakeholders

Guest Editors:
Professor Dr Klaus Sailer and Audrey Stolze, Munich University of Applied Sciences and
Strascheg Center for Entrepreneurship, Germany (*email address protected*)


In 2013, Etzkowitz referred to the entrepreneurial university as “an efflorescence of embryonic characteristics that exist ‘in potentio’ in any academic enterprise”. Multi-faceted, entrepreneurial universities activities are combinations of strategic intent and responses to stakeholder’s demands, in the form of policies, grant-tenders and industry partnerships. Beyond entrepreneurship education, research/technology transfer and start-up support, entrepreneurial universities shall contribute to entrepreneurial societies by providing leadership for creating entrepreneurial thinking, actions, institutions, and an overall entrepreneurship capital (Audretsch, 2006, 2012). In this scenario, how to bridge the gaps between entrepreneurial universities’ activities and their stakeholders? How can entrepreneurial universities effectively contribute to building entrepreneurial societies? What is the future of Entrepreneurial Universities?

This article collection aims to address these broad questions, by presenting case studies from around the world about the following issues:

  • Science with and for Society, Quadruple/Quintuple Helix, Co-creation and Knowledge Spill-overs in entrepreneurial universities;
    Policy Impact: Push-Pull forces, response-strategies and alliances in the relationship between policy-makers and entrepreneurial universities;
  • Administration, managerialism, leadership and cultural issues in Entrepreneurial Universities;
    Support-networks and peer-group learning systems in international, national, regional and/or local settings (physical or virtual);
  • Bridging-formats and hybrid-organisations: entrepreneurship centres, accelerators, living-labs, co-working and maker-spaces, cross-sector hubs for innovation, etc.;
  • Gaps and issues leading from the classroom to the incubator: Students’ or educators’ perspectives; Pedagogics and evaluation in entrepreneurship education; Bridging and support mechanisms leading to incubation; Industry involvement; Academic spin-offs.
  • Gaps and issues leading from the research lab to the technology transfer offices: researchers’ and administrator’s perspectives; TTO support mechanisms and performance measurement.

We would like to invite you to address these issues posing your own specific questions, preferably applying a case-study method, but you may follow other research methods as appropriate. An ideal article combines theoretical, empirical and policy elements, although the balance may differ.

Abstract submission

Authors should submit their abstracts directly to guest editor, Audrey Stolze – *email address protected*, by 30 April 2019.

Full paper submission

Full papers should be submitted using the submission instructions below by 30 June 2019.

Submission instructions

Before submitting your manuscript, please ensure you have carefully read the instructions for authors at The complete manuscript should be submitted through the Triple Helix submission system at To ensure that you submit to the correct article collection. please select the appropriate section in the drop-down menu upon submission. In addition, indicate within your cover letter that you wish your manuscript to be considered as part of the article collection on Entrepreneurial Society: Bridging the gaps between entrepreneurial universities’ activities and their stakeholders. All submissions will undergo rigorous peer review and accepted articles will be published within the journal as a collection.

Additional information

Submissions will also benefit from the usual advantages of open access publication:

Efficient publication: online submission, electronic peer review and production, make the process of publishing your article simple and efficient.
High visibility and international readership in your field: open access publication ensures high visibility and maximum exposure for your work – anyone with online access can read your article.

No space constraints: publishing online means unlimited space for figures, extensive data, and video footage.

Authors retain copyright, licensing the article under a Creative Commons license: articles can be freely redistributed and reused as long as the article is correctly attributed.
For content or editorial queries please contact Editor-in-Chief, Henry Etzkowitz, *email address protected*, or the Managing Editor, Anne Rocha Perazzo, *email address protected*.


Triple Helix Futures

Co-Guest Editors:
Ekaterina Albats, LUT-University, Finland Rabii Outamha, University of Hassan II, Morocco Henry Etzkowitz, International Triple Helix Institute (ITHI), Silicon Valley, USA

Deadline for extended abstracts: 31st May 2019


New perspectives towards Triple Helix innovation and entrepreneurship phenomenon are sought, from the array of relevant disciplines and inter-disciplines, across different levels of analysis – from micro to meso to macro-, spanning the range of policy orientations.
The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government relations provides a model for analysing the transitions from a statist command economy, or a market (industrial) economy, to a knowledge-based society (Etzkowitz, 1996; Ivanova and Leydesdorff, 2014; Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2018), where the role of an entrepreneurial university in innovation is increasingly salient (Etzkowitz, 1983). Originally focused on renewing declining industrial regions (Etzkowitz, 2002), then on creating new regional innovation ecosystems (Etzkowitz, Pique and Mirabel, 2018), the Triple Helix both rose to support national and multinational initiatives, and lowered to strengthen micro-foundations Linton, 2018). The Triple Helix model was also taken beyond the knowledge-based realm of clusters and techno-poles and applied to solve social inequalities and foster arts/design innovation (Etzkowitz, 2014).
A Triple Helix configuration can be considered as a collective entrepreneur, principal agent, facilitator and enabler of knowledge creation, technology transfer and firm formation (Leydesdorff, 2005; Bresnitz, and Etzkowitz, 2016). Moreover, it is a universal innovation and entrepreneurship model that incorporates other relevant models (National Innovation Systems, Open Innovation, Mode 2. In its capacious framework (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000; Leydesdorff, 2000)). Transcending “learning by doing” and other forms of incremental innovation (Lundvall, 2000; Rosenberg, 1982), discontinuous innovation relies on academic knowledge as a structural element and source for innovation in knowledge-based societies (Cooke and Leydesdorff, 2006; Schumpeter, 1911). The sources of innovation and entrepreneurship, in turn, do not reside exclusively inside firms (Fusfeld, 1994), but are commonly found in the interstices between firms (Chesbrough, 2003); firms and universities (Powell, 1990) as well as government (Etzkowitz, Gulbrandsen and Levitt, 2000.)
Various versions of the Triple Helix model have been identified, emphasizing top-down, bottom up or lateral initiatives as well as some combination of those. Originally focused primarily on economic development, the Triple Helix model has been extended to environmental and social sustainability (Zhou and Etzkowitz, 2006) and tasked to develop “triple helix ethics” (Etzkowitz, 2011). Civil society is posited as the framework of an optimum Triple Helix configuration, but constricted and hidden civil societies have also been identified as conducive to innovation under totalitarian conditions (Solzhenitsyn, 1968). In authoritarian societies where “bottom up” initiatives are considered a threat to public order and lateral interactions, without top down approval are interdicted, entrepreneurial arrangements among trusted peers appear in order to get things done. In such circumstances, innovative discourse may have to be hidden in circumlocutions of speech, distributed via “samizdat” and obscured in “we chats” that “read between the lines” (Strauss, 1968).

Triple Helix is an increasingly widespread academic policy and practice discourse but it has also achieved a broader reach as a shorthand kleenex-like emblem for public/private/academic movements, delinked from theoretical provenance (Gebhardt and Etzkowitz, 2019). Re-establishing ties between implicit and explicit helical innovation is an opportunity for academic analysts and practitioners to enhance each other’s work and open up new arenas for collaboration. The Triple Helix is not just a model but a venue, virtual and physical, periodically providing a meeting place for scholars, professionals, and policy-makers who address the transition to a knowledge-based economy and society (Granovetter, 2017) from a variety of development perspectives and at different geo-technic levels, but with a common interest in making the discussion informed by empirical research, methodological rigour and theoretical perspicacity (cf:
Triple Helix theorizing has not claimed a general theory of societal development, nevertheless, it has potential as such through development of a methodology for social change, transcending capitalism and socialism. Studying the dynamics and evolution of Triple Helix relations provides the scientific landscape with the new dimensions and variables responsible for the emergence of the knowledge-based system (Leydesdorff et al., 2019) – e. g. the redundancy emerging from Triple Helix actors sharing knowledge with each other and creating a space for discourse around their different perspectives towards same events. Triple Helix futurists are charged to explore the potential of Triple Helix theory and practice for Social Justice, conceptually, via philosophical thought experiments, quantitatively through computer-based AI simulations (Carayannis et al, 2016), offering new measurements and analysing inter-organizational structural and institutional configurations (Leydesdorff and Ivanova, 2016) as well as through traditional political economic argumentation and analysis (Burgos-Mascarell et al, 2016).
Celebrating more than three decades of the Triple Helix (Etzkowitz, 1993, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1995), this special issue aims to inspire new questions, discoveries, visions and aspirations for the future of this field. This special issue is a forum for all who are interested in Triple Helix aiming to gather the best examples of empirical studies and theoretical reflections that showcase originality, new thinking, views, contexts, data and methods about the phenomenon. We are also interested in works that develop new conceptual frameworks, integrate other theoretical fields across innovation and knowledge management related domains and reflect on those with empirical data and fresh observations. Articles investigating individual innovation initiators (III), regional innovation organizers (RIO), as well as innovation modalities powered by intermediaries such as science parks, incubators, accelerators, and technology transfer offices (Peters and Etzkowitz, 1998), and novel sources beyond the classic Triple Helix, are also most welcome.

Possible questions addressed by the contributions include, but are not limited to:

  • Following the initial considerations of Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 1998), how different is studying the Triple Helix relations in various regional, institutional, economic, cultural and other contextual settings (Etzkowitz and Klofsten, 2008)? What new insights may those various contextual settings bring to the classical Triple Helix model? For example, what are the specifics of the Triple Helix relations and its synergy in emerging economies (Etzkowitz, Mello and Almeida, 2008; Leydesdorff et al, 2014; Park, 2014)? What so these look like in developed economies? What are the specifics of the Triple Helix in cross-cultural settings? What are the “best practices” of university-industry-government relationships and/or what are the failure cases in various settings, and what are then the implications for the Triple Helix as a research theme (Etzkowitz, 2018)?
  • How and under which conditions can the synergy in university-industry-government relations emerge in the transition from a statist command economy or a market (industrial) economy to a more complex knowledge-based economy? And how can this synergy be measured? What is the role and future of the university in this new, Triple Helix synergy configuration? Case studies enable us to gain subtle insights in the trade-offs between traditional and entrepreneurial roles of the university (Clark, 2001). How do universities combine entrepreneurship and responsible innovation with their roles of providing higher education, their enlightenment functions, with long-term research perspectives? What are the gender, class, and intersectional dimensions of triple helix interactions in different cultures (Kiehl, Kemelgor and Etzkowitz, In Press).
  • What new insights are suggested by analysing various helices (see e.g. Meyer et al, 2003), actors or structural arrangements (see e.g. Champenois and Etzkowitz, 2018) of the Triple Helix? How could leadership, policy and governance of each helix affect the Triple Helix model functioning in various contexts? How may various stakeholders influence the relationships between helices? Do these offer any new considerations to the structure, dynamics, or evolution of the Triple Helix mode?
  • What are the new or alternative methodologies in analysing Triple Helix relations? e.g. what could be novel methods to analyse network relationships in the Triple Helix context (Park, 2014)? Or, what are the new/alternative ways and indicators to measure university-industry-government relations: the performance, efficiency and effectiveness of the related processes, the outputs, outcomes and impacts (Goktepe-Hulten, 2009; Rossi and Rosli, 2015); the dynamics, evolution and changes in its structural configurations (Leydesdorff et al., 2019)? What have been the methodological developments to advance the Triple Helix as a research field? e.g. what could still be learned by the scientific community in terms of the units and levels of analysis, and what are the prospects of the multi-level (Bogers et al, 2017) and mixed method research strategies in the Triple Helix field?
  • What are the prospects of the theoretical developments of the Triple Helix concept? What new insights may the existing or emerging theories or concepts offer to advance development of Triple Helix model (Viale and Etzkowitz, 2010)? What are the novel applications of the Triple Helix model in various fields and/or in cross-disciplinary settings Dzisah and Etzkowitz, 2009)? What are the potential synergies between Triple Helix and global approaches, such as World Systems, to societal analysis, innovation and entrepreneurship (Krucken and Drori, 2009).


Dr Ekaterina Albats, postdoctoral researcher, lecturer, School of Business and Management, LUT-University, Finland
Rabii Outamha, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law Economic and Social Sciences, University of Hassan II, Casablanca, Morocco
Professor Henry Etzkowitz, President, Triple Helix Association, EiC, Triple Helix Journal; CEO, International Triple Helix Institute, Silicon Valley and member Advisory Boards, International Association of Science Parks and Innovation Areas (IASP) and Helix Centre, Linkoping University, Sweden.
Submission instructions
Deadline for extended abstracts (1000-1500 words): 30 April 2019.
Contributions are invited from PhD students and recent graduates (two to three years after degree award), as well as non-PhD professionals who are interested in making a scientific contribution and may like to join a PhD programme in the future. We are interested in all topics related to Triple Helix innovation and entrepreneurship.
Papers that were accepted for the XVI Triple Helix Conference in Manchester or for the II International Triple Helix Summit in Dubai are considered to have passed the first level of desk review and would be sent for THJ double blind peer review immediately. Please submit through Brill Editorial Manager system.

New submissions should go into the Brill Editorial Manager system with a copy to the Topical Collection Guest Editors: *email address protected*, *email address protected* and *email address protected*.

Best papers’ authors, after the subscription of the THA student membership fee (30/60€ per year), can receive the APC fee waiver from the THA, if the related cost will not be covered by the respective institutions with which authors are affiliated.

CALL FOR PAPERS for a Special Issue on Organizational Goals, Firm Outcomes and the Assessment of Performance: Reconceptualizing Success in Management Studies

Submission Deadline: 30 April 2020

Guest Editors:
Alfredo De Massis, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano
and Lancaster University
Riccardo Fini, University of Bologna
Mike Wright, Imperial College Business School London

JMS Editors:
Donald Siegel, Arizona State University
John E. Prescott, Univsersity of Pittsburgh

The existence of definite organizational goals is a longstanding and central premise in management and organization research. Although several decades have now passed since the publication of seminal studies (e.g, Cyert and March, 1963; Fama and Jensen, 1983), many aspects of organizational goals, especially those related to their antecedents and to the processes through which they are formed and become manifest in organizations, have received scant attention and are thus only loosely integrated in management and organization theories.
Assessment of firm performance (and success) depend on how organizational goals and firm outcomes are measured. Generally speaking, success is the achievement of goals, and the assessment of firm performance is affected by how different organizational goal systems are specified (e.g., financial/non-financial goals; multiple substitute goals, multiple positive/negative complementary goals). Unfortunately, most prior research about firm performance shares a fundamental shortcoming as it neither measures the goals of the organization or its stakeholders, nor takes into-account the different goal systems characterizing different types of firms. So, gaining a better understanding of these fundamental concepts gives management scholars the rare opportunity to set the rules of the game about how firm performance should be assessed. Therefore, we believe the time is ripe to reassess the concept of organizational goals and their implications for firm outcomes, and measure their impact on firm performance. Overall, we hope that this special issue will inform future management studies into the intriguing task of reconceptualizing success in management.

Aims and Scope
Just as the emergence of the primacy of shareholder value – thirty years ago- reversed the trend towards corporate behaviour in the interests of managerial goals, research, practice and policy debates are now questioning the continued primacy of the goal of maximizing shareholder value in the light of various high-profile failures, and deleterious effects on employees, customers and smaller suppliers. Arguments have recently emerged that organizations should take into account a broader set of goals that reflect the wider body of stakeholders and focus on a goal of maximizing shareholder welfare (Hart and Zingales, 2017) rather than just focusing on shareholder wealth maximization.
An organizational goal is generally defined as an aspiration level on a measurable organizational outcome (Kotlar et al., 2018). Among the different variables representing the goals that an organization may pursue, researchers have mostly focused on profitability (Greve, 2003). But organizations often pursue other goals including productivity, sales, market share, and status (e.g, Baum et al, 2005), and research increasingly acknowledges the existence of a broad and very heterogeneous array of organizational goals that go beyond profit (e.g, Fiegenbaum et al, 1996, Kotlar et al, 2018).
Research to date has examined the consequences of organizational goals for organizational behaviour and outcomes. What is more, multiple organizational goals may have additive effects, jointly influencing a single outcome, as well as interactive effects, such that the accomplishment of one goal may lower or increase the saliency of another goal, following hierarchical rules (Greve, 2008). Recent research has also shown that organizations that differ in terms of ownership type, governance, industrial sector, size, or market position, among other characteristics, pursue diverse organizational goals, and conflicts may arise (e.g, between majority and minority shareholders; between family and non-family members, or among different types of family members in family firms).
All this notwithstanding, there has been little prior attempt to synthesize and compare the effects of these different goals on firm outcomes. Given the importance of goal setting for predicting organizational behaviours and outcomes, it is key to have a detailed understanding of what factors affect firms’ decision to pursue a specific set of goals.
Moreover, it is important to consider the multiplicity of firm goal systems, as how the performance of a firm is assessed will depend critically on how their goals are specified (Chua et al., 2018). For instance, once scholars admit explicitly that some types of organization may also pursue non-financial goals, then no study about the overall performance of those firms in terms of either effectiveness or efficiency is possible without measuring non-financial goals. Although some analyses have been conducted on the topic (Fini et al, 2018), there is a need to develop a more detailed and comprehensive theoretical understanding of this phenomenon and the implications of organizational goals and firm outcomes on the assessment of firm performance.


Topics of Interest

While this Special Issue is open-minded regarding phenomena, theories, and methodological approaches, we specifically encourage submissions that examine: i) the factors affecting firms’ decision to pursue a specific set of goals, ii) the implications on firm outcomes and iii) the theoretical, methodological and empirical implications on the assessment of firm performance, and more generally, success. We also welcome submissions that: iv) examine and contextualize the theoretical and empirical perspectives that have been used so far to describe the processes through which goals are established · Relationships between organizational goals and individual/group decision-making processes (including cognitive and emotional aspects); · Relationship between multiple organizational goals and outcomes in hybrid organizations; · Implications of organizational goals for different types of firm outcomes and different performance assessment models; · Studies about successful and unsuccessful organizations and their relations with their goals and the adopted goals systems; · Antecedents and formulation processes of goals in different types of organizations (e.g, entrepreneurial firms, publicly-traded firms, family firms, social enterprises); · Determinants and impacts of different goals within the same type of organization (e.g., different goals of family firms, venture-backed firms, not-for-profits/social enterprises, science-based, etc.) and variation across different organization types; · Influence of institutional forces and logics on goal formulation and enactments; · Time and temporal considerations in organizational goals (e.g., short-term and long-term goals, temporal evolution and adjustment of goals, timing and sequencing of goal-setting behaviours, changes in goals as a function of situational factors such as leadership/ownership successions, environmental jolts and external/internal crises); · Impact of different classes of goals on firm behaviour and outcomes, in areas such as innovation, entrepreneurship, human resource management, internationalization, diversification, professionalization, alliances, etc.; · Multi- and cross-disciplinary perspectives on organizational goals (e.g., psychology, sociology, politics, economics); · Cross-cultural differences in goals and goal formulation processes; · Organizational goals in organization and management theories (e.g., organizational theory, agency theory, resource-based view, behavioural theories, stakeholder theory).

Submission Process and Deadlines · The deadline for submissions is 30 April 2020. Submissions should be prepared using the JMS Manuscript Preparation Guidelines ( ·- Manuscripts should be submitted to Gemma Parkinson at *email address protected* · Papers will be reviewed according to the JMS double-blind review process.

Informal enquiries relating to the Special Issue, proposed topics and potential fit with the Special Issue objectives are welcomed. Please direct questions to the Guest Editors Manuscript Development Workshop:

Although attendance is not obligatory for papers to be published in the Special Issue, the guest editors are planning to hold a manuscript development workshop at either the 5 University of Bologna or the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano in Italy following the first round of reviews (details will be provided later). Authors who are invited to “revise and resubmit” (R&R) a manuscript will be invited to attend this workshop. Please note that participation in the workshop does not guarantee acceptance of the paper in the Special Issue. Furthermore, attendance is also not a prerequisite for publication.

Further Information – For questions regarding the content of this Special Issue, please contact the guest editors: · Alfredo De Massis, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano: *email address protected* · Riccardo Fini, University of Bologna: *email address protected* · Mike Wright, Imperial College Business School London: *email address protected* · Donald Siegel, Arizona State University: *email address protected* · John E. Prescott, University of Pittsburgh: *email address protected*


Published by the Triple Helix Association  –  ISSN 2281-4515


Print Friendly, PDF & Email