Open Innovation Diplomacy and a 21st Century Fractal Research, Education and Innovation (FREIE) Ecosystem: Building on the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Concepts and the “Mode 3” Knowledge Production System

Article

Abstract

The traditional Triple Helix innovation model focuses on university–industry–government relations. The Quadruple Helix innovation systems bring in the perspectives of the media-based and culture-based public as well as that of civil society. The Quintuple Helix emphasizes the natural environments of society, also for the knowledge production and innovation. Therefore, the quadruple helix contextualizes the triple helix, and the quintuple helix the quadruple helix. Features of the quadruple helix are: culture (cultures) and innovation culture (innovation cultures); the knowledge of culture and the culture of knowledge; values and lifestyles; multiculturalism, multiculture, and creativity; media; arts and arts universities; and multi-level innovation systems (local, national, global), with universities of the sciences, but also universities of the arts. The democracy of knowledge, as a concept and metaphor, highlights and underscores parallel processes between political pluralism in advanced democracy, and knowledge and innovation heterogeneity and diversity in advanced economy and society. The “mode 3” knowledge production system (MODE3KPS; expanding and extending the “mode 1” and “mode 2” knowledge production systems) is at the heart of the fractal research, education and innovation ecosystem. MODE3KPS universities or higher education systems are interested in integrating and combining mode 1 and mode 2. The concept of open innovation diplomacy (OID) encompasses the concept and practice of bridging distance and other divides (cultural, socioeconomic, technological, etc.) with focused and properly targeted initiatives to connect ideas and solutions with markets and investors ready to appreciate them and nurture them to their full potential. In this sense, OID qualifies as a new and novel strategy, policy-making, and governance approach in the context of the quadruple and quintuple innovation helices.

Keywords

Open innovation diplomacy Mode 3 knowledge production system Fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem Quadruple helix innovation Quintuple helix innovation Democracy of knowledge Knowledge democracy Innovation networks Knowledge clusters Knowledge fractals Knowledge nuggets GloCal Multidimensional and multi-attribute knowledge and innovation systems Art and arts universities Academic firm Entrepreneurial university Mode 3 university Technological learning dynamics Knowledge swings Disjointed incrementalism Partisan mutual adjustment Strategic incrementalism Strategic management of technological learning Conceptual branding Knowledge weavers 

References

  1. 1.
    Anbari FT, Umpleby SA (2006) Productive research teams and knowledge generation. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 26–38Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barth TD (2010) Konzeption, Messung und Rating der Demokratiequalität. Brasilien, Südarfika, Australien und die Russische Föderation 1997–2006. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, SaarbrückenGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biegelbauer P (ed) (2010) Steuerung von Wissenschaft? Die Governance des österreichischen Innovationssystems. Studienverlag, InnsbruckGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brandenburger AM, Nalebuff BJ (1997) Co-opetition. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bush V (1945) Science: the endless frontier. United States Government Printing Office, Washington. http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm#transmittal
  6. 6.
    von Braun CF (1997) The innovation war. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caduff C, Siegenthaler F, Wälchli T (2010) Art and artistic research. Zurich Yearbook of the Arts. Zurich University of the Arts, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Campbell DFJ (1992) Die Dynamik der politischen Links-Rechts-Schwingungen in Österreich: Die Ergebnisse einer Expertenbefragung. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 21(2):165–179Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campbell DFJ (1994) European nation-state under pressure: national fragmentation or the evolution of suprastate structures? Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal 25(6):879–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Campbell DFJ (1999) Evaluation universitärer Forschung. Entwicklungstrends und neue Strategiemuster für wissenschaftsbasierte Gesellschaften. SWS-Rundschau 39(4):363–383Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Campbell DFJ (2000) Forschungspolitische Trends in wissenschaftsbasierten Gesellschaften. Strategiemuster für entwickelte Wirtschaftssysteme. Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter 47(2):130–143Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Campbell DFJ (2001) Politische Steuerung über öffentliche Förderung universitärer Forschung? Systemtheoretische Überlegungen zu Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 30(4):425–438. http://www.oezp.at/pdfs/2001-4-04.pdf
  13. 13.
    Campbell DFJ (2003) The evaluation of university research in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. In: Shapira P, Kuhlmann S (eds) Learning from science and technology policy evaluation: experiences from the United States and Europe. Edward Elgar, Camberley, pp 98–131Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Campbell DFJ (2005) Demokratie, Demokratiequalität und Grundrechte: Ein Vergleich der Fiedler- und EU-Verfassung. Unpublished Manuscript, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Campbell DFJ (2006) The university/business research networks in science and technology: knowledge production trends in the United States, European Union and Japan. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 67–100Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Campbell DFJ (2006b) Nationale Forschungssysteme im Vergleich. Strukturen, Herausforderungen und Entwicklungsoptionen. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 35(1):25–44. http://www.oezp.at/oezp/online/online.htm
  17. 17.
    Campbell DFJ (2008) The basic concept for the democracy ranking of the quality of democracy. Democracy Ranking, Vienna. http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/basic_concept_democracy_ranking_2008_A4.pdf
  18. 18.
    Campbell DFJ (2010) Key findings (summary abstract) of the Democracy Ranking 2010 and the Democracy Improvement Ranking 2010. Democracy Ranking, Vienna. http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/Key%20findings%20of%20the%20Democracy%20Ranking%202010_A4.pdf
  19. 19.
    Campbell DFJ (2011) Wissenschaftliche “Parallelkarrieren”als Chance. Wenn Wissenschaft immer öfter zur Halbtagsbeschäftigung wird, könnte eine Lösung im „Cross-Employment“liegen. Guest Commentary for DIE PRESSE (February 2, 2011). http://diepresse.com/home/bildung/meinung/635781/Wissenschaftliche-Parallelkarrieren-als-Chance?direct=635777&_vl_backlink=/home/bildung/index.do&selChannel=500
  20. 20.
    Campbell DFJ, Schaller C (eds) (2002) Demokratiequalität in Österreich. Zustand und Entwicklungsperspektiven. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12473
  21. 21.
    Campbell DFJ, Güttel WH (2005) Knowledge production of firms: research networks and the “scientification” of business R&D. Int J Technol Manag 31(1/2):152–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Campbell DFJ, Barth TD (2009) Wie können Demokratie und Demokratiequalität gemessen werden? Modelle, Demokratie-Indices und Länderbeispiele im globalen Vergleich [How can democracy and the quality of democracy be measured? Models, democracy indices and country-based case studies in global comparison]. SWS-Rundschau 49(2):209–233. http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12471
  23. 23.
    Carayannis EG (1993) Incrementalisme Strategique. Le Progrès Technique (no. 2). Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Carayannis EG (1994). Gestion Strategique de l’Apprentissage Technologique. Le Progrès Technique (no. 2). Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Carayannis EG (1999) Knowledge transfer through technological hyperlearning in five industries. International Journal of Technovation 19(3, March):141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Carayannis EG (2000) Investigation and validation of technological learning versus market performance. International Journal of Technovation 20(7, July):389–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carayannis EG (2001) The strategic management of technological learning. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carayannis EG (2004) Measuring intangibles: managing intangibles for tangible outcomes in research and innovation. Int J Nucl Knowl Manag 1:49–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Carayannis EG, Alexander J (1999) Winning by co-opeting in strategic government–university–industry (GUI) partnerships: the power of complex, dynamic knowledge networks. J Technol Transf 24(2/3, August):197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carayannis EG, Alexander J (1999) Technology-driven strategic alliances: tools for learning and knowledge exchange in a positive-sum world. In: Dorf RC (ed) The technology management handbook. CRC, Boca Raton (1–32 until 1–41)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Carayannis EG, Gonzalez E (2003) Creativity and innovation = competitiveness? When, how, and why, vol. 1, chapter 8. In: Shavinina LV (ed) The international handbook on innovation. Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp 587–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Carayannis EG, Gonzalez E, Wetter J (2003) The nature and dynamics of discontinuous and disruptive innovations from a learning and knowledge management perspective, vol. 1, chapter 4. In: Shavinina LV (ed) The international handbook on innovation. Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp 115–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carayannis EG, Alexander J (2004) Strategy, structure and performance issues of pre-competitive R&D consortia: insights and lessons learned. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(2)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Carayannis EG, Laget P (2004) Transatlantic innovation infrastructure networks: public–private, EU-US R&D partnerships. R&D Management 34(1):17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Carayannis EG, von Zedtwitz M (2005) Architecting gloCal (global–local), real–virtual incubator networks (G-RVINs) as catalysts and accelerators of entrepreneurship in transitioning and developing economies. Technovation 25:95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Carayannis EG, Alexander JM (2006) Global and local knowledge. Glocal transatlantic public–private partnerships for research and technological development. Palgrave MacMillan, HoundmillsGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2006) “Mode 3“: meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 1–25Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2006) Conclusion: key insights and lessons learned for policy and practice. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 331–341Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2006) Introduction and chapter summaries. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp ix–xxviGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Carayannis EG, Sipp C (2006) E-development toward the knowledge economy: leveraging technology, innovation and entrepreneurship for “smart development”. Palgrave MacMillan, HoundmillsGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Carayannis EG, Ziemnowicz C (eds) (2007) Rediscovering Schumpeter. Creative destruction evolving into “mode 3”. Palgrave MacMillan, HoundmillsGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Carayannis EG, Spillan JE, Ziemnowicz C (2007) Introduction: why Joseph Schumpeter’s creative destruction? Everything has changed. In: Carayannis EG, Ziemnowicz C (eds) Rediscovering Schumpeter. Creative destruction evolving into “mode 3”. Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2009) “Mode 3” and “quadruple helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management 46(3/4):201–234. http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=27&year=2009&vol=46&issue=3/4
  44. 44.
    Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2010) Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A Proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 1(1):41–69. http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=41959
  45. 45.
    Carayannis, Elias G (2012). The knowledge of culture and the culture of knowledge. Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills (in press)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cardullo MW (1999) Technology life cycles. In: Dorf RC (ed) The technology management handbook. CRC, Boca Raton (3–44 until 3–49)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Colapinto C, Porlezza C (2012) Innovation in creative industries: from the quadruple helix model to the systems theory. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1) (in press). http://www.springerlink.com/content/rx725r81u9l199g5/
  48. 48.
    Cesaroni F, Gambardella A, Garcia-Fontes W, Mariani M (2004) The chemical sectoral system: firms, markets, institutions and the processes of knowledge creation and diffusion. In: Malerba F (ed) Sectoral systems of innovation. Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 121–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Danilda I, Lindberg M, Torstensson B-M (2009) Women Resource Centres. A quattro helix innovation system on the European Agenda. Paper. http://www.hss09.se/own_documents/Papers/3-11%20-%20Danilda%20Lindberg%20&%20Torstensson%20-%20paper.pdf
  50. 50.
    De Geus A (1988) Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review 66:2, 70 (Winter)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Drucker P (1985) Innovation and entrepreneurship. Penguin Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dubina IN, Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2012) Creativity economy and a crisis of the economy? Coevolution of knowledge, innovation, and creativity, and of the knowledge economy and knowledge society. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1) (in press). http://www.springerlink.com/content/t5j8l12136h526h5/
  53. 53.
    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 29:109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Etzkowitz H (2003) Research groups as “quasi-firms”: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy 32:109–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ferlie E, Musselin C, Andresani G (2008) The steering of higher education systems: a public management perspective. Higher Education 56(3):325–348. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n22v78885l377144/fulltext.pdf
  56. 56.
    Fischer-Kowalski M, Haberl H (eds) (2007) Socioecological transitions and global change. Trajectories of social metabolism and land use. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Florida R (2004) The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. Basic Books, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gerybadze A, Reger G (1999) Globalization of R&D: recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Research Policy 28:251–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Geuna A, Martin BR (2003) University research evaluation and funding: an international comparison. Minerva 41:277–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    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. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Gleick J (1987) Chaos: making a new science. Viking, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Godoe H (2007) Doing innovative research: “mode 3” and methodological challenges in leveraging the best of three worlds. In: Carayannis EG, Ziemnowicz C (eds) Rediscovering Schumpeter. Creative destruction evolving into “mode 3”. Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills, pp 344–361Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hall PA (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state. The case of economic policymaking in Britain Comparative Politics 25:257–296Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hemlin S, Allwood CM, Martin BR (2004) Creative knowledge environments. The influences on creativity in research and innovation. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Hooghe L, Marks G (2001) Multi-level governance and european integration. Rowman & Littlefield, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kaiser R, Prange H (2004) The reconfiguration of national innovation systems—the example of German biotechnology. Research Policy 33:395–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Killman R (1985) Gaining control of the corporate culture. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kline SJ, Rosenberg N (1986) An overview of innovation. In: Landau R, Rosenburg N (eds) The positive sum strategy. National Academy Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Kuhlmann S (2001) Future governance of innovation policy in Europe—three scenarios. Research Policy 30:953–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Krücken G (2003) Mission impossible? Institutional barriers to the diffusion of the “third academic mission” at German universities. Int J Technol Manag 25(1/2):18–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Krücken G (2003) Learning the “new, new thing”: on the role of path dependency in university structures. High Educ 46(3):315–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Krücken G, Meier F, Müller A (2007) Information, cooperation, and the blurring of boundaries—technology transfer in German and American discourses. High Educ 53(6):675–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Leydesdorff L (2012) The triple helix, quadruple helix,…, and an N-tuple of helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1) (in press). http://www.springerlink.com/content/x543613918677871/
  75. 75.
    Lindberg M, Danilda I, Torstensson B-M (2012) Women Resource Centres—a creative knowledge environment of quadruple helix. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1) (forthcoming). http://www.springerlink.com/content/t47q129240051g31/
  76. 76.
    Lindblom CE (1959) The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review 19:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Lindblom CE (1965) The intelligence of democracy. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lindblom CE, Cohen DK (1979) Usable knowledge: social science and social problem solving. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Lundvall B-Å (ed) (1992) National systems of innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Malerba F (ed) (2004) Sectoral systems of innovation. Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    McKelvey M, Orsenigo L, Pammolli F (2004) Pharmaceuticals analyzed through the lens of a sectoral innovation system. In: Malerba F (ed) Sectoral systems of innovation. Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 73–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    McNiff S (1998) Art-based research. Jessica Kingsley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    McNiff S (2008) Art-based research. In: Knowles JG, Cole AL (eds) Handbook of the arts in qualitative research. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 29–40Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Milbergs E (2005) Innovation ecosystems and prosperity. Center for Accelerating Innovation. http://www.innovationecosystems.com
  85. 85.
    Miyata Y (2003) An analysis of research and innovative activities of universities in the United States. In: Shavinina LV (ed) The international handbook on innovation. Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp 715–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Müller WC, Strøm K (2000) Conclusion: coalition governance in Western Europe. In: Strøm K (ed) WC Müller. Coalition governments in Western Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 559–592Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    National Science Board (2010) Science and engineering indicators 2010. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdfstart.htm
  88. 88.
    Nelson RR (ed) (1993) National innovation systems. A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Nelson R, Winter S (1982) Dynamics of technological change. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2003) Mode 2 revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41:179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    O’Donnell G (2004) Human Development, Human Rights, and Democracy. In: O’Donnell G, Cullell JV, Iazzetta OM (eds) The quality of democracy. Theory and applications. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, pp 9–92Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    OECD (1994) Frascati manual. The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Proposed standard practice for surveys of research and experimental development. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    OECD (1998) Science, technology and industry outlook. OECD, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    OECD (2002) Frascati manual 2002. The measurement of scientific and technological activities. proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. OECD, Paris. http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?CID=&LANG=EN&SF1=DI&ST1=5LMQCR2K61JJ
  96. 96.
    OECD (2006) Research and development statistics. OECD, Paris (Online database)Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Pfeffer T (2006) Virtualization of research universities. Raising the right questions to address key functions of the institution. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 307–330Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    Plasser F (ed) (2004) Politische kommunikation in Österreich. Ein praxisnahes Handbuch. WUV-Universitätsverlag, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Plasser F, Plasser G (2002) Global political campaigning. A worldwide analysis of campaign professionals and their practices. Praeger, WestportGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
  101. 101.
    Resetarits R, Resetarits-Tincul A-M (2012) Fuzzy concepts—a new approach in the description of boundaries as creative knowledge environments in educational sciences. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1) (in press). http://www.springerlink.com/content/j463335233513170/
  102. 102.
    Rycroft RW, Kash DE (1999) The complexity challenge. Technological innovation for the 21st century. Pinter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Ritterman J, Bast G, Mittelstraß J (eds) (2011) Art and research. Can artists be researchers? Springer, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Saward M (ed) (2006) Democratic innovation: deliberation, representation and association. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Schumpeter JA (1942) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Shapira P, Kuhlmann S (eds) (2003) Learning from science and technology policy evaluation. Experiences from the United States and Europe. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Shavinina LV (2003) The international handbook on innovation. Pergamon, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Steinmueller WE (2004) The European software sectoral system of innovation. In: Malerba F (ed) Sectoral systems of innovation. Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 193–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Tassey G (2001) R&D Policy Models and Data Needs. In: Feldman MP, Link AN (eds) Innovation policy in the knowledge-based economy. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 37–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Umpleby SA (1997) Cybernetics of conceptual systems. Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal 28:635–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Umpleby SA (2002) Should knowledge of management be organized as theories or as methods? In: Trappl R (ed) Cybernetics and systems 2002. Proceedings of the 16th European meeting on cybernetics and systems research, vol 1. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, Vienna, pp 492–497Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Umpleby SA (2005) What I learned from Heinz von Foerster about the construction of science. Kybernetes 34(1/2):278–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Volkens A, Klingemann H-D (2002) Parties, ideologies, and issues. Stability and change in fifteen European party systems 1945–1998. In: Luther KR, Müller-Rommel F (eds) Political parties in the New Europe. Political and analytical challenges. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 143–167Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Von Hippel E (1995) The sources of innovation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Von Zedtwitz M, Gassmann O (2002) Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization: four different patterns of managing research and development. Research Policy 31(4):569–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Von Zedtwitz M, Heimann P (2006) Innovation in clusters and the liability of foreignness of international R&D. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 101–122Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Yau LFC (2012) The arts in a knowledge economy: creation of other knowledges. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3 (1) (in press). http://www.springerlink.com/content/n38t14j275250376/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Business, Department of Information Systems and Technology ManagementGeorge Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (IFF), Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO)University of KlagenfurtKlagenfurtAustria
  3. 3.Unit for Quality Enhancement (UQE)University of Applied Arts ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations