Linking the triple helix (university-industry-government) to the quadruple helix of university-industry-government – civil society in the field of international business and economics

Open access

Abstract

Current educational systems and processes need to anticipate the challenges of the new millennium and lay the foundations for the future in the economic, social, technological, cultural and relational context. New educational programs must seriously consider a number of conditions such as: entirely new ways of serving existing needs and significantly disrupt existing industry value chains; growing transparency, consumer engagement, and new patterns of consumer behavior; the development of technology-enabled platforms that combine both demand and supply to disrupt existing industry structures, such as those we see within the “sharing” or “on demand” economy. In this paper I`ve started from the assumption that in the specific conditions of a creativity-based economy is necessary to rethink the components of the matrix partnership crossing from `triple helix` to `quadruple helix` logic. This new model becomes necessary because under current regional and international circumstances Mode 3 of knowledge production has become generalized. In this paper I`ve opted for the concept that adds civil society proposing reformulate the analytical model so as to place in balance integration with differentiation to produce suitability for a societal design defined by the self-organization of the sense communication process with respect to the analytical axes of complex systems. The basic idea of the research is to identify the way in which the challenges of internationalization of education, the transformations required by the emergence of this process, and the most relevant redefining that must take place at the level of curricular architectures and learning methods are understood. Based on the research I have made, I recommended few ways to cope with sensitive challenges educational systems are confronted with such as: better connecting theory and practice, teaching a more useful economics, designing the future based on the understanding of the past, minimizing the rhetorical component and maximizing the factual one, testing conformity of different ideas in advance.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Bengt-Åke L Johnson B. Sloth Andersen B. Dalum B (2002) National systems of production innovation and competence building. ELSEVIER. Research Policy 31 (2002) 213-231

  • Boardman C. Gray D. (2010). The new science and engineering management: cooperative research centers as government policies industry strategies and organizations. Journal of Technology Transfer 35 445-459.

  • Brännback M. Carsrud A. Krueger N. Elfving J. (2008). Challenging the Triple Helix model of regional innovation systems: a venture centric model International Journal of Technoentrepreneurship special issue on “Financing Biotech companies" forthcoming.

  • Carayannis E. G. Campbell D. (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/).

  • Carayannis E. G. Campbell D. (2012) - Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems Twenty-first-Century Democracy Innovation and Entrepreneurship for Development. Springer Briefs in Business 7 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-2062-0_1 Darling-Hammond L. (2010) - The Flat World and Education. New York: Teachers College Press.

  • Dima A. & Vasilache S. (2016). Trends in the internationalization of European higher education in a convergence perspective. Management & Marketing 11(2) pp. 449-457. Retrieved 25 Feb. 2018 from doi:

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • Eriksson M. Niitamo V-P. & Kulkki S. (2005). State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation - A European approach. Retrieved from http://www.vinnova.se/upload/dokument/Verksamhet/TITA/Stateoftheart_LivingLabs_Eriksson2005.pdf on 12 August 2009.

  • Etzkowitz H. 1993. Technology transfer: The second academic revolution. Technology Access Report 6 7-9.

  • Etzkowitz H. Leydesdorff L. (1998).The endless transition: A "triple helix" of universityindustry- government relations. Minerva 36 203-208.

  • Etzkowitz H. and Zhou C. (2006). Triple Helix twins: innovation and sustainability Science and Public Policy volume 33 number 1 pp 77-83.

  • Ghinea V. M. Dima A. M. & Hadad S. (2017). EXCELLENCE MODEL FOR SUSTAINABLE CONVERGENCE IN THE EU HIGHER EDUCATION. Amfiteatru Economic 19(11) 1107-1122.

  • Gibbons M. Limoges C. Nowotny H. Schwartzmann S. Scott P. and Trow M. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge Sage.

  • Gladwin T. Kennelly J. Tara-Shelomith K (1995) - Shifting Paradigms for Sustainable Development. Implications for management Theory and Research. The Academy of Management Review Vol. 20 No. 4 (Oct. 1995) pp. 874-907.

  • Goleman D. Richard E. Boyatzis A (2013) - Primal Leadership: Unleashing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Harvard Business Review Press. 2013.

  • Hadad S. (2017) “Strategies for developing knowledge economy in Romania” Management & Marketing Challenges for the Knowledge Society 12(3) 416-430. DOI: 10.1515/mmcks-2017-0025.

  • Leydesdorff L. (2008). Configurational Information as Potentially Negative Entropy: The Triple Helix Model. Entropy 10 391-410.

  • Liljemark T. (2004) Innovation Policy in Canada. Strategy and Realities. Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies. Stockholm.

  • Miron D. (2008) Linking the double helix of learning and work to the triple helix of university-industry-government in the Europe of knowledge Management & Marketing (2008) 3(4) 3-20.

  • Robinson K. (2001) Out of Our Minds. West Sussex: Capstone Publishing 2001 p. 155.

  • Schienstock G. Hämäläinen T. (2001) Transformation of the Finnish innovation system: A network approach. Sitra Report Series. January 2001.

  • Schwab Klaus (2016)The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum. Geneva Switzerland.

  • Thomke S. von Hippel E. (2002). Customers as Innovators: A New Way to Create Value. Harvard Business Review.

  • Walt M.S. (2018) America’s IR Schools Are Broken. There’s a lot of innovation on the surface but the rot runs deep. Here’s how to fix it. Foreign Policy. 20th of February 2018.

  • Yawson R. M. (2009) The Ecological System of Innovation: A New Architectural Framework for a Functional Evidence-Based Platform for Science and Innovation Policy. The Future of Innovation Proceedings of the XXIV ISPIM 2009 Conference Vienna Austria June 21-24 2009.

  • Zucker L. Darby M. Amstrong J.S. (2002) Comercializing Knowledge: University Science. Knowledge Capture and Firm Performance in Biotechmology. Management Science. 48 (1). 2002.

  • Zucker L. Darby M. Brewer M. (1998) Intelectual Capital and the Birth of U.S. Biotechnology Enterprises American Review. 88 290-306.

Search
Journal information
Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 468 221 3
PDF Downloads 446 200 13