Are the triple helix interactions among industry-university-research institutes beneficial for knowledge creation?

Are the triple helix interactions among industry-university-research institutes beneficial for knowledge creation?

Zhang Yi, Du Jun, Bai Fuchen

Science Research Management ›› 2023, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (5) : 131-139.

PDF(450 KB)

PDF(450 KB)

Science Research Management ›› 2023, Vol. 44 ›› Issue (5) : 131-139.

Are the triple helix interactions among industry-university-research institutes beneficial for knowledge creation?

Zhang Yi^1,2, Du Jun^1,3, Bai Fuchen¹

Author information +

History +

Abstract

In the knowledge economy era, the innovation mode has experienced a radical change from the past linear innovation to the current triple helix (TH) one by which the economic and academic organizations achieve high penetration and organizational boundaries become blurred. In this context, a considerable volume of studies have been devoted to investigate how the TH interactions between/among academic organizations (such as universities and research institutes) and economic ones (industries) promotes knowledge application and commercialization. Yet, the extant studies neglected an important issue, namely, the ‘reverse feeding’ effect of TH interactions on knowledge creation by academic organizations, therefor leaving a little understanding in respect to the impact of TH interactions on knowledge creation.
In this paper, we attempt to fill this prominent gap by exploring whether the TH non-linear interactions among Industry–University–Research Institutes (IUR) are conducive to the promotion of knowledge creation by academic organizations in China. Specifically, Chinese Double First-Class universities which act as the important knowledge creation actors in national innovation system are taken as the research sample, and the mutual redundancy indicator developed by Leydesdorff and Ivanova is employed to measure the dynamic trend of TH interactions of Chinese Double First-Class universities with industries and research institutes. Furthermore, the regression analysis is implemented to empirically investigate the TH interactions′ effects on knowledge creation, which contributes to clarifying the following topics: (1) whether the TH interactions among the Chinese Double First-Class universities, industries and research institutes are beneficial for the improvement of Chinese Double First-Class universities′ knowledge outputs; (2) whether the relationship between research investment and knowledge outputs of Chinese Double First-Class universities is positively moderated by the TH interactions among the Chinese Double First-Class universities, industries and research institutes.
The results show that the bilateral coupling relationship between the academic organizations becomes stronger and stronger. This not only helps to create more knowledge, but also moderates the relationship between research investments and knowledge outputs in a positive manner. Moreover, the bilateral interactions between the academic and economic organizations have been increasingly decoupled, and these bilateral interactions not only exert a negative effect on knowledge creation, but also negatively regulate the relationship between research investment and knowledge outputs in an indirect manner. In addition, the trilateral interactions among IUR become decoupled, and these trilateral interactions have no significant impact on knowledge creation.
It should be noted that our research findings are inconsistent with the extant studies which were implemented in the context of Western countries. This may be attributed to a possible reason in respect to the sharp contrast scenarios between the Western countries and China where the TH interactions among innovative organizations fall into the different positions along the innovation value chain, i.e., the Western countries are on the upstream whereas China is on downstream, resulting into different manners by which TH interactions exert ‘reverse feeding’ effect on knowledge creation in different country contexts.
This paper contributes to extant literature in two aspects: Firstly, compared with the extant research which largely explores how the TH interactions promote the new knowledge created by academic organizations successfully transferred to economic organizations, and tends to focus on whether the TH interactions have an impact on technological innovation performance from the research perspective of economic organizations, this paper mainly investigates the feedback effect of TH interactions on conducting scientific research and knowledge creation from the research perspective of academic organizations, therefore enriching the TH innovative research. Secondly, in contrast to abundant research which is limited to depicting TH interactions rather than exploring their effects, this paper not only reveals the bilateral and trilateral interactions between/among the innovative organizations, but also further implements an in-depth study on the impact of TH interactions on knowledge creation.
In summary, this paper devotes on investigating the academic effects of TH non-linear interactions among innovative organizations in the context of China, which presents some important implications for theoretical, practical and political circles. In particular, the results of our study may be of interest to the China′s policy makers who strive to enhance the national innovation capability by strengthening TH non-linear interactions, resulting in an‘innovation-oriented’ country in the future.

Key words

triple helix interactions among industry-university-research institutes / academic organization / knowledge creation / Double First-Class universities

Cite this article

Download Citations

Zhang Yi, Du Jun, Bai Fuchen. Are the triple helix interactions among industry-university-research institutes beneficial for knowledge creation?[J]. Science Research Management. 2023, 44(5): 131-139

References

[1] Shi X, Wu Y, Fu D. Does University-Industry collaboration improve innovation efficiency? Evidence from Chinese Firms?[J], Economic Modelling.2020, (68): 39-53.
[2] Choi S, Yang J S, Park H W. Quantifying the Triple Helix relationship in scientific research: statistical analyses on the dividing pattern between developed and developing countries[J], Quality & Quantity.2015,49(4): 1381-1396.
[3] Zhang Y, Chen K, Fu X. Scientific effects of Triple Helix interactions among research institutes, industries and universities[J], Technovation.2019,(86-87): 33-47.
[4] 张艺, 陈凯华. 官产学三螺旋创新的国际研究：起源、进展与展望[J], 科学学与科学技术管理.2020,41(5): 116-139.
[5] Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The Triple Helix -- University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development[J], EASST Review.1995,14(1): 14-19.
[6] Chen K, Zhang Y, Zhu G, Mu R. Do research institutes benefit from their network positions in research collaboration networks with industries or/and universities?[J], Technovation.2020,(94-95): 102002.
[7] Yang H, Jung W S. Assessing Knowledge Structures for Public Research Institutes[J], Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia.2016,15(1): 27-40.
[8] Yoon J, Park H W. Triple helix dynamics of South Korea’s innovation system: a network analysis of inter-regional technological collaborations[J], Quality & Quantity.2017,51(3): 989-1007.
[9] Yoon J. The evolution of South Korea’s innovation system: moving towards the triple helix model?[J], Scientometrics.2015,104(1): 265-293.
[10] Gretsch O, Salzmann E C, Kock A. University‐industry collaboration and front‐end success: the moderating effects of innovativeness and parallel cross‐firm collaboration[J], R&D Management.2019,49(5): 835-849.
[11] Sánchez-Barrioluengo M, Benneworth P. Is the entrepreneurial university also regionally engaged? Analysing the influence of university's structural configuration on third mission performance[J], Technological Forecasting and Social Change.2019, (141): 206-218.
[12] Elvekrok I, Veflen N, Nilsen E R, Gausdal A H. Firm innovation benefits from regional triple-helix networks[J], Regional studies.2018,52(9): 1214-1224.
[13] Souzanchi Kashani E, Zarghami H R. The dynamics of university-industry-government relationships in Nanoscience: investigating the Triple-Helix differences between Iran and Switzerland[J], Technology Analysis & Strategic Management.2019,31(7): 817-832.
[14] Li R, Fang W. University-industry-government relations of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) universities: The perspective of the mutual information[J], Plos One.2019,14(2): 1-14.
[15] Leydesdorff L, Porto-Gomez I. Measuring the expected synergy in Spanish regional and national systems of innovation[J], The Journal of Technology Transfer.2019,44(1): 189-209.
[16] Li Y, Arora S, Youtie J, Shapira P. Using web mining to explore Triple Helix influences on growth in small and mid-size firms[J], Technovation.2018,(76-77): 3-14.
[17] Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and "mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations[J], Research Policy.2000,29(2): 109-123.
[18] Yoda N, Kuwashima K. Triple helix of university–industry–government relations in Japan: Transitions of collaborations and interactions[J], Journal of the Knowledge Economy.2020, 11(3): 1120-1144.
[19] Leydesdorff L, Ivanova I, Meyer M. 2019a. Synergy in Innovation Systems Measured as Redundancy in Triple Helix Relations[C]. In: Gl?nzel W., Moed H.F., Schmoch U., Thelwall M. (eds), Springer handbook of science and technology indicators. Cham: Springer: 421-443.
[20] Santoro G, Bresciani S, Papa A. Collaborative modes with Cultural and Creative Industries and innovation performance: The moderating role of heterogeneous sources of knowledge and absorptive capacity[J], Technovation.2020, (92-93): 102040.
[21] Kang W, Zhao S, Song W, Zhuang T. Triple helix in the science and technology innovation centers of China from the perspective of mutual information: a comparative study between Beijing and Shanghai[J], Scientometrics.2019,118(3): 921-940.
[22] Leydesdorff L. Synergy in Knowledge-Based Innovation Systems at National and Regional Levels: The Triple-Helix Model and the Fourth Industrial Revolution[J], Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity.2018,4(16): 1-13.
[23] Gustafsson R, Jarvenpaa S. Extending community management to industry‐university‐government organizations[J], R&d Management.2018,48(1): 121-135.
[24] Mêgnigbêto E. Modelling the Triple Helix of university-industry-government relationships with game theory: Core, Shapley value and nucleolus as indicators of synergy within an innovation system[J], Journal of Informetrics.2018,12(4): 1118-1132.
[25] Barrie J, Zawdie G, Jo?o E. Assessing the role of triple helix system intermediaries in nurturing an industrial biotechnology innovation network[J], Journal of Cleaner Production.2019,214(5): 209-223.
[26] Carayannis E G, Campbell D F. Mode 1, Mode 2, and Mode 3: Triple Helix and Quadruple Helix[M], Smart Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems. Springer, 2019: 17-30.
[27] Mcadam M, Debackere K. Beyond ‘triple helix’toward ‘quadruple helix’models in regional innovation systems: Implications for theory and practice[J], R&d Management.2018,48(1): 3-6.
[28] Miller K, Mcadam R, Mcadam M. A systematic literature review of university technology transfer from a quadruple helix perspective: toward a research agenda[J], R&D Management.2018,48(1): 7-24.
[29] Lozano R, Petterssén S, Jons?ll A, Niss C, Bergstr?m B. Moving to a quintuple helix approach in SPP: Collaboration and LCC for lighting procurements[M], Cost and EU Public Procurement Law:Routledge. 2019.
[30] Harwiki W, Malet C. Quintuple helix and innovation on performance of SMEs within ability of SMEs as a mediator variable: A comparative study of creative industry in Indonesia and Spain[J], Management Science Letters.2020,10(6): 1389-1400.
[31] Park H W. An interview with Loet Leydesdorff: the past, present, and future of the triple helix in the age of big data[J], Scientometrics.2014,99(1): 199-202.
[32] Park H W. Transition from the Triple Helix to N-Tuple Helices? An interview with Elias G. Carayannis and David F. J. Campbell[J], Scientometrics.2014,99(1): 203-207.
[33] Leydesdorff L. The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based Economy?[J], Journal of the Knowledge Economy.2012,3(1): 25-35.
[34] Barbalho S C M, Burba L, Martin A R. The effort of “Triple Helix” actors in disruptive technologies[J], Product: Management & Development.2019,16(2): 92-103.
[35] Ryan P, Geoghegan W, Hilliard R. The microfoundations of firms’ explorative innovation capabilities within the triple helix framework[J], Technovation.2018,(76-77): 15-27.
[36] Guerrero M, Urbano D. The impact of Triple Helix agents on entrepreneurial innovations' performance: An inside look at enterprises located in an emerging economy[J], Technological Forecasting and Social Change.2017,(119): 294-309.
[37] 张艺, 陈凯华, 朱桂龙. 产学研合作与后发国家创新主体能力演变——以中国高铁产业为例[J], 科学学研究.2018,36(10): 227-244.
[38] Biscaro C, Comacchio A. Knowledge creation across worldviews: How metaphors impact and orient group creativity[J], Organization Science.2018,29(1): 58-79.
[39] Lee T, Liu C H, Fei W, Tsang L Y 2018. Knowledge Transfer in an Organization: Effects of Individual and Departmental Network Centrality [J], Academy of Management, 2018,(1): 13099.
[40] Azagra-Caro J M, Barberá-Tomás D, Edwards-Schachter M, Tur E M. Dynamic interactions between university-industry knowledge transfer channels: A case study of the most highly cited academic patent[J], Research Policy.2017,46(2): 463-474.
[41] Gomes-Casseres B, Hagedoorn J, Jaffe A B. Do alliances promote knowledge flows?[J], Journal of Financial Economics.2006,80(1): 5-33.
[42] Tsai W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance[J], Academy of Management Journal.2001,44(5): 996-1004.
[43] Meyer M, Kuusisto J, Grant K, De Silva M, Flowers S, Choksy U. Towards new Triple Helix organisations? A comparative study of competence centres as knowledge, consensus and innovation spaces[J], R&D Management.2019,49(4): 555-573.
[44] Leydesdorff L, Ivanova I. “Open innovation” and “triple helix” models of innovation: can synergy in innovation systems be measured?[J], Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity.2016,2(1): 1-12.
[45] Leydesdorff L, Etzkowitz H, Ivanova I, Meyer M S. The Measurement of Synergy in Innovation Systems: Redundancy Generation in a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations[C]. In: Gl?Nzel, H. Moed, U. Schmoch, et al., Springer handbook of science and technology indicators. Springer handbook of science and technology indicators. Heidelberg: Springer, 2017.
[46] Paruchuri S. Intraorganizational networks, interorganizational networks, and the impact of central inventors: A longitudinal study of pharmaceutical firms[J], Organization Science.2010,21(1): 63-80.
[47] Lee Y H, Kim Y. Analyzing interaction in R&D networks using the Triple Helix method: Evidence from industrial R&D programs in Korean government[J], Technological Forecasting and Social Change.2016,110: 93-105.
[48] Berchicci L. Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance[J], Research Policy.2013,42(1): 117-127.
[49] 张艺, 孟飞荣. 海洋战略性新兴产业基础研究竞争力发展态势研究——以海洋生物医药产业为例[J], 科技进步与对策.2019,36(16): 67-76.
[50] Kang W M, Zhao S L, Song W, Zhuang T. Triple helix in the science and technology innovation centers of China from the perspective of mutual information: a comparative study between Beijing and Shanghai[J], Scientometrics.2019,118(3): 921-940.
[51] Kashani E S, Zarghami H R. The dynamics of university-industry-government relationships in Nanoscience: investigating the Triple-Helix differences between Iran and Switzerland[J], Technology Analysis & Strategic Management.2019,31(7): 817-832.
[52] 吴卫红, 陈高翔, 张爱美. 互信息视角的政产学研资协同创新四螺旋实证研究[J], 科技进步与对策.2018,35(6): 21-28.
[53] Zhang Y, Chen K, Zhu G, Yam R C M, Guan J. Inter-organizational scientific collaborations and policy effects: an ego-network evolutionary perspective of the Chinese Academy of Sciences[J], Scientometrics.2016,108(3): 1383-1415.
[54] Leydesdorff L. The mutual information of university-industry-government relations: An indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics[J], Scientometrics.2003,58(2): 445-467.
[55] Shannon C E. A mathematical theory of communication[J], Bell System Technical Journal.1948,27(3): 379-423.
[56] Shannon C E, Weaver W. The Mathematical theory of communication[M]. Urbana, USA: University of Illinois Press. 1949.
[57] Abramson N. Information Theory and Coding[M]. New York: McGraw-Hill. 1963.
[58] 庄涛, 吴洪. 基于专利数据的我国官产学研三螺旋测度研究——兼论政府在产学研合作中的作用[J], 管理世界.2013,(8): 175-176.
[59] 李培凤. 我国大学跨界协同创新的耦合效应研究——基于SCI合作论文的互信息计量[J], 复旦教育论坛.2015,13(2): 68-72.
[60] Leydesdorff L, Ivanova I A. Mutual redundancies in interhuman communication systems: Steps toward a calculus of processing meaning[J], Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology.2014,65(2): 386-399.
[61] Leydesdorff L, Petersen A M, Ivanova I. Self-organization of meaning and the reflexive communication of information[J], Social Science Information.2017,56(1): 4-27.
[62] Griliches Z. Issues in assessing the contribution of R&D to productivity growth[J], Journal of Economics.1979,10: 92-116.
[63] 张艺, 陈凯华, 朱桂龙. 学研机构科研团队参与产学研合作有助于提升学术绩效吗?[J], 科学学与科学技术管理.2018,39(10): 125-137.
[64] Banal-Esta?ol A, Macho-Stadler I, Pérez-Castrillo D. Endogenous matching in university-industry collaboration: Theory and empirical evidence from the United Kingdom[J], Management Science.2018,64(4): 1591-1608.
[65] Blais M A. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.)[J], Journal of Personality Assessment.2003,81(3): 293-293.
[66] Belsley D A. Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity[M]. Hoboken, NJ. USA: John Wiley & Sons. 2005.
[67] Callaert J, Landoni P, Van Looy B, Verganti R. Scientific yield from collaboration with industry: The relevance of researchers’ strategic approaches[J], Research Policy.2015,44(4): 990-998.
[68] Bikard M, Vakili K, Teodoridis F. When collaboration bridges institutions: The impact of university–industry collaboration on academic productivity[J], Organization Science.2019,30(2): 235-445.
[69] Perkmann M, Walsh K. The two faces of collaboration: impacts of university-industry relations on public research[J], Industrial and Corporate Change.2009,18(6): 1033-1065.
[70] 张艺. 学研机构科研团队的产学研合作网络对学术绩效影响研究[M]. 北京: 中国经济出版社. 2018.
[71] Efi A E. Synergy between Academic Research and Industrialization: The Search for Development in Nigeria[J], Human Resource Management Research.2014,4(3): 69-74.
[72] Kafouros M, Wang C, Piperopoulos P, Zhang M. Academic collaborations and firm innovation performance in China: The role of region-specific institutions[J], Research Policy.2015,44(3): 803-817.
[73] Galan-Muros V, Plewa C. What drives and inhibits university-business cooperation in Europe? A comprehensive assessement[J], R & D Management.2016,46(2): 369-382.
[74] 吕铁, 贺俊. “后高铁时代”需加强基础研究和前沿技术研究[J], 中国发展观察.2016,(13): 35-38.
[75] 朱桂龙. 产学研与企业自主创新能力提升[J], 科学学研究.2012,30(12): 5-6.

PDF(450 KB)

Accesses

Citation

Detail

Sections

Recommended

/

〈

〉