Quality & Quantity

, Volume 49, Issue 4, pp 1381–1396 | Cite as

Quantifying the Triple Helix relationship in scientific research: statistical analyses on the dividing pattern between developed and developing countries

  • Sujin Choi
  • Joshua SungWoo Yang
  • Han Woo ParkEmail author


This study aims to find a global pattern of the Triple Helix (TH) relationship among university, industry, and government sectors in scientific research, placing the discussion in a developmental context. Based on the dataset composed of SCI and SSCI-listed publications from around 130 countries, we investigated the participation share of each sector, the publication share by sector and sectoral combination, and the synergic effect of the TH relationship. Statistical analyses suggest the presence of a dividing pattern of the TH relationship between developed and developing countries: Developed countries had higher participation in the industry sector, more university-centered collaborations with the industry and government sectors, and a higher synergic effect of the TH relationship than developing countries. This tendency was found to occur irrespective of the science or social science field. These findings have implications for developing countries to promote the participation of the industry sector in scientific research and the effort of the government sector to facilitate university and industry linkage.


Triple Helix Developed and developing countries Global divide Innovation Scientific collaboration 



This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2010-330-B00232, Social Science Korea Program). Many thanks go to Min-Ho So, Seong-Cheol Choi, Ji-Young Kim, Ji-Won Park, Yoon-Cheol Heo, Ji-Young Park.


  1. Amir, S., Nugroho, Y.: Beyond the triple helix: framing STS in the developmental context. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. (2013). doi: 10.1177/0270467613509603
  2. Chen, W., Wellman, B.: The global digital divide—within and between countries. IT Soc. 1(7), 39–45 (2004)Google Scholar
  3. Chilote, R.: Dependency: a critical synthesis of the literature. Latin Am. Perspect. 1(1), 4–29 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi, S., Park, H.W.: Flow of online content from production to consumption in the context of globalization theory. Globalizations 11(2), 171–187 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. Choi, S., Yang, J.S.W., Park, H.W.: The triple helix and international collaboration in science. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. (2014). doi: 10.1002/asi.23165
  6. Etzkowitz, H.: The triple helix: science, technology and the entrepreneurial spirit. J. Knowl. Based Innov. China 3(2), 76–90 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Etzkowitz, H.: Can a teaching university be an entrepreneurial university? Civic entrepreneurship and the formation of a cultural cluster in Ashland, Oregon. CIMR Research Working Paper Series. CA: Centre for Innovation Management Research (2013)Google Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz, H., Dzisah, J.: Rethinking development: circulation in the triple helix. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 20(6), 653–666 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L.: The triple helix of university–industry–government relations: a laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST Rev. 14(1), 11–19 (1995)Google Scholar
  10. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., Terra, B.R.C.: The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Res. Policy 29(2), 313–330 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eun, J.H., Lee, K., Wu, G.: Explaining the “University-run enterprises” in China: a theoretical framework for university–industry relationship in developing countries and its application to China. Res. Policy 35(9), 1329–1346 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frenken, K., Hardeman, S., Hoekman, J.: Spatial scientometrics: towards a cumulative research program. J. Inf. 3, 222–232 (2009)Google Scholar
  13. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M.: The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London (1994)Google Scholar
  14. Glänzel, W., Schlemmer, B.: National research profiles in a changing Europe (1983–2003): an exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the Triple Helix. Scientometrics 70(2), 267–275 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jiang, K.: International Sstudent flows between Asia, Australia, and Russia: a network analysis. J. Contemp. Eastern Asia 13(1), 83–98 (2014).
  16. Khan, G.F., Park, H.W.: Measuring the triple helix on the web: longitudinal trends in the university–industry–government relationship in Korea. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 62(12), 2443–2455 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Khan, G.F., Park, H.W.: The e-government research domain: a triple helix network analysis of collaboration at the regional, country, and institutional levels. Gov. Inf. Q. 30(2), 182–193 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim, H., Huang, M., Jin, F., Bodoff, D., Moon, J., Choe, Y.C.: Triple helix in the agricultural sector of Northeast Asian countries: a comparative study between Korea and China. Scientometrics 90(1), 101–120 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krippendorff, K.: Information of interactions in complex systems. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 38(6), 669–680 (2009)Google Scholar
  20. Leydesdorff, L.: The mutual information of university–industry–government relations: an indicator of the triple helix dynamics. Scientometrics 58(2), 445–467 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leydesdorff, L., Etzkowitz, H.: The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Sci. Public Policy 25(3), 195–203 (1998)Google Scholar
  22. Leydesdorff, L., Sun, Y.: National and international dimensions of the triple helix in Japan: university–industry–government versus international coauthorship relations. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 60(4), 778–788 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leydesdorff, L., Ivanova, I.A.: Mutual redundancies in interhuman communication systems: steps toward a calculus of processing meaning. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 65(2), 386–399 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mehta, M.D.: Nanoscience and nanotechnology: assessing the nature of innovation in these fields. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 22(4), 269–273 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Merton, R.K.: Science and technology in a democratic order. J. Legal Polit. Sociol. 1, 115–126 (1942)Google Scholar
  26. Mok, K.H.: The quest for innovation and entrepreneurship: the changing role of university in East Asia. Glob. Soc. Educ. 10(3), 317–335 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. Park, H.W., Hong, H.D., Leydesdorff, L.: A comparison of the knowledge-based innovation systems in the economies of South Korea and The Netherlands using triple helix indicators. Scientometrics 65(1), 3–27 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Park, H.W., Leydesdorff, L.: Longitudinal trends in networks of university–industry–government relations in South Korea: the role of programmatic incentives. Res. Policy 39(5), 640–649 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phillips, F.: Triple helix and the circle of innovation. J. Contemp. Eastern Asia 13(1), 57–68 (2014).
  30. Ponds, R., Van Oort, F.G., Frenken, K.: The geographical and institutional proximity of research collaboration. Pap. Reg. Sci. 86, 423–443 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rho, W.-J.: Triple helix for social innovation: the Saemaul undong for eradicating poverty. J. Contemp. Eastern Asia 13(1), 39–55 (2014).
  32. Saad, M., Zawdie, G., Malairaja, C.: The triple helix strategy for universities in developing countries: the experiences in Malaysia and Algeria. Sci. Public Policy 35(6), 431–443 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shannon, C.E.: A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 27, 379–423, 623–656 (1948)Google Scholar
  34. Senker, J.: A Ttransnational Investigation of University-Industry Linkages in Advanced Engineering Ceramic. Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Sussex, UK (1994)Google Scholar
  35. Schiller, H.: Not yet the post-imperialist era. Crit. Stud. Mass Commun. 8(1), 13–28 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steiber, A., Alänge, S.: The formation and growth of Google: a firm-level triple helix perspective. Soc. Sci. Inf. 52(4), 575–604 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wallerstein, I.: The rise and future demise of the world capitalist system: concepts for comparative analysis. Comp. Stud. Soc. Hist. 16(4), 387–415 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ye, F.Y., Yu, S.S., Leydesdorff, L.: The triple helix of university–industry–government relations at the country level and its dynamic evolution under the pressures of globalization. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64(11), 2317–2325 (2013)Google Scholar
  39. Ziman, J.: Prometheus Bound: Science in a Dynamic Steady State. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sujin Choi
    • 1
  • Joshua SungWoo Yang
    • 2
  • Han Woo Park
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.School of CommunicationKookmin UniversitySeoulKorea
  2. 2.Department of Systems Biology, College of Life Science and BiotechnologyYonsei UniversitySeoulKorea
  3. 3.Department of Media and CommunicationYeungnam UniversityGyeongsan-siSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations