Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems

Twenty-first-Century Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Development
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Business book series (BRIEFSBUSINESS, volume 7)

Abstract

Developed and developing economies alike face increased resource scarcity and competitive rivalry. In this context, science and technology appear as an essential source of competitive and sustainable advantage at national and regional levels. However, the key determinant of their efficacy is the quality and quantity of entrepreneurship-enabled innovation that unlocks and captures the benefits of the science enterprise in the form of private, public, or hybrid goods. Linking basic and applied research with the market, via technology transfer and commercialization mechanisms, including government–university–industry partnerships and capital investments, constitutes the essential trigger mechanism and driving force of sustainable competitive advantage and prosperity. In this volume, the authors define the terms and principles of knowledge creation, diffusion, and use, and establish a theoretical framework for their study. In particular, they focus on the “Quadruple Helix” model, through which government, academia, industry, and civil society are seen as key actors promoting a democratic approach to innovation through which strategy development and decision-making are exposed to feedback from key stakeholders, resulting in socially accountable policies and practices.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship Innovation Knowledge cluster Knowledge management Mode 3 Quadruple Helix Research and development (R&D) Science and technology policy (S&T policy) Triple Helix Quintuple Helix 

References

  1. Anbari, Frank T., Stuart A. Umpleby (2006). Productive Research Teams and Knowledge Generation, 26–38, in: Elias G. Carayannis, David F. J. Campbell (eds.): Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  2. Arnold, Markus (2009). Interdisziplinarität: Theorie und Praxis eines Forschungskonzepts, 65–97, in: Markus Arnold (ed.): iff. Interdisziplinäre Wissenschaft im Wandel. Vienna: LIT.Google Scholar
  3. Barth, Thorsten D. (2010). Konzeption, Messung und Rating der Demokratiequalität. Brasilien, Südarfika, Australien und die Russische Föderation, 1997–2006. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Ari, Guy (2006). Innovation Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy: The Israeli Case, 253–282, in: Elias G. Carayannis, David F. J. Campbell (eds.): Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  5. Biegelbauer, Peter (ed.) (2010). Steuerung von Wissenschaft? Die Governance des österreichischen Innovationssystems. Innsbruck: Studienverlag.Google Scholar
  6. Blimlinger, Eva, Marcus Bruckmann, David F. J. Campbell, Bernhard Kernegger, Verena Krieger, Susanne Mann, Ruth Mateus-Berr, Barbara Putz-Plecko, Karin Raith, Emma Rendl-Denk, Veroniks Schnell, Maria Wiala (2010). Teaching, Quality, Evaluation. An Applied Concept. Vienna: University of Applied Arts Vienna (http://www.uni-ak.ac.at/uqe/download/TeachingEvaluation_AppliedConcept.pdf).Google Scholar
  7. Brandenburger, Adam M., Barry J. Nalebuff (1997). Co-Opetition. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  8. Bush, Vannevar (1945). Science: The Endless Frontier. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office [http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm#transmittal].Google Scholar
  9. Braun, C. F. von (1997). The Innovation War. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Caduff, Corina, Fiona Siegenthaler, Tan Wälchli (2010). Art and Artistic Research. Zurich Yearbook oft he Arts. Zurich: Zurich Universiy of the Arts.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, David F. J. (1992). Die Dynamik der politischen Links-Rechts-Schwingungen in Österreich: Die Ergebnisse einer Expertenbefragung. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 21 (2), 165–179.Google Scholar
  12. Campbell, David F. J. (1994). European Nation-State under Pressure: National Fragmentation or the Evolution of Suprastate Structures? Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal 25 (6), 879–909.Google Scholar
  13. Campbell, David F. J. (1995). Forschung und Forschungspolitik in Österreich. Ein strategisches Aktionsprogramm für die Sozialwissenschaften. SWS-Rundschau 35 (4), 395–404.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, David F. J. (1999). Evaluation universitärer Forschung. Entwicklungstrends und neue Strategiemuster für wissenschaftsbasierte Gesellschaften. SWS-Rundschau 39 (4), 363–383.Google Scholar
  15. Campbell, David F. J. (2000). Forschungspolitische Trends in wissenschaftsbasierten Gesellschaften. Strategiemuster für entwickelte Wirtschaftssysteme. Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter 47 (2), 130–143.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, David F. J. (2001). Politische Steuerung über öffentliche Förderung universitärer Forschung? Systemtheoretische Überlegungen zu Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 30 (4), 425–438.Google Scholar
  17. Campbell, David F. J. (2003). The Evaluation of University Research in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, Germany and Austria, 98–131, in: Philip Shapira, Stefan Kuhlmann (eds.): Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe. Camberley: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  18. Campbell, David F. J. (2005). Demokratie, Demokratiequalität und Grundrechte: Ein Vergleich der Fiedler- und EU-Verfassung. Vienna: Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  19. Campbell, David F. J. (2006a). The University/Business Research Networks in Science and Technology: Knowledge Production Trends in the United States, European Union and Japan, 67–100, in: Elias G. Carayannis, David F. J. Campbell (eds.): Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  20. Campbell, David F. J. (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].Google Scholar
  21. Campbell, David F. J. (2008). The Basic Concept for the Democracy Ranking of the Quality of Democracy. Vienna: Democracy Ranking (http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/basic_concept_democracy_ranking_2008_A4.pdf).Google Scholar
  22. Campbell, David F. J. (2009). “Externe Umwelten”. Außensichten auf das iff, 99–134, in: Markus Arnold (ed.): iff. Interdisziplinäre Wissenschaft im Wandel. Vienna: LIT.Google Scholar
  23. Campbell, David F. J. (2010). Key Findings (Summary Abstract) of the Democracy Ranking 2010 and the Democracy Improvement Ranking 2010. Vienna: Democracy Ranking (http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/Key%20findings%20of%20the%20Democracy%20Ranking%202010_A4.pdf).Google Scholar
  24. Campbell, David F. J. (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).Google Scholar
  25. Campbell, David F. J., Christian Schaller (eds.) (2002). Demokratiequalität in Österreich. Zustand und Entwicklungsperspektiven. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. [http://www.oegpw.at/sek_agora/publikationen.htm].Google Scholar
  26. Campbell, David F. J., Wolfgang H. Güttel (2005). Knowledge Production of Firms: Research Networks and the “Scientification” of Business R&D. International Journal of Technology Management 31 (1/2), 152–175.Google Scholar
  27. Campbell, David F. J., Thorsten D. Barth (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).Google Scholar
  28. Campbell, George S., David F. J. Campbell (2011). The Semi-Aquatic Theory: Semi-Aquatic Evolutionary Phase and Environment, Language Development of Modern Humans. With a Short Epilog on Conceptualized Evolution, Social Ecology and the Quintuple Helix. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 2 (1), 15–30 (http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=51634).Google Scholar
  29. Carayannis, Elias G. (1993). Incrementalisme Strategique. Le Progrès Technique (no. 2), Paris: France.Google Scholar
  30. Carayannis, Elias G. (1994). Gestion Strategique de l’Apprentissage Technologique. Le Progrès Technique (no. 2), Paris: France.Google Scholar
  31. Carayannis, Elias G. (1997). Data warehouse, electronic commerce, and technological learning: Successes and failures from government and private industry and lessons learned for 21st century electronic government. Online Journal of Internet Banking and Commerce (March).Google Scholar
  32. Carayannis, Elias G. (1998). Higher order technological learning as determinant of market success in the multimedia arena: A success story, a failure, and a question to mark: Agfa/Bayer AG, enable software, and sun microsystems. International Journal of Technovation 18 (10), 639–653.Google Scholar
  33. Carayannis, Elias G. (2008). Knowledge-driven creative destruction, or leveraging knowledge for competitive advantage: strategic knowledge arbitrage and serendipity as real options drivers triggered by co-opetition, co-evolution and co-specialization. Industry and Higher Education 22 (6), 343–353.Google Scholar
  34. Carayannis, Elias G. (1999). Knowledge Transfer through Technological Hyperlearning in Five Industries. International Journal of Technovation 19 (3, March), 141–161.Google Scholar
  35. Carayannis, Elias G. (2000). Investigation and Validation of Technological Learning versus Market Performance. International Journal of Technovation 20 (7, July), 389–400.Google Scholar
  36. Carayannis, Elias G. (2001). The Strategic Management of Technological Learning. Learning to Learn and Learning to Learn-How-To-Learn as Drivers of Strategic Choice and Firm Performance in Global, Technology-Driven Markets. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  37. Carayannis, Elias G. (2004). Measuring Intangibles: Managing Intangibles for Tangible Outcomes in Research and Innovation. International Journal of Nuclear Knowledge Management, v. 1, no. 1, January.Google Scholar
  38. Carayannis, Elias G., Jeffrey Alexander (1999a). Winning by Co-opeting in Strategic Government-University-Industry (GUI) Partnerships: The Power of Complex, Dynamic Knowledge Networks. Journal of Technology Transfer 24 (2/3, August), 197–210.Google Scholar
  39. Carayannis, Elias G., Jeffrey Alexander (1999b). Technology-Driven Strategic Alliances: Tools for Learning and Knowledge Exchange in a Positive-Sum World, 1–32 until 1–41, in: Richard C. Dorf (ed.): The Technology Management Handbook. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  40. Carayannis, Elias G., Edgar Gonzalez (2003). Creativity and Innovation = Competitiveness? When, How, and Why, Vol. 1, Chap. 8, pp. 587–606, in: Larisa V. Shavinina (ed.): The International Handbook on Innovation. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  41. Carayannis, Elias G., Edgar Gonzalez, John Wetter (2003). The Nature and Dynamics of Discontinuous and Disruptive Innovations From a Learning and Knowledge Management Perspective, Vol. 1, Chap. 4, pp. 115–138, in: Larisa V. Shavinina (ed.): The International Handbook on Innovation. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  42. Carayannis, Elias G., Jeffrey Alexander (2004). Strategy, Structure and Performance Issues of Pre-competitive R&D Consortia: Insights and Lessons Learned. IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management 52 (2).Google Scholar
  43. Carayannis, Elias G., Patrice Laget (2004). Transatlantic Innovation Infrastructure Networks: Public-Private, EU-US R&D Partnerships. R&D Management 34 (1), 17–31.Google Scholar
  44. Carayannis, Elias G., Maximilian von Zedtwitz (2005). Architecting GloCal (Global – Local), Real-Virtual Incubator Networks (G-RVINs) as Catalysts and Accelerators of Entrepreneurship in Transitioning and Developing Economies. Technovation 25, 95–110.Google Scholar
  45. Carayannis, Elias G., Jeffrey M. Alexander (2006). Global and Local Knowledge. Glocal Transatlantic Public-Private Partnerships for Research and Technological Development. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  46. Carayannis, Elias G., David F. J. Campbell (2006a). „Mode 3“: Meaning and Implications from a Knowledge Systems Perspective, 1–25, in: Elias G. Carayannis, David F. J. Campbell (eds.): Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  47. Carayannis, Elias G., David F. J. Campbell (2006b). Conclusion: Key Insights and Lessons Learned for Policy and Practice, 331–341, in: Elias G. Carayannis, David F. J. Campbell (eds.): Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  48. Carayannis, Elias G., David F. J. Campbell (2006c). Introduction and Chapter Summaries, ix-xxvi, in: Elias G. Carayannis, David F. J. Campbell (eds.): Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  49. Carayannis, Elias G., Caroline Sipp (2006). E-Development toward the Knowledge Economy: Leveraging Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship for “Smart Development”. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  50. Carayannis, Elias G., Christopher Ziemnowicz (eds.) (2007). Rediscovering Schumpeter. Creative Destruction Evolving into “Mode 3”. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  51. Carayannis, Elias G., John E. Spillan, Christopher Ziemnowicz (2007). Introduction: Why Joseph Schumpeter’s Creative Destruction? Everything has Changed, 1–5, in: Elias G. Carayannis, Christopher Ziemnowicz (eds.): Rediscovering Schumpeter. Creative Destruction Evolving into “Mode 3”. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  52. Carayannis, Elias G., David F. J. Campbell (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).Google Scholar
  53. Carayannis, Elias G, David F. J. Campbell (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).Google Scholar
  54. Carayannis, Elias G., David F. J. Campbell (2011). 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. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 2 (3), 327–372 (http://www.springerlink.com/content/d1lr223321305579/).Google Scholar
  55. Carayannis, Elias G (2012). The Knowledge of Culture and the Culture of Knowledge. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  56. Cardullo, Mario W. (1999). Technology Life Cycles, 3–44 until 3–49, in: Richard C. Dorf (ed.): The Technology Management Handbook. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  57. Colapinto, Cinzia, Colin Porlezza (2012). Innovation in Creative Industries: from the Quadruple Helix Model to the Systems Theory. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3 (1) (forthcoming) (http://www.springerlink.com/content/rx725r81u9l199g5/).Google Scholar
  58. Cooper, J. R. (1998). A Multidimensional Approach to the Adoption of Innovation. Management Decision 36 (8), 493–502.Google Scholar
  59. Cesaroni, Fabrizio, Alfonso Gambardella, Walter Garcia-Fontes, Myriam Mariani (2004). The Chemical Sectoral System: Firms, Markets, Institutions and the Processes of Knowledge Creation and Diffusion, 121–154, in: Malerba, Franco (ed.): Sectoral Systems of Innovation. Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Davenport, Thomas H., John C. Beck (2001). The Attention Economy. Understanding the New Currency of Business. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  61. Danilda, Inger, Malin Lindberg, Britt-Marie Torstensson (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).Google Scholar
  62. De Geus, A. (1988). Planning as Learning, Harvard Business Review, 66:2, 70, Winter.Google Scholar
  63. Drejer, Anders (2002). Strategic Management and Core Competencies.New York, NY: Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  64. Dubina, Igor N., Elia G. Carayannis, David F. J. Campbell (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) (forthcoming) (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t5j8l12136h526h5/).Google Scholar
  65. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1990). The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Etzkowitz, Henry, Loet Leydesdorff (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy 29, 109–123.Google Scholar
  67. Etzkowitz, Henry (2003). Research groups as “quasi-firms”: The invention of the Entrepreneurial University. Research Policy 32, 109–121.Google Scholar
  68. Ferlie, Ewan, Christine Musselin, Gianluca Andresani (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).Google Scholar
  69. Ferlie, Ewan, Christine Musselin, Gianluca Andresani (2009). The Governance of Higher Education Systems: A Public Management Perspective, 1–20, in: Catherine Paradeise, Emanuela Reale, Ivar Bleiklie, Ewan Ferlie (eds.). University Governance. Western European Comparative Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  70. Fischer-Kowalski, Marina, Helmut Haberl (eds.) (2007). Socioecological Transitions and Global Change. Trajectories of Social Metabolism and Land Use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  71. Florida, Richard (2004). The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community, and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  72. Gerybadze, Alexander, Guido Reger (1999). Globalization of R&D: Recent Changes in the Management of Innovation in Transnational Corporations. Research Policy 28, 251–274.Google Scholar
  73. Geuna, Aldo, Ben R. Martin (2003). University Researech Evaluation and Funding: An International Comparison. Minerva 41, 277–304.Google Scholar
  74. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, Martin Trow (1994). The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  75. Gleick, James (1987). Chaos: Making a New Science. New York: Viking Press.Google Scholar
  76. Godoe, Helge (2007). Doing Innovative Research: “Mode 3” and Methodological Challenges in Leveraging the Best of Three Worlds, 344–361, in: Elias G. Carayannis, Christopher Ziemnowicz (eds.): Rediscovering Schumpeter. Creative Destruction Evolving into “Mode 3”. Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  77. Gottweis, Herbert (1998). Governing Molecules. The Discursive Politics of Genetic Engineering in Europe and the United States. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  78. Hall, Peter A. (1993). Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State. The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics (April 1993), 257–296.Google Scholar
  79. Hemlin, Sven, Carl Martin Allwood, Ben R. Martin (2004). Creative Knowledge Environments. The Influences on Creativity in Research and Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  80. Hindmarsh, Richard, Barbara Prainsack (eds.). Genetic Suspects. Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Hooghe, Liesbet, Gary Marks (2001). Multi-Level Governance and European Integration. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  82. Jacob, Anna Katharina (2007). Qualitätsmanagement an Musikhochschulen in Zeiten sich wandelnder Studienstrukturen. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
  83. Kaiser, Robert, Heiko Prange (2004). The Reconfiguration of National Innovation Systems – The Example of German Biotechnology. Research Policy 33, 395–408.Google Scholar
  84. Killman, R. (1985). Gaining Control of the Corporate Culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  85. Kline, S. J., N. Rosenberg (1986). An Overview of Innovation, in: R. Landau, N. Rosenburg (eds.): The Positive Sum Strategy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  86. Kritzinger, Sylvia, Barbara Prainsack, Helga Pülzl (2006). System oder Netzwerk? Veränderungen forschungspolitischer Strategien in Österreich. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 35 (1), 75–92 (http://www.oezp.at/pdfs/2006-1-5-Kritzinge.pdf).Google Scholar
  87. Krücken, Georg (2003a). Mission Impossible? Institutional Barriers to the Diffusion of the “Third Academic Mission” at German Universities. International Journal of Technology Management 25 (1/2), 18–33.Google Scholar
  88. Krücken, Georg (2003b). Learning the “New, New Thing”: On the Role of Path Dependency in University Structures. Higher Education 46 (3), 315–339.Google Scholar
  89. Krücken Georg, Frank Meier, Andre Müller (2007). Information, Cooperation, and the Blurring of Boundaries – Technology Transfer in German and American Discourses. Higher Education 53 (6), 675–696.Google Scholar
  90. Kuhlmann, Stefan (2001). Future Governance of Innovation Policy in Europe – Three Scenarios. Research Policy 30, 953–976.Google Scholar
  91. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  92. Leydesdorff, Loet (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) (forthcoming) (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x543613918677871/).Google Scholar
  93. Lindberg, Malin, Inger Danilda, Britt-Marie Torstensson (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/).Google Scholar
  94. Lindblom, Charles E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review 19, 79–88.Google Scholar
  95. Lindblom, Charles E. (1965). The Intelligence of Democracy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  96. Lindblom, Charles E., David K. Cohen (1979). Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  97. Lundvall, Bengt-Åke (ed.) (1992). National Systems of Innovation. Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  98. Malerba, Franco (ed.) (2004a). Sectoral Systems of Innovation. Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  99. Malerba, Franco (2004b). Summing-Up and Conclusions, 465–507, in: Malerba, Franco (ed.): Sectoral Systems of Innovation. Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  100. McKelvey, Maureen, Luigi Orsenigo, Fabio Pammolli (2004). Pharmaceuticals Analyzed through the Lens of a Sectoral Innovation System, 73–120, in: Malerba, Franco (ed.): Sectoral Systems of Innovation. Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  101. McNiff, Shaun (1998). Art-Based Research. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  102. McNiff, Shaun (2008). Art-Based Research, 29–40, in: J. Gary Knowles, Ardra L. Cole (eds.): Handbook of the Arts in Qualitative Research. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  103. Milbergs, Egils (2005). Innovation Ecosystems and Prosperity. Center for Accelerating Innovation [http://www.innovationecosystems.com].Google Scholar
  104. Miyata, Yukio (2003). An Analysis of Research and Innovative Activities of Universities in the United States, 715–738, in: Larisa V. Shavinina (ed.): The International Handbook on Innovation. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  105. Müller, Wolfgang C., Kaare Strøm (2000). Conclusion: Coalition Governance in Western Europe, 559–592, in: Wolfgang C. Müller, Kaare Strøm (eds.): Coalition Governments in Western Europe.Google Scholar
  106. National Science Board (2010). Science and Engineering Indicators 2010. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdfstart.htm).Google Scholar
  107. Nelson, Richard R. (ed.) (1993). National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Nelson, Richard R., Sidney G., Winter (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  109. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, Michael Gibbons (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  110. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, Michael Gibbons (2003). Mode 2 Revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva 41, 179–194.Google Scholar
  111. Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, Michael Gibbons (2006). Re-Thinking Science: Mode 2 in Societal Context, 39–51, in: Elias G. Carayannis, David F. J. Campbell (eds.): Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  112. O’Donnell, Guillermo (2004). Human Development, Human Rights, and Democracy, 9–92, in: Guillermo O’Donnell, Jorge Vargas Cullell, Osvaldo M. Iazzetta (eds.): The Quality of Democracy. Theory and Applications. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  113. OECD (1994). Frascati Manual. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Acitivities. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys of Research and Experimental Development. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  114. OECD (1998). Science, Technology and Industry Outlook. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  115. OECD (2002). Frascati Manual 2002. The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. Paris: OECD (http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?CID=&LANG=EN&SF1=DI&ST1=5LMQCR2K61JJ).Google Scholar
  116. OECD (2006). Research and Development Statistics. (On-Line Database). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  117. Pechar, Hans, Lesley Andres (2011). Higher-Education Policies and Welfare Regimes: International Comparative Perspectives. Higher Education Policy 24 (March), 25–52 (http://www.palgrave-journals.com/hep/journal/v24/n1/full/hep201024a.html).Google Scholar
  118. Pfeffer, Thomas (2006). Virtualization of Research Universities. Raising the Right Questions to Address Key Functions of the Institution, 307–330, in: Elias G. Carayannis, David F. J. Campbell (eds.): Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  119. Plasser, Fritz (ed.) (2004). Politische Kommunikation in Österreich. Ein praxisnahes Handbuch. Vienna: WUV-Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
  120. Plasser, Fritz, Gunda Plasser (2002). Global Political Campaigning. A Worldwide Analysis of Campaign Professionals and Their Practices. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  121. Polanyi, Michael (1962). The Republic of Science: Its Political and Economic Theory. Minerva 1, 54–74 (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5100/polanyi_1967.pdf and http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/∼gsd/595e/docs/41.%20Polanyi_Republic_of_Science.pdf).Google Scholar
  122. Prainsack, Barbara, Howard Wolinsky (2010). Direct-to-Consumer Genome Testing: Opportunities for Pharmacogenomics Research? Pharmacogenomics 11 (5), 651–655.Google Scholar
  123. Prem, Erich (2005). Zur Lage der österreichischen Forschung auf dem Gebiet integrierter Systeme. Situation und Strategie. Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik (ei). Google Scholar
  124. Resetarits Andreas, Agnezia-Maria, Resetarits-Tincul (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/).Google Scholar
  125. Ritterman, Janet, Gerald Bast, Jürgen Mittelstraß (eds.) (2011). Art and Research. Can Artists Be Researchers? Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
  126. Rogers, E. M., Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of innovations: A cross-cultural approach. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  127. Rosenberger, Sieglinde (ed.) (2010). Asylpolitik in Österreich. Unterbringung im Fokus. Vienna: Facultas.Google Scholar
  128. Rycroft, Robert W., Don E. Kash (1999). The Complexity Challenge. Technological Innovation for the 21st Century. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  129. Saward, Michael (ed.) (2006). Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  130. Schumpeter, Joseph A. (1942). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  131. Shapira, Philip, Stefan Kuhlmann (eds.) (2003). Learning from Science and Technology Policy Evaluation. Experiences from the United States and Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  132. Shavinina, Larisa V. (2003). The International Handbook on Innovation. Amsterdam: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  133. Steinmueller, W. Edward (2004). The European Software Sectoral System of Innovation, 193–242, in: Malerba, Franco (ed.): Sectoral Systems of Innovation. Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  134. Tassey, Gregory (2001). R&D Policy Models and Data Needs, 37–71, in: Maryann P. Feldman, Albert N. Link (eds.). Innovation Policy in the Knowledge-Based Economy. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  135. Teichler, Ulrich (2006). Was ist Qualität?, 168–184, in: Véronique Chalvet, Waldemar Dreger (eds.): Von der Qualitätssicherung der Lehre zur Qualitätsentwicklung als Prinzip der Hochschulsteuerung. Bonn: Hochschulkonferenz (Beiträge zur Hochschulpolitik).Google Scholar
  136. Tornatzky, L.G., M. Fleischer. (1990). The Process of Technological Innovation. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  137. Umpleby, Stuart A. (1997). Cybernetics of Conceptual Systems. Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal 28, 635–652.Google Scholar
  138. Umpleby, Stuart A. (2002). Should knowledge of management be organized as theories or as methods?, 492–497, in: Robert Trappl (ed.): Cybernetics and systems 2002. Proceedings of the 16th European meeting on cybernetics and systems research. Volume 1. Vienna: Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies.Google Scholar
  139. Umpleby, Stuart A. (2005). What I Learned from Heinz von Foerster About the Construction of Science. Kybernetes 34 (1/2), 278–294.Google Scholar
  140. Volkens, Andrea, Hans-Dieter Klingemann (2002). Parties, Ideologies, and Issues. Stability and Change in Fifteen European Party Systems 1945–1998, 143–167, in: Kurt Richard Luther, Ferdinand Müller-Rommel (eds.): Political Parties in the New Europe. Political and Analytical Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  141. Von Hippel, Eric (1995). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  142. Von Hippel, Eric (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  143. Von Zedtwitz, Max, Oliver Gassmann (2002). Market versus Technology Drive in R&D Internationalization: Four Different Patterns of Managing Research and Development. Research Policy 31 (4), 569–588.Google Scholar
  144. Von Zedtwitz, Max, Philip Heimann (2006). Innovation in Clusters and the Liability of Foreignness of International R&D, 101–122, in: Elias G. Carayannis, David F. J. Campbell (eds.): Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.Google Scholar
  145. Wengel, Jürgen, Philip Shapira (2004). Machine Tools: The Remaking of a Traditional Sectoral Innovation System, 243–286, in: Malerba, Franco (ed.): Sectoral Systems of Innovation. Concepts, Issues and Analyses of Six Major Sectors in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  146. Winiwarter, Verena, Martin Knoll (2007) Umweltgeschichte. Köln: Böhlau.Google Scholar
  147. Yau, Lynn Foon Chi (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/).Google Scholar
  148. Zaltman, Gerald, Robert Ducan, Jonny Holbek (1973). Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elias G. Carayannis and David F.J. Campbell 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Washington UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt and University of Applied ArtsViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations