Triple Helix Journal (ISSN: 2197-1927)

Description

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 the 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 the Triple Helix actors sharing knowledge with each other and creating a pace 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 interorganizational 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 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 those various contextual settings may 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)? How those 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 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, and 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 leadership, policy and governance of each helix could affect the Triple Helix model functioning in various contexts? How various stakeholders may influence the relationships between helices? Do those offer any new considerations to the structure, dynamics or evolution of the Triple Helix mode?
What are the new or alternative methodologies in analysing the Triple Helix relations? E.g. what could be the novel methods to analyse network relationships in the Triple Helix context (Park, 2014)? Or what are the new/alternative ways and indicators to measure the university-industry-government relations: its performance, efficiency and effectiveness of the related processes, its outputs, outcomes and impacts (Goktepe-Hulten, 2009; Rossi and Rosli, 2015); its 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 should be still 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 the existing or emerging theories and concepts may offer to advance development of the Triple Helix model (Viale and Etzkowitz, 201)? Or 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).