, Volume 99, Issue 3, pp 927–948 | Cite as

A simulation model of the Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations and the decomposition of the redundancy

  • Inga A. Ivanova
  • Loet Leydesdorff


A Triple Helix (TH) network of bi- and trilateral relations among universities, industries, and governments can be considered as an ecosystem in which uncertainty can be reduced when functions become synergetic. The functions are based on correlations among distributions of relations, and therefore latent. The correlations span a vector space in which two vectors (P and Q) can be used to represent forward “sending” and reflexive “receiving,” respectively. These two vectors can also be understood in terms of the generation versus reduction of uncertainty in the communication field that results from interactions among the three bi-lateral channels of communication. We specify a system of Lotka–Volterra equations between the vectors that can be solved. Redundancy generation can then be simulated and the results can be decomposed in terms of the TH components. Furthermore, we show that the strength and frequency of the relations are independent parameters in the model. Redundancy generation in TH arrangements can be decomposed using Fourier analysis of the time-series of empirical studies. As an example, the case of co-authorship relations in Japan is re-analyzed. The model allows us to interpret the sinusoidal functions of the Fourier analysis as representing redundancies.


Communication Sociocybernetics Redundancy Triple Helix Innovation Model Meaning 


  1. Abramson, N. (1963). Information Theory and Coding. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  3. Biggiero, L. (1998). Italian industrial districts: A Triple Helix pattern of problem solving. Industry and Higher Education, 12(4), 227–234.Google Scholar
  4. Biggiero, L. (2001). Self-organizing processes in building entrepreneurial networks: A theoretical and empirical investigation. Human Systems Management, 20(3), 209–222.Google Scholar
  5. Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dubois, D. M. (1998). Computing anticipatory systems with incursion and hyperincursion. In D. M. Dubois (Ed.), Computing anticipatory systems, CASYS-first international conference (Vol. 437, pp. 3–29). Woodbury, NY: American Institute of Physics.Google Scholar
  7. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kamke, E. (1971). Differentialgleichungen: Lösungsmethoden und Lösungen (Vol. 1, p. 1). New York: American Mathematical Society.Google Scholar
  9. Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation. The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2), 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krippendorff, K. (1980). Q: an interpretation of the information theoretical Q-measures. In R. Trappl, G. J. Klir, & F. Pichler (Eds.), Progress in cybernetics and systems research (Vol. VIII, pp. 63–67). New York: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
  11. Krippendorff, K. (2009a). W. Ross Ashby’s information theory: A bit of history, some solutions to problems, and what we face today. International Journal of General Systems, 38(2), 189–212.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Krippendorff, K. (2009b). Information of interactions in complex systems. International Journal of General Systems, 38(6), 669–680.CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Kwon, K. S., Park, H. W., So, M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Has globalization strengthened South Korea’s national research system? National and international dynamics of the Triple Helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea. Scientometrics, 90(1), 163–175. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0512-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leydesdorff, L. (1994). Epilogue. In L. Leydesdorff & P. van den Besselaar (Eds.), Evolutionary economics and chaos theory: New directions for technology studies (pp. 180–192). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  15. Leydesdorff, L. (2010). The communication of meaning and the structuration of expectations: Giddens’ “structuration theory” and Luhmann’s “self-organization”. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(10), 2138–2150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Leydesdorff, L. (2011). “Meaning” as a sociological concept: a review of the modeling, mapping, and simulation of the communication of knowledge and meaning. Social Science Information, 50(3–4), 1–23.Google Scholar
  17. Leydesdorff, L. (2012). Radical constructivism and radical constructedness: Luhmann’s sociology of semantics, organizations, and self-organization. Constructivist Foundations, 8(1), 85–92.Google Scholar
  18. Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Science visualization and discursive knowledge. In B. Cronin & C. Sugimoto (Eds.), Beyond bibliometrics: Harnessing multidimensional indicators of scholarly impact. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Leydesdorff, L., & Franse, S. (2009). The communication of meaning in social systems. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 109–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leydesdorff, L. & Ivanova, I. A. (2014) Mutual redundancies in inter-human communication systems: Steps towards a calculus of processing meaning. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(2), 386–389.Google Scholar
  21. Leydesdorff, L., & Strand, Ø. (2013). The Swedish system of innovation: Regional synergies in a knowledge-based economy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(9), 1890–1902. doi: 10.1002/asi.22895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leydesdorff, L., & Sun, Y. (2009). National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: University–industry–government versus international co-authorship relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 778–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Luhmann, N. (1986). The autopoiesis of social systems. In F. Geyer & J. V. D. Zouwen (Eds.), Sociocybernetic paradoxes (pp. 172–192). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGill, W. J. (1954). Multivariate information transmission. Psychometrika, 19(2), 97–116.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Padgett, J. F., & Powell, W. W. (2012). The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  29. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423; 623–656.Google Scholar
  30. Strand, Ø., & Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Where is synergy in the Norwegian innovation system indicated? Triple Helix relations among technology, organization, and geography. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 471–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Strydom, P. (1999). Triple contingency: The theoretical problem of the public in communication societies. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 25(2), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ulanowicz, R. E. (2008). Autocatalysis. In S. E. Joergensen & B. D. Fath (Eds.), Systems ecology. Volume 1 of encyclopedia of ecology (Vol. 1, pp. 288–290). Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009a). The dual nature of ecosystem dynamics. Ecological Modelling, 220(16), 1886–1892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ulanowicz, R. E. (2009b). A third window: Natural life beyond Newton and Darwin. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  35. Yeung, R. W. (2008). Information theory and network coding. New York, NY: Springer.zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of International Education & Department of Economics and Production ManagementFar Eastern Federal UniversityVladivostokRussia
  2. 2.Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations