, Volume 90, Issue 1, pp 311–326 | Cite as

Knowledge-based innovation and collaboration: a triple-helix approach in Saudi Arabia

  • Jung Cheol ShinEmail author
  • Soo Jeung Lee
  • Yangson Kim


This study analyzed the research productivity of Saudi academics using the triple-helix model. In the analysis, we combined domestic and international collaboration by three sectors—university, industry, and government—according to the model of the triple-helix. This approach produces better results than by simply including international collaboration as fourth sector. According to the analysis, research collaboration in Saudi Arabia which is measured by the triple-helix, was “-” uncertainty (negative T-value) while scientific productivity has been dramatically increasing since the late 2000s. The triple-helix collaboration does not quite differ between domestic collaboration and “domestic and international” collaborations. In our further analysis, we found that technological development was not based on scientific research in Saudi Arabia; rather, the technological development relies on prior technology (patent references). From that point, Saudi Arabia’s current long-term strategic plan to develop a scientific base for a knowledge-based industry is well aligned to the current contexts of Saudi Arabia.


Knowledge-based innovation Publication Patent Triple-helix Collaboration Science intensity Saudi Arabia 



This research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2010-330-B00232)


  1. Alshumaimri, A., Aldridge, T., & Audretsch, D. B. (2010). The university technology transfer revolution in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Technology Transfer, 35, 585–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arimoto, A. (2009). The competitive environment of academic productivity and the academic research enterprise in the case of Japan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bush, V. (1945). Science: The endless frontier. Washington: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  4. Chang, D., Wu, C., Ching, G. S., & Tang, C. (2009). An evaluation of the dynamics of the plan to develop first-class universities and top-level research centers in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 47–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cummings, W. (1994). From knowledge seeking to knowledge creation: The Japanese university’s challenges. Higher Education, 27, 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Deem, R., & Lucas, L. (2007). Research and teaching cultures in two contrasting UK policy contexts: Academic life in education departments in five English and Scottish universities. Higher Education, 54, 115–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dill, D., & Van Vught, F. A. (2010). National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A triple helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. London: Francis Pinter.Google Scholar
  9. Feder, T. (2007, August). Saudi Arabia sets up research University. Physics today, 33. Retrieved May 13, 2011 from
  10. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Guan, J., & He, Y. (2007). Patent-bibliometric analysis on the Chinese science-technology linkages. Scientometrics, 72(3), 403–425.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Jakulin, A., & Bratko, I. (2004). Quantifying and visualizing attribute interactions: An approach based on entropy. Retrieved May 2, 2011 from
  13. Kim, L. (1997). Imitation to innovation: The dynamics of Korea’s technological learning. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kwon, K. (2011). The co-evolution of universities’ academic research and knowledge-transfer activities: the case of South Korea. Science and Public Policy, 38(6), 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kwon, K. S., Park, H. W., So, M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). 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, (this issue).Google Scholar
  16. Leistyte, L., Enders, J., & Boer, H. (2009). The balance between teaching and research in Dutch and English universities in the context of university governance reforms. Higher Education, 57(4), 509–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Leydesdorff, L., & Sun, L. (2009). National and international dimensions of the triple helix in Japan: University–industry–government versus international coauthorship relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(4), 778–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lundvall, B. A. (1992). National systems of innovation: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Francis Printer.Google Scholar
  19. McGill, W. J. (1954). Multivariate information transmission. Psychometrika, 19(2), 97–116.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyer, M. (2000). What is special about patent citations? Differences between scientific and patent citations. Scientometrics, 47(2), 93–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ministry of Economy and Planning, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. (2004). The eighth development plan (1425/1430).Google Scholar
  22. Ministry of Higher Education, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. (2011). Higher Education Indicators in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [Brochure].Google Scholar
  23. Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between US technology and science. Research Policy, 26, 317–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nelson, R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. OECD. (2008). Compendium of patent statistics. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  26. Onsman, A. (2010). Dismantling the perceived barriers to the implementation of national higher education accreditation guidelines in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(5), 511–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Park, H. W., Hong, H. D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). 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.Google Scholar
  28. Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal trends in networks of university–industry–government relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives. Research Policy, 39(5), 640–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ribeiro, L. C., Ruiz, R. M., Bernardes, A. T., & Albuquerque, E. M. (2010). Matrices of science and technology interactions and patterns of structured growth: implications for development. Scientometrics, 83, 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schmoch, U. (1997). Indicators and the relations between science and technology. Scientometrics, 26(4), 325–336.Google Scholar
  31. Schmoch, U., Laville, F., Patel, P., & Frietsch, R. (2003). Linking technology areas to industrial sectors. Final report to the European Commission, DG Research.Google Scholar
  32. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, 27(379–423), 623–656.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Shin, J. (2009). Building world-class research university: the Brain Korea 21 project. Higher Education, 58, 669–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shin, J. (in press). Foreign PhDs and Korean PhDs: How They are different in their academic activity, performance, and culture. In Deane Neubauer, & Kazuo Koroda (eds.), Mobility and migration in Asian Pacific higher education. Palgreve.Google Scholar
  35. Shin, J., & Harman, G. (2009). New challenges for higher education: Asia-Pacific and global perspectives. Asia Pacific Education Review, 10(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simmons, M. (2005). Twilight in the desert: The coming Saudi oil shock and the world economy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. Tijssen, R. J. W., Buter, R. K., & Van Leeuwen, Th. N. (2000). Technological relevance of science: An assessment of citation linkages between patents and research papers. Scientometrics, 47(2), 389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. US National Science Board. (2010). Science and engineering indicators: 2010. Accessed March 1, 2011 at
  39. Van Looy, B., Zimmermann, E., Veugelers, R., Verbeek, A., Mello, J., & Debackere, K. (2003). Do science-technology interactions pay off when developing technology? An exploratory investigation of 10 science-intensive technology domains. Scientometrics, 57(3), 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wong, C. H., & Goh, K. L. (2010). Growth behavior of publications and patents: A comparative study on selected Asian economies. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 460–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationSeoul National UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations