Advertisement

Culturing Atmosphere for Spontaneous Innovation: Academic Action and Triple-Helix Dynamics in South Korea

  • Leo Kim
  • Deok-Ho JangEmail author
Original Article
  • 8 Downloads

In order to foster the knowledge economy, collaboration between government, industry and academy is becoming increasingly important. The Triple-Helix (government–industry–academy) model is geared toward innovation in academic institutions and the transfer of academic knowledge to industrial and/or societal domains. This article studies crucial factors that either encourage or hamper activities in a South Korean university, by comparing each engineering department’s responses to the national Brain Korea 21+ funding scheme that promotes and evaluates the academy’s knowledge transfer performance. Finally, the article discusses the importance of leadership and communication in developing an atmosphere for spontaneous academic activities and the government’s role that might deteriorate innovative atmosphere.

Keywords

Triple-Helix model innovation organizational excellence communication 

Notes

References

  1. Byun, K. (2009) ‘Reality and policy debates surrounding government initiatives to increase institutional autonomy at Korean higher education institutions’ (in Korean), The Journal of Politics of Education 16(1): 135–164.Google Scholar
  2. Calvert, J. (2010) ‘Systems biology, interdisciplinarity and disciplinary identity’, in J.N. Parker, N. Vermeulen and B. Penders (eds.) Collaboration in the New Life Sciences, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, pp. 201–218.Google Scholar
  3. Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.), London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, M. D. and March, J. G. (1974) Leadership and ambiguity: The American college president, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  5. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2008) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D’Este, P. and Patel, P. (2007) ‘University-industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors determining the variety of interactions with industry?’ Research Policy 36(9): 1295–1313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review 48(2): 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz, H. and 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
  9. Freeman, C. (1991) ‘Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues’, Research Policy 20(5): 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  11. Hall, B.H., Link, A.N. and Scott, J.T. (2001) ‘Barriers inhibiting industry from partnering with universities: Evidence from the advanced technology program’, Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1): 87–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hearn, J.C. and Lacy, T.A. (2012) ‘Governmental policy and the organization of postsecondary education’, in G. Sykes, B. Schneider and D.N. Plank (eds.) Handbook of Education Policy Research, London: Routledge, pp. 958–973.Google Scholar
  13. Hemlin, S., Mumford, M.D., Allwood, C.M. and Martin, B. (2014) Creativity and leadership in science, technology, and innovation, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jang, D., Ryu, K., Yi, P. and Craig, D. (2016) ‘The hurdles to being world class: Narrative analysis of the World-Class University Project in Korea’, Higher Education Policy 29(3): 234–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim, L. and Jang, D. (2013) ‘Framing “World Class” differently: International and Korean participants’ perceptions of the World Class University Project’, Higher Education 65(6): 725–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kim, L.D. and Jang, D.H. (2017) ‘Expert views on innovation and bureaucratization of science: Semantic network analysis of discourses on scientific governance’, Science and Public Policy 45(1): 36–44.Google Scholar
  17. Kim, L.D. (2016) Visualizing discourses and governance of human embryonic stem cell research in South Korea (In comparison to the UK) (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Sussex.Google Scholar
  18. Kim, L. and Park, H. (2015) ‘Diagnosing “collaborative culture” of biomedical science in South Korea: Misoriented knowledge, competition and failing collaboration’, East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 9(3): 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krackhardt, D. and Stern, R.N. (1988) ‘Informal network and organizational crises: An experimental simulation’, Social Psychology Quarterly 51(2): 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kwon, K., Park, H., So, M. and 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): 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Leydesdorff, L. and Meyer. M. (2010) ‘The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole effect’, Scientometrics 83(2): 355–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leydesdorff, L. and Meyer, M. (2006) ‘Triple-helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems’, Research Policy 35(10): 1441-1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leydesdorff, L. (2006) The knowledge-based economy: Modeled, measured, simulated, Boca Raton: Universal Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Luhmann, N. (1995) Social systems, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lundvall, B.A. (2013) Innovation studies: A personal interpretation of ‘The State of the Art’, in J. Fagerberg, B.R. Martin and E.R. Anderson (eds.) Innovation Studies: Evolution and Future Challenges, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 21–70.Google Scholar
  26. Meyer, J. Ramirez, F. Frank, D. and Schofer, E. (2007) ‘Higher education as an institution’, in P. Gumport (ed.) Sociology of Higher Education: Contributions and Their Contexts, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 187–221.Google Scholar
  27. Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2008) ‘Engaging the scholar: Three forms of academic consulting and their impact on universities and industry’, Research Policy 37(10): 1884–1891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P. and Sobrero, M. (2013) ‘Academic engagement and commercialization: A review of the literature on university-industry relations’, Research Policy 42(2): 423–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Phillips, F. (2014) Triple helix and the circle of innovation. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia, 13(1): 57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ranga, M. and Etzkowitz, H. (2013) ‘Triple helix systems: An analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society’, Industry and Higher Education 27(3): 237–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rho, W. (2014) ‘Triple helix for social innovation: The Saemaul Undong for eradicating poverty’, Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia 13(1): 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shannon, C.E. (1948) ‘A mathematical theory of communication’, Bell System Technical Journal 27(3): 379–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shin, J. (2009) ‘Building world-class research university: The Brain Korea 21 project’, Higher Education 58(5): 669–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tammi, T. (2009) ‘The competitive funding of university research: The case of Finnish science universities’, Higher Education 57(5): 657–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomas, G. and James, D. (2006) ‘Reinventing grounded theory: Some questions about theory, ground and discovery’, British Educational Research Journal 32(6): 767–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Valente, T.W. and Rogers, E.M. (1995) ‘The origins and developments of the diffusion of innovations paradigm as an example of scientific growth’, Science Communication 16(3): 242–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. van Geenhuizen, M. (2016) ‘Living labs as boundary-spanners between triple helix actors’, Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia 15(1): 78–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K. and Zimmermann, E. (2004) ‘Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew effect?’, Research Policy 33(3): 425–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yoon, J. and Park, H. (2016) ‘Triple helix dynamics of South Korea’s innovation system: A network analysis of inter-regional technological collaborations’, Quality and Quantity 51(3): 989–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yoon, J., Yang, S. and Park, H. (2017) ‘Quintuple helix structure of Sino-Korean research collaboration in science’, Scientometrics 113(1): 61–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ars PraxiaSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of EducationSangmyung UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations