Advertisement

The Latent Role of Universities in Boosting Innovations: An Informational Approach

  • Inga Ivanova
  • Mark Johnson
  • Nikita Krupenskiy
Chapter
Part of the Science, Technology and Innovation Studies book series (STAIS)

Abstract

The chapter looks at universities in their relation to other entities in society. It proposes new metrics for gaining insight into these relationships. The possibilities for the reorganisation of the relationships between universities, industry and government so as to stimulate economic growth or innovation can themselves be classed as innovations. Whilst universities often are the locus of specific innovations, their broader discursive role provides a means of exploring contesting perspectives on innovation. In doing so, they can contribute to a broader public discourse where some innovations which were once seen to be controversial become normalised. The discourse dynamics illustrated by the Triple Helix allows for the description of this process as one where redundancies of expectation are produced not only within the transactional productions of the academy (i.e. academic papers) but also within the management of institutions surrounding education, including university management, academic quality agencies, institutional ranking organisations, academic journals, as well as other institutions which the university is associated with such as health or law.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship Incubation Success Policy making 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The book chapter was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE) and supported within the framework of the subsidy granted to the HSE by the Government of the Russian Federation for the implementation of the Global Competitiveness Program.

References

  1. Baber Z (2001) Globalization and scientific research: the emerging triple helix of state-industry- university relations in Japan and Singapore. Bull Sci Technol Soc 21:401–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnett R (2013) Imagining the university. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Beer S (1973) Heart of enterprise. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  4. Beer S (1975) Platform for change. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  5. Benet J (2014) IPFS-content addressed, versioned, P2P file system. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.3561Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu P, Passeron J (1977) Reproduction in education, society and culture. Sage, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown R (2012) Higher education and the market. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2009) ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int J Technol Manag 46(3):201–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2010) Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation, and environment relate to each other? Int J Soc Ecol Sustain Dev 1(1):41–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cawley J, Cawthorn E, Hooker R (2012) Origins of the Physician Assistant Movement in the United States. J Am Acad Phys Assist 25(12):36–42Google Scholar
  11. Coarse RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4(16)Google Scholar
  12. Decker C, Wattenhofer R (2014) European symposium on research in computer security. Springer, Cham, pp 313–326Google Scholar
  13. DiMaggio P, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48(2)Google Scholar
  14. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (1995) The Triple Helix – university – industry – government relations: a laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EAAST Rev 14:14–19Google Scholar
  15. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy 29(2):109–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etzkowitz, H., Ranga, M. (2010). A Triple Helix system for knowledge-based regional development: from ‘spheres’ to ‘spaces’. In: Paper presented at the VIII Triple Helix conference, Madrid, Oct 2010Google Scholar
  17. Etzkowitz H, Ranga M (2012) “Spaces”: a triple helix governance strategy for regional innovation. In: Rickne A, Laestadius S, Etzkowitz H (eds) Innovation governance in an open economy: shaping regional nodes in a globalized world. Routledge, Milton Park, pp 51–68Google Scholar
  18. Freeman C, Perez C (1988) Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. In: Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson R, Silverberg G, Soete L (eds) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter, London, pp 38–66Google Scholar
  19. Freeman C, Soete L (1997) The economics of industrial innovation. Pinter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Frisby D (2014) Bitcoin: the future of money?Google Scholar
  21. Fujigaki Y, Leydesdorff L (2000) Quality control and validation boundaries in a triple helix of university-industry-government: “Mode 2” and the future of university research. Soc Sci Inf 39(4):635–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graeber D (2015) The utopia of rules: on technology, stupidity and the joys of bureaucracy Melville HouseGoogle Scholar
  23. Hintzman D, Block R (1971) Repetition and memory: evidence for a multiple trace hypothesis. J Exp Psychol 88:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K (1998) Evolutionary games and population dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ivanova I (2014) Quadruple Helix systems and symmetry: a step towards helix innovation system classification. J Knowl Econ 5(2):357–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ivanova I, Leydesdorff L (2014a) Rotational symmetry and the transformation of innovation systems in a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Technol Forecast Soc Change 86(2014):143–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ivanova I, Leydesdorff L (2014b) Redundancy generation in university-industry-government relations: the Triple Helix modeled, measured, and simulated. Scientometrics 99(3):927–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ivanova IA, Leydesdorff L (2015) Knowledge-generating efficiency in innovation systems: the acceleration of technological paradigm changes with increasing complexity. Technol Forecast Soc Change 96:254–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Keynes JM (1937) General theory of employment, interest and money. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  30. Leydesdorff L (2003) The mutual information of university-industry-government relations: an indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics. Scientometrics 58(2):445–467Google Scholar
  31. Leydesdorff L (2010) Redundancy in systems which entertain a model of themselves: Interaction information and the self-organization of anticipation. Entropy 12(1):63–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leydesdorff L (2012) The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-tuple of helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy. J Knowl Econ 3(1):25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leydesdorff L, Besselaar PVD (1998) Technological development and factor substitution in a nonlinear model. J Soc Evol Syst 21:173–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leydesdorff L, Ivanova I (2014) Mutual redundancies in inter-human communication systems: steps towards a calculus of processing of meaning. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 65(2):386–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lundvall B-Е (1988) Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In: Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson R, Silverberg G, Soete L (eds) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter, London, pp 349–369Google Scholar
  36. Lundvall B-Е (1992) Introduction. In: Lundvall B-Е (ed) National systems of innovation: towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin J (2014) Drugs on the dark net: how cryptomarkets are transforming the global trade in illicit drugs. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marx K (1867) Das Kapital I, Dietz. Berlin 1971Google Scholar
  39. Mingers J, Leydesdorff L (2015) A review of theory and practice in scientometrics. Eur J Oper Res 246(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nakamoto S (2008). Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper. Available at http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/emails/cryptography/1/
  41. Nelson R (1993) National innovation systems: a comparative analyses. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  42. Newman JH (1953) [1996 reprint] The idea of a university. New Haven, CT: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  43. Peters E (1996) Chaos and order in the capital markets. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Ridder-Simoens H de (ed) (1992) A history of the university in Europe: universities in the Middle Ages, Vol 1. Cambridge, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  45. Sen A (2000) Development as freedom. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal 27:379–423 and 623–656Google Scholar
  47. Shannon CE, Weaver W (1949) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  48. Simmel G, Wolff KH (1950) The sociology of George Simmel. Free Press, Glencoe, ILGoogle Scholar
  49. Theil H (1972) Statistical decomposition analysis. North-Holland, Amsterdam/LondonGoogle Scholar
  50. Ulanowicz RE (2011) Towards quantifying a wider reality: Shannon Exonerata. Information 2:624–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vigna P, Casey MJ (2015) Cryptocurrency: the future of money? In: VintageGoogle Scholar
  52. Walport M (2016) Distributed ledger technology - beyond Block chain: a report by the UK government Chief Scientific Adviser. Available online at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492972/gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-technology.pdf
  53. Weaver W (1949) Some recent contributions to the mathematical theory of communication. In: Shannon CE, Weaver W (eds) The mathematical theory of communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, pp 93–117Google Scholar
  54. Willmott H (2015) Why institutional theory cannot be critical. J Manag Inq 24:105–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of KnowledgeNational Research University Higher School of Economics (NRU HSE)MoscowRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Learning and Teaching, Faculty of Health and Life SciencesUniversity of LiverpoolMerseysideUK

Personalised recommendations