The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2053-4620.htm

JSTPM
10,3 Triple helix and its evolution:
a systematic literature review
Anderson Galvao
CETRAD Research Unit and Department of Economics Sociology and Management,
812 University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal and
School of Management and Technology Polytechnic Institute of Porto,
Received 23 October 2018 Felgueiras, Portugal
Revised 28 December 2018
Accepted 29 April 2019
Carla Mascarenhas and Carla Marques
CETRAD Research Unit and Department of Economics Sociology and Management,
University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro, Vila Real, Portugal
João Ferreira
NECE Research Unit and Department of Management and Economics,
University of Beira Interior, Covilhã, Portugal, and
Vanessa Ratten
La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the most extensively studied topics with respect to the
triple, quadruple and quintuple helix models developed to explain these links. The review also focusses on
ascertaining future trends within this field.
Design/methodology/approach – Relevant documents obtained from a search in the Institute for
Scientific Information’s Web of Science were submitted to bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer
software.
Findings – The results of this systematic review illustrate that, despite growing concern about society
and the environment, issues related to the three helixes of universities, industries and governments
continue to be the most often studied. However, an additional focus on research on the quadruple and
quintuple helix models has emerged in the more specialised literature. An analysis of co-citations also
identified four clusters of research such as, innovation and knowledge policies; entrepreneurial
universities; business innovation strategy; and triple helix stakeholders in innovation, knowledge and
regional development.
Originality/value – Some policies are needed. Polices that undergo the mapping of the universities’
specialisations, the industry/society necessities and financial measures could foster the relations between all
the stakeholders.
Keywords Triple helix, Quadruple helix, Systematic literature review, Regional development,
Entrepreneurship
Paper type Literature review

Journal of Science and Technology

Policy Management The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful comments,
Vol. 10 No. 3, 2019
pp. 812-833 which contributed to this paper’s development. This work is supported by national funds, through
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2053-4620
the FCT – Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology under the project “UID/SOC/04011/
DOI 10.1108/JSTPM-10-2018-0103 2019” and the project “UID/GES/04630/2019”.
1. Introduction Helix and its
The role of government has changed as industries have become increasingly dependent on evolution
academic research to generate marketable innovations and economic growth (Etzkowitz,
1993). This new need for innovation has given rise to the triple helix theory, in which
universities and other knowledge-producing organisations play a strong role, and local,
regional and national governments have a prominent part in formulating industrial policies
(Etzkowitz, 1996). Overall, globalisation and constantly changing markets have meant that
knowledge and innovation have become key factors in the sustainable development of any 813
economy, whether local or global (Luengo and Obeso, 2013).
The triple helix model seeks to explain national and/or regional economic development
policies through research systems, social contexts or economic and/or social returns on
projects funded by government decision makers or companies (Coronado et al., 2004;
Etzkowitz and Brisolla, 1999; Malecki, 2005; Ritala and Huizingh, 2014). This model is
associated with the concept of academic entrepreneurship (Meyer, 2003), which seeks to
define the new entrepreneurial dimension of universities (Etzkowitz and Klofsten, 2005;
Ritala and Huizingh, 2014). The triple helix theory also explains innovation policies and
strategies of knowledge transfer, and attempts to cope with the most recent financial crisis
(Etzkowitz, 2012; Park et al., 2015; Rodrigues and Melo, 2012).
The model of university–industry–government interaction has undergone evolutions
over time, as reported by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) and Leydesdorff (2012). If on one
side we have Etzkowitz neo-institutional perspective (Ranga and Etzkowitz, 2012), on the
other is the Leydesdorff’s neo-evolutionary perspective (Leydesdorff, 2012). The triple helix
model provides an incentive to seek unevenness between the institutional dimensions in the
arrangements and social functions performed by such arrangements. The frictions between
the two layers (based on knowledge of expectations and institutional interests) and between
the three domains (economics, science and politics) provide a wealth of opportunities for
solving puzzles and innovation (Leydesdorff, 2012). In fact, for Leydesdorff (2012) the triple
helix model is the focus of the operational strategy to promote regional development and
knowledge-based economies. In fact, markets and sciences operate at a global level, not in
line with stimuli confined to institutions and inter-institutional agreements. That is, the
triple helix model is a neo-evolutionary model of possible synergies between functions such
as wealth creation, knowledge production and government regulations, which are the three
helixes.
The triple helix model has been adapted in the past decade for different contexts.
Quadruple helix models have variously added to civil society (Carayannis and Campbell,
2009; McAdam et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2016), green sustainable resources (Gouvea et al.,
2013), eco-innovation (Yang et al., 2012) or smart cities (Alizadeh and Sipe, 2015). In recent
years, the quintuple helix theory has also included the environment (Baccarne et al., 2016;
Carayannis et al., 2014). As a result, over the past 10 years, a growing number of
publications have discussed applications of the helix model in different contexts (Baccarne
et al., 2016; Gouvea et al., 2013).
According to (Trousset, 2014), an enormous quantity of published papers:
[. . .] focuses on universities, patenting and innovation policy models. Scholars have gained some
insight into these processes by focusing on how collaborations between the government,
universities and industry impact technological outcomes.
Nevertheless, based on a preliminary review of the existing literature, we verified a lack of a
systematic literature review with bibliometric analysis of research on this topic. This kind of
review is needed to identify what lines of research are being conducted using the helix model
JSTPM (i.e. triple, quadruple and quintuple), and what major gaps still exist. The objective of the
10,3 present research is, therefore, to provide a clear, systematic review of this field to identify
current and future trends that could encourage new research formats and perspectives and,
thereby, fill the existing gaps.
The following paper is structured as follows. After this introductory section, the
theoretical framework, based on the existing literature, is briefly presented in Section 2. The
814 Section 3 describes the methodology used. In the Section 4, we present a bibliometric
analysis of the results, and a systematic analysis of the articles found in the selected
database. Section 5 discusses the results for articles classified into clusters. The conclusions
and future lines of research are presented in Section 6.

2. Literature review
The Bayh–Dole Act or Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act of 1980 amended the
existing legislation on ownership of US intellectual property. The act gave general
permission for government-funded research executors to register patents obtained from the
results of research and to grant licences, including exclusive licences, to other parties
(Mowery, 2011). This allowed universities and researchers to register patents. In addition,
when state financing of research was reduced, research institutions were forced to seek
funding from relevant industries.
Scientific research, thus, has been moving towards developing a new environment of
innovation in which universities and other knowledge-producing organisations play a much
stronger role. Local, regional and national governments also occupy a more prominent place
in industrial policies. This has resulted in the triple helix model of innovation (Etzkowitz,
1996).
To develop more fully this model of interactions between institutional, industrial and
governmental spheres, researchers have had to add a number of knowledge and innovation
spaces to the relationships between triple helix actors. These spaces interact and take into
account each role of these actors (Etzkowitz and Dzisah, 2008). The governance structure of
the triple helix model potentiates discussions of strategic issues and, thereby, promotes the
transmission of knowledge among the constituent actors. This spill-over of knowledge
promotes economic and regional development (Ranga and Etzkowitz, 2012).
Traditional models of economic growth have concentrated on capital and labour as
engines of growth. Currently, however, new growth concepts and models incorporate a
broader range of growth drivers, including, among others, human capital, knowledge,
innovation and even intangible dynamics such as the entrepreneurial spirit (Audretsch and
Keilbach, 2008).
In this context, Carayannis and Campbell (2009, p. 206) added a fourth helix to
Etzkowitz’s three helixes (i.e. governments, industries and universities), which the cited
authors identified as the “public based on the media and culture”. This fourth helix is
associated with the media, creative industries, culture, values, lifestyles, art or society. The
plausibility of this helix’s potential explanatory power lies in the way that culture and
values, on the one hand, and public reality, on the other hand, is constructed and presented
by the media, which influences every national innovation system. A culture of appropriate
innovation is key to promoting an advanced knowledge-based economy.
Moving beyond the triple helix model, quadruple helix theory involves funding
organisations that are needed to promote revenue growth and commercialisation. These
institutions can be considered the fourth partner that explains how knowledge-based
economies function. Innovation is sustained by the free interaction of information, human
resources, financial capital and institutions (Colapinto and Porlezza, 2012).
 Afonso et al. (2012) further developed the concept of innovation through a quadruple Helix and its
helix based on four drivers: academic and technological infrastructure, businesses, evolution
governments and civil societies. For the cited authors, innovation consists of all activities
that create value by providing new solutions to concrete problems. Innovation emerges as a
result of co-creation between companies, citizens, universities and governments in a context
marked by the existence of partnerships, networks of collaboration and symbiotic
relationships. The quadruple helix model describes this new economic environment more
fully. 815
While the triple helix innovation model emphasises university–industry–government
relations and quadruple helix theory adds civil society as a fourth helix, the quintuple helix
model is even more in-depth and comprehensive. It contextualises the quadruple helix by
including the driver – and perspective – of the “natural environments of society”. Quintuple
helix theory emphasises the necessary socio-ecological evolution of societies and economies
in the twenty-first century (Carayannis et al., 2012). In other words, this model is ecologically
sensitive.
Within the framework of the quintuple helix innovation model, the natural environments
of societies and economies must also be seen as driving the production of knowledge and
innovation, thus defining opportunities for the knowledge economy (Carayannis et al., 2012;
Carayannis and Campbell, 2011, 2012; Carayannis et al., 2014). More recent approaches that
attempt to improve the structure of all helix models have been associated with this
ecological helix, conceptualising it as a “living laboratory”. This can be defined as an
ecosystem approach in which end users and stakeholders are involved in the development of
innovation over a long time, in a real environment (Baccarne et al., 2016).
Success in the face of global competition depends to a large extent on the ability to create
innovative companies with high growth potential, which can stimulate actors in socio-
economic environments. The creation of a common framework and unified business
ecosystem requires a central engine of open innovation and co-creation among all
stakeholders to reduce inequality between regions. More concretely, the co-creation and
open innovation needed to promote appropriate business ecosystems have traditionally
been achieved through increased triple helix interactions (i.e. universities, industries and
governments) within regions.
However, to ensure a long-term sustainable development vision of society today, a lot
still needs to be considered. To this end, the co-creation underlying the triple helix has been
expanded to become quadruple and quintuple co-creation. In these models, universities,
industries, governments, societies and the environment are the main actors that ensure
socially and environmentally responsible growth (Ketikidis et al., 2016).

3. Methodology
Research on the triple helix model has expanded significantly, indicating that this has
become an important model in economic development. A systematic literature review was
conducted based on a bibliometric analysis of the existing literature to identify the main
research topics and authors and journals most closely focussed on triple helix theory and its
evolution (i.e. quadruple-, quintuple- and n-helix models). This methodology is considered
transparent and replicable (Armitage and Keeble-Allen, 2008; Pittaway and Cope, 2007;
Tranfield et al., 2003).
To conduct this research, we chose to use the Web of Science database as the most
influential and commonly used online archive in other bibliometric studies (Rashman et al.,
2009; Torchia et al., 2015; Unger et al., 2011). The keyword used was “helix” – as a topic – to
include the largest number of articles and exclude no document that has addressed the triple
JSTPM helix model or its evolution. Table I presents the stages of the article selection process, in
10,3 which only periodical articles were taken into account as they are considered documents
with validated knowledge (Podsakoff et al., 2005). Other documents (e.g. books, chapters and
conferences) were excluded because of their variability and more restricted availability
(Jones et al., 2011).
To process the data, we used NVivo and VOSviewer software, which produce
816 bibliometric maps that use mapping techniques with a strong visual component (Perianes-
Rodriguez et al., 2016; van Eck and Waltman, 2010; Waltman et al., 2010). In addition, the
methodology developed by Waltman et al. (2010) was used to determine research clusters.

4. Results
Figure 1 presents the annual trends of citations and publications on helix theory, which
shows that the number of publications became more consistent from 2003 onwards, with a
peak in 2016 of 30 publications. In general, research on helix models is recent, and the
volume of publications has grown significantly in the past few years, which reflects a
strong, ongoing interest among academics. The first publication – by Leydesdorff and
Etzkowitz (1996) – demonstrated the importance of university-business-government
relationships for regional and national economic development. In this model, the

Stage Description Results

Stage 1: Database Web of Science –

Stage 2: Keyword “Helix” (topic) 104,664
Stage 3: Year of publication 1995-2017
Stage 4: Indexes SCI-Expanded, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH, ESCI, CCR-
Expanded and IC
Stage 5: Type of document Selection of only articles and reviews, excluding all other 96,819
documents
Table I. Stage 6: Web of Science categories Management, planning development, business and economics 199
Article selection Stage 7: Article exclusion Exclusion of five articles that did not address triple helix 194
process theory or its evolution

35 1,000
900
30
800
Number of Publicaons

25 700
Number of Citaons

600
20
500
15
400

10 300
200
5
100
0 0

Figure 1.
Number of
Publicaons Citaons
publications and
citations by year
Source: Data collected in the Web of Science
stakeholders of these three structures are at the same level, making it easier to communicate Helix and its
and interact with each other. evolution
The present literature review verified that the European continent has contributed the
most to studies on helix theory (60 per cent). Europe is followed by the Americas and Asia
with 18 per cent and 17 per cent of the publications, respectively. Australia comes last with 5
per cent. Notably, the only continent without any publication on this topic is Africa.
NVivo software was used to identify the keywords mentioned in the 194 articles of the
final sample. As can be seen in Figure 2, the most frequently mentioned are “innovation”,
817
“knowledge”, “research”, “technology”, “university”, “industry”, “government”,
“development” and “region”. This shows that the studies analysed associate the helix model
and the relationships of its stakeholders with innovation, knowledge, development and
regions.
Table II presents the five journals and five authors that have contributed the most to the
development of helix research. Five journals have published articles on this theory in the
past two years, which shows that the field of helix studies is currently growing.
Of the 194 articles in the sample, 98 per cent are empirical articles, and only seven are
literature reviews. With respect to the number of helixes, most articles focus on the triple
helix. In the sample, several articles discuss quadruple helix theory, and two use the
quintuple helix model. The sample also includes five articles that examine regional
innovation systems in light of triple helix theory.
To understand how this field of study is divided into research clusters, the co-citations of
references were analysed, starting with articles with at least nine co-citations. The results
are four clusters representing 56 publications (Figure 3):
(1) innovation and knowledge policies;
(2) entrepreneurial universities;
(3) business innovation strategy; and
(4) triple helix stakeholders in innovation, knowledge and regional development.

Figure 2.
Most common words
JSTPM The innovation and knowledge policies cluster is the most co-cited both within the same
10,3 group and in other clusters. Next comes the entrepreneurial universities cluster, whose
network of co-quotations within and between clusters is also quite strong. The business
innovation strategy cluster has a smaller network of co-citations, which is closely associated
with the innovation and knowledge policies cluster. The triple helix stakeholders in
innovation, knowledge and regional development cluster has the smallest co-citation network
818 with fewer connections within the group and with other clusters.

4.1 Cluster 1: innovation and knowledge policies

Cluster 1 refers to articles that emphasise relationships between triple helix stakeholders,
namely, the dynamics of innovation in university–industry–government relations. Table III
presents a brief summary of the top five most cited articles in this cluster. As knowledge and
innovations are in the base of triple helix, this cluster put together papers that had
contributed to the triple helix model, such as Gibbons et al. (1994), Nelson (1993) and
Lundvall (1992).

First Last
No. of publication publication No. of
Journal publications (year) (year) Author publications

Research policy 39 1999 2015 H. Etzkowitz 9

Table II. Technological forecasting and social
Top five journals and change 22 2009 2016 L. Leydesdorff 9
Science and public policy 21 2010 2016 G. Zawdie 4
authors with highest
European planning studies 15 2004 2015 C. De Fuentes 3
number of Technology analysis
publications strategic management 13 2004 2016 S. Lippe 3

Figure 3.
Co-citation clusters
 No. of co-
Author Article citations Objective Methodology

Cluster 1: Innovation and knowledge policies (21 Articles)

Etzkowitz and The Dynamics of innovation: from
Leydesdorff national systems and “Mode 2” to a
(2000) triple helix of university–industry–
government relations
Gibbons et al. The new production of knowledge:
(1994) the dynamics of science and
research in contemporary societies
Nelson (1993) National innovation systems: a
comparative analysis
Lundvall (1992) National innovation systems:
towards a theory of innovation and
interactive learning
Etzkowitz (1997) From zero-sum to value-added
strategies: the emergence of
knowledge-based industrial policy
in the USA
119 To describe the network of overlapping
communications and expectations that
reshape institutional arrangements among
universities, industries and government
agencies
48 To examine changes in scientific knowledge
and implications in established institutions,
disciplines, practices and policies
35 To analyse new innovation systems and
institutional and cultural factors that
influence industrial performance
31 To propose a national system of innovation
and define a innovation system that should
be kept open and flexible
27 To examine the new role of governments in
promoting knowledge-based economic
development
Qualitative:
comparison of relationships between triple
helix actors with alternative models to
explain research systems in their social
contexts
Qualitative:
comparison between countries that,
according to the authors, have succeeded in
promoting a free-market economy and
public-private partnerships for the
promotion of techno- scientific advances
with countries in which this success has not
occurred
Case study:
comparative study of innovation systems in
15 countries
Qualitative:
study of productive, financial and
marketing systems with a detailed
determination of their elements to develop a
theory of national innovation system
Qualitative:
study of the development of state policies of
knowledge-based economic development

Top five articles in

Table III.

Cluster 1
819
Helix and its
evolution
JSTPM Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) compared the triple helix of university–industry–
10,3 government relations with alternative models to explain current research systems in their
social contexts. Communications and negotiations between institutional partners create a
superimposed structure that increasingly rearranges underlying arrangements. The
institutional layer can be considered to be the retention mechanism of the developing
innovation system. The national-level organisation of this system, for example, has
820 historically been important in determining levels of competition.
The reorganisation of relationships between industrial sectors and nation-states,
however, is induced by new technologies (i.e. biotechnology and information and
communication technology). The resulting transformations can be treated as neo-
evolutionary mechanisms. University research may increasingly function as a locus in the
“laboratory” of these evolving knowledge-intensive networks.
Gibbons et al. (1994) suggest a profound change in the process of knowledge production
with respect to origins, diversity, actors, loci of production, production contexts, application
processes and knowledge applications. Based on these changes, the cited authors conclude that
an accelerated evolution is taking place in the production of academic knowledge – from “Mode
1” intra-disciplinary research to “Mode 2” transdisciplinary projects. For Gibbons et al. (1994),
the diffusion of Mode 2 has led to the emergence of new organisational forms such as knowledge
industries, business networks and R&D alliances. These new forms of knowledge production
create new forms of competition and collaboration, thus reducing R&D costs and risks.
Nelson (1993) examined national systems of technical innovation in a number of
countries, defining innovation as the processes by which companies dominate and put into
practice product designs and production methods that are new to them. However, a wide
range of factors, organisations and policies influence the innovation capabilities of
companies. The cited author makes a distinction between technology and pure science and
discusses social institutions that play a role in innovation.
Factors that lead to effective innovative performance include core competencies, high-
quality education and training and stable and facilitative economic and trade policies. For
Nelson (1993), researchers need to consider if innovation systems should be evaluated by
identifying whether they are useful and if national institutions are important when
industries and technologies become tradable. The cited author then reflects on the future of
national systems around the world.
Lundvall (1992) studied the concept and development of structural analyses of
innovation systems, concluding that innovation systems consist of a set of elements and
interconnections that influence the production, diffusion and use of new and economically
useful knowledge. For the cited author, production structure and institutional definition are
two important dimensions when defining innovation systems. In addition, Lundvall (1992)
found that the organisation of these systems is influenced by economic, political and cultural
factors that help determine the scale, direction and success of all innovation activities.
In 1997, Etzkowitz (1997) reported a gradual shift in governments’ strategy from science-
push to firm-push R&D programmes. This change from a closed science to open science
paradigm was not surprising given that the fundamental goal of governments’ science and
technology policies is to contribute to economic development. As this shift took place,
governments redirected their resources from purely academic to marketable research that
helps companies develop new, high-tech products.

4.2 Cluster 2: entrepreneurial universities

This cluster (Table IV) contains the authors who study the topic of entrepreneurial
universities. Through the reduction of state funds, these institutions have been obliged
 No. of co-
Author Article citations Objective Methodology

Cluster 2: Entrepreneurial universities (17 Articles)

Etzkowitz et al. The future of the university and the 25 To examine recent developments in universities’
(2000) university of the future: evolution of role in increasingly knowledge-based societies
ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm
Etzkowitz (1998) The norms of entrepreneurial science: 20 To discover how cognitive effects of new
cognitive effects of the new university– university-industry relationships affect the way
industry linkages scientists research, interpret their scientific role
and interact with colleagues, companies and
universities
Slaughter and Academic capitalism: politics, policies, 20 To study the globalisation of a political economy
Leslie (1997) and the entrepreneurial university and consequent reductions in government
funding, as well as how links with industry and
the commercialisation of educational and business
services have changed the nature of academic
work
Shinn (2002) The triple helix and new production of 19 To identify the strengths and weaknesses of the
knowledge: triple helix model and the resulting production of
pre-packaged thinking on science and knowledge
technology
Benner and Institutionalising the triple helix: 17 To discover what institutional mechanisms allow
Sandström (2000) research funding and norms in the or prevent the development of new forms of
academic system knowledge production
Qualitative:
comparative study of transformations in
entrepreneurial universities in the USA, Latin
America, Europe and Asia
Qualitative:
study conducted through 150 interviews with
university professors in biology, computer science
and electrical and physical engineering, which
were conducted in the mid-1980s and early 90s
Quali-quantitative:
qualitative data gathered to examine the growth
of a global political economy and, in response, the
development of Australian, Canadian, British and
US national higher education policies that seek to
enhance national competitiveness by linking
postsecondary education to business innovation –
focussing specifically on higher education finance
patterns over a 20-year period, and attempting to
verify changes in national policies
Review:
citation analyses and Internet search data used to
explore geographical locations, audiences and
impacts of work by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff
(2000), Gibbons et al. (1994)
Quantitative:
empirical analysis of public funding of research in
Sweden, with comparisons made with other
countries

Top five articles in

Cluster 2
Table IV.
821
Helix and its
evolution
JSTPM to raise private funds to continue the research that has become one of their main
10,3 concerns.
According to Benner and Sandström (2000), institutional mechanisms that facilitate or
hinder the development of new forms of knowledge production have been somewhat
neglected in discussions of triple helix theory. To address this gap in the literature, the
cited authors added an institutional element to the triple helix model – research funding.
822 Benner and Sandström (2000) argue that funding is a key mechanism for change in
normative systems as reward structures influence the performance and evaluation of
research.
In addition to ensuring the continued recognition of scientific merit, funding-related
reforms emphasise the commercial potential and social relevance of the research financed.
The two dominant models of research funding – the intra-academic and top-down
interventionist models – appear to have been partially replaced by a catalyst model.
However, opposing trends also exist. Some funding agencies still expect researchers to
follow a reputation control and collegial guidance model. Benner and Sandström (2000)
concluded that the forces of change and continuity are stimulating negotiations on
normative regulations of academic research.
Etzkowitz (1998) states that universities are undergoing a “second revolution”,
incorporating economic and social development as part of their mission. The first academic
revolution made research a secondary academic function, causing universities to care
primarily about teaching. The emerging model of the entrepreneurial university integrates
economic development as an additional function. This “capitalisation of knowledge” is at the
heart of universities’ new mission, which links these institutions more extensively to
knowledge users and establishes universities as economic actors in their own right.
Continuing along the lines of entrepreneurial university research, Etzkowitz (1998)
examined recent developments in universities’ role in increasingly knowledge-based
societies. Universities are currently implementing the triple helix model of academia–
industry–government relations, in which universities play an enhanced part in technological
innovation. Governments encourage this shift in academia as a strategy for economic
development that also reflects changes in the relationship between knowledge producers
and users. Entrepreneurial universities appear to be a global phenomenon following an
isomorphic developmental path despite different starting points and modes of expression
(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 2000).
Slaughter and Leslie (1997) report decreased government support for higher education
and increasingly compulsory higher education for the extra-academic market. As public
funds have declined, universities have been forced to increase enrolment, and teachers are
also forced to seek external funding. This means docents have to anticipate and respond to
the vagaries of the market. Research has therefore become less fundamental and more
market-oriented.
Shinn (2002) emphasises that the triple helix and knowledge production models reflect
the centrality of scientific knowledge in contemporary society. For the cited author, two
studies played a prominent part in creating the perception that a transformation in
knowledge production was underway. These were Gibbons et al.’s (1994) article entitled
“The New Production of Knowledge” and the series of studies of the triple helix model by
Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, published sporadically from 1995 onwards. In addition, Shinn’s
(2002) study presents indicators of ongoing change in knowledge production in
contemporary societies. That is, the aforementioned Mode 1 of research is being replaced by
the more commercialised Mode 2.
4.3 Cluster 3: business innovation strategy Helix and its
The business innovation strategy cluster focusses essentially on industries and their need to evolution
innovate in an era of constant technological turnover to remain strategically positioned to
compete with their rivals (Table V).
For Cohen et al. (2002), university research not only generates new ideas for industrial
R&D projects but also contributes to existing projects’ completion to an identical level
worldwide. The main channels through which university research affects industrial R&D
include reports, public conferences and meetings, informal information exchange and
823
consultancy. The cited authors also found that the influence of public research on industrial
R&D is disproportionately higher for large firms and start-ups.
According to Meyer-Krahmer and Schmoch (1998), cooperation between industrial
companies and universities has increased considerably in recent years. However, this
interaction is not uniform in all scientific fields as solving technical problems continues to be
a major concern of industries. That is, industries continue to regard academics as producers
of fundamental science and non-science findings that companies can use to solve their
problems. The exchange of knowledge in techno-scientific communities is a crucial aspect of
interactions between universities and businesses. The particular nature of a long-standing
culture of cooperation and economic success in a given industry may be the key factor in the
success of universities’ partnerships with industries.
According to Cohen and Levinthal (1990), companies’ absorptive capacity is critical to
their innovative capabilities. The development of absorptive capacity and, in turn,
innovative performance depends on companies’ history or path, and the lack of investment
in an area of expertise in the early life of a company may prevent future development of a
technical capacity in this area. In this way, R&D contributes to companies’ absorption
capacity, leading them to engage in other research activities and, thus, develop new strategic
skills as compared to other companies.
Dasgupta and David (1994) analysed academic reputation, emphasising that only open
science promotes this type of reputation. For the cited authors, the effect of the new
economics of science on scientific practice is to organise the latter in disciplines through
which knowledge generated by researchers becomes available as a public good. This is in
contrast to this knowledge being retained for commercialisation in the form of tacit
knowledge, which reflects existing reward structures. Dasgupta and David (1994) draw
another important conclusion from the policy measures and institutional reforms proposed
to promote the transfer of knowledge between open science and research and commercial
development projects. No economic force automatically works to maintain dynamic
efficiency in the interactions of open science and commercial projects (i.e. organisations).
Schartinger et al. (2002), in turn, studied the knowledge interactions between industries
and universities in Austria, concluding that the intensity of these interactions does not
follow a simple sectoral pattern. This finding assumes intense interactions between high-
tech industries and business-oriented technical sciences and few interactions involving
humanities and low-tech industries. These helixes are rather heavily influenced by many
different factors that produce a complex pattern of interactions.
Universities and industries use a wide variety of channels to transfer knowledge.
Channels diverge with regard to the intensity of personal relationships, types of knowledge
transferred and direction of knowledge flows. From industries’ point of view, the use of
different channels represents various strategies to ensure the efficiency of research. This
gives companies access to a range of scientific and technological knowledge and reflects
differences in the search for knowledge in diverse stages of innovation.
 10,3

824

Cluster 3
Table V.
JSTPM

Top five articles in

No. of co-
Author Article citations Objective Methodology

Cluster 3: Business innovation strategy (11 Articles)

Cohen et al. Links and impacts: the 16 To determine the influence on and role of Quantitative:
(2002) influence of public research on public research in industrial R&D and the data collected from an R&D manager
industrial R&D ways in which this impact is exerted survey in 1994, for a sample consisting of
all of the USA R&D units (3,240
laboratories of which 1,478 responded)
Meyer- Science-based technologies: 16 To examine the advantages and Quantitative:
Krahmer and university–industry shortcomings of interactions between data obtained from German universities in
Schmoch interactions in four fields universities and companies from the 1995 in the context of a binational project on
(1998) perspective of researchers and industries’ technology transfer systems in the USA and
specific interests Germany
Cohen and Absorptive capacity: a new 14 To identify the implications of absorptive Quantitative:
Levinthal perspective on learning and capacity for the analysis of other related Absorption capacity tested using a sample
(1990) innovation innovative activities, including fundamental of 1,719 economic units representing 318
research, the adoption and diffusion of companies in 152 lines of investment
innovations and participation in R&D
activities
Dasgupta and Toward a new economics of 14 To analyse the role of knowledge in R&D Qualitative:
David (1994) science activities through various sources of this analysis of characteristics of institutions
knowledge and the dual private and public and the norms that distinguish open science
nature of technological knowledge from other modes of research organisation
Schartinger Knowledge interactions 14 To measure the sectoral pattern for Quantitative:
et al. (2002) between universities and different types of knowledge interactions analysis based on data on various types of
industry in Austria: sectoral and explore the determinants of knowledge knowledge interactions between university
patterns and determinants interactions between different fields of departments and private companies in
research and sectors of economic activity Austria in 1990s, as well as interaction
models to identify the determinants of
knowledge interactions
4.4 Cluster 4: triple helix stakeholders in innovation, knowledge and regional development Helix and its
This cluster presents the authors who focussed on the importance of innovation to regional evolution
development from the perspective of triple helix theory (Table VI).
According to Etzkowitz (2003), innovation is increasingly based on a triple helix of
university–industry–government interactions. The growing importance of knowledge
and the role of universities in incubating technology-based firms have given innovation
a prominent place in institutional functions. Entrepreneurial universities assume a
proactive attitude towards the use of knowledge and expansion of contributions to
825
academic knowledge creation. Knowledge is a key element within this interactive and
non-linear model of innovation. As the technological requirements of enterprises grow,
they increasingly interact with academic researchers, producing higher levels of
cooperation and knowledge sharing. Governments not only have a regulatory role but
also participate within the triple helix structure as a public entrepreneur and venture
capitalist.
Etzkowitz and Klofsten (2005) propose a regional knowledge-based development model
conceived as a set of multi-linear dynamics based on alternative technological paradigms.
Innovation policy is created from the bottom up as result of “collective entrepreneurship”
through collaboration between companies, governments and academics, namely, the triple
helix model. The key element is the creation of “business universities” either from an
existing academic base or a new foundation, which develops joint initiatives with
governments and industries to create a support structure for business formation and
regional growth. These initiatives produce a self-sustaining dynamic in which the role of
academia and government institutions appears to diminish as economies develop. However,
as one technological paradigm runs out, another is needed as the basis for new economic
activities, so the role of academia and governments once again comes to the fore, creating
the conditions for the next wave of innovation.
According to Leydesdorff et al. (2006), economic growth depends not only on new
cycles of innovation but also on a new structure for innovation that increasingly links
basic and applied research. If universities represent intellectual capital and the
creation of scientific knowledge – thus providing academic leadership – industries
represent the creation of economic wealth and reflect corporate or corporate
strategies. Public institutions become the mechanisms of control and regulation of the
public sphere and represent the regulations, policies, strategies and actions of
decision makers. These different agents act reflexively in response to each other’s
actions. Innovation systems evolve as a function of these actions and reciprocal
adjustments.
Hagedoorn et al. (2000) conducted a review of the literature and policies that support
university-business cooperation. The cited authors concluded that firms participate in
research partnerships to achieve eight goals:
(1) reduce transaction costs in activities governed by incomplete contracts;
(2) extend the effective scope of these activities;
(3) increase their efficiency, synergy and power through networking;
(4) access complementary external resources and capacities to exploit existing
resources and develop sustained competitive advantages more fully;
(5) promote organisational learning, internalise core competencies and strengthen
competitiveness;
(6) create new options for investment in high-risk activities;
 10,3

826

Cluster 4
JSTPM

Table VI.
Top five articles in
No. of co-
Author Article citations Objective Methodology

Cluster 4: Triple helix stakeholders in innovation, knowledge and regional development (7 Articles)
Etzkowitz (2003) Innovation in innovation: the triple 28 To establish the importance of knowledge and Qualitative:
helix of university–industry– entrepreneurial universities about 200 interviews conducted with researchers,
government relations incubator managers and science and technology
parks, as well as founders of high-tech companies
Etzkowitz and The innovating region: toward a 14 To develop a knowledge-based regional Case study:
Klofsten (2005) theory of knowledge-based regional development model conceived as a set of multi- longitudinal data from a Swedish region and
development linear dynamics, based on alternative international comparisons used to identify four
technological paradigms stages of regional development: initiation,
implementation, consolidation and renewal
Leydesdorff et al. Measuring the knowledge base of 12 To define the perspective of regional economies on Quantitative
(2006) an economy in terms of triple-helix interrelationships between technologies, data on over one million Dutch companies used to
relations among technology, organisations and territories using the triple helix examine the knowledge base of economies,
organisation and territory model including postal codes (geography), industry
codes (proxy for technology) and company sizes in
terms of number of employees; configurations
mapped at three levels – national (NUTS-1),
provincial (NUTS-2) and regional (NUTS-3) –
which are intertwined with knowledge-intensive
sectors and services
Hagedoorn et al. Research partnerships 11 To conduct a review of the literature on research Literature review:
(2000) partnerships Synthesis of academic, professional and political
literature on research partnerships focussed on
technology policies
Chesbrough (2003) Open innovation: the new 10 To understand open innovation as a new model to Quali-quantitative:
imperative for creating and organise technological innovation in large R&D study of patents and turnover of large companies
profiting companies such as Xerox and IBM to demonstrate the
from technology importance of open innovation
 (7) internalise the repercussions of knowledge and increase the commercialisation of Helix and its
research results and information sharing between partners; and evolution
(8) reduce R&D and competition costs.

Governments, in turn, have promoted and supported research partnerships to correct

market failures in R&D investment.
According to Chesbrough (2003), open innovation is a new model for organising
technological innovation in companies with high R&D needs. By implementing this model,
827
companies can access external research that complements internal R&D. This approach
emerged as result of factors that undermined the effectiveness of the closed innovation
model. These factors are the increased availability and mobility of knowledge workers, the
evolution of venture capital markets specialising in the creation of new businesses and the
wide variety of external suppliers of innovation. In other words, companies’ ability to use
external sources of knowledge is of strategic importance to innovation, especially in social
and economic environments that require the continuous acquisition of new knowledge and
reconfiguration of skills.

5. Conclusion
This research aimed to perform a systematic literature review to identify the main research
trends using the linkage between university–industry–government helixes. Based on
bibliometric analysis, it was possible to group the literature into four main clusters/trends:
(1) innovation and knowledge policies;
(2) entrepreneurial universities;
(3) business innovation strategy; and
(4) triple helix stakeholders in innovation, knowledge and regional development.

These clusters reveal that they are narrowly related, showing complementarity.
The results revealed that the triple helix model intends to explain how the links between
university, industry and government seek to create a dynamic of self-reinforcement for
innovation, knowledge and economic development. In addition, the results showed that a
new cycle of academic research has emerged that have sought to study, in all its aspects, the
links between the different stakeholders of this new line of thought. The research then
begins to turn round the national and regional economic development policies, seeking to
explain the research system and/or the economic and/or social return of government or
business financing (Etzkowitz and Brisolla, 1999; Cooke, 2005; Beesley, 2005; Koschatzky,
2005).
Associated with the triple helix model, the concept of academic entrepreneurship
emerges (Meyer, 2003), explaining the new entrepreneurial dimension of the universities
(Etzkowitz and Klofsten, 2005). The foci of academic research in this area are changed, as
reflected in the governmental programmes and in the innovative activities of the companies
and the influence of the universities in the university–industry collaboration (Inzelt, 2004;
Frenken et al., 2005). Innovation, development, technology transfer and university profits
(Parayil, 2003; Coccia, 2004; Saad and Zawdie, 2005), institutional policies implemented in
the context of triple helix (Simpson, 2004; Van Looy et al., 2004) or the transformation of the
relations between companies and universities, are some of these new themes. That is,
research has focussed on the importance of innovation, the ability to innovate,
entrepreneurial universities and innovation as crucial factors for regional development
(Leydesdorff and Fritsch, 2006; Zhang et al., 2016; Kim and Lee, 2016).
JSTPM Thus, it is expected that this study will provide a survey of the main researches in
10,3 this area and which shows the main trends of current and future research. As
practical implications, it is expected that this study may contribute to establish
policies such as:
 greater incentive for collaborative innovation;
 rise of networking and/or cooperation partnerships;
828  design of entrepreneurial ecosystems in low density areas; and
 greater involvement of stakeholders in the development of the region.

As in any literature review, the results may have been shaped by subjectivity in both the
keywords chosen and the use of only one database. The addition of more databases could
have meant more relevant articles would have been identified, which could have, for
example, produced different results with regard to clusters. These are, therefore, two clear
limitations of this study.
However, despite these limitations, this research succeeded in detecting several areas
deserving of future academic investigation. The types of knowledge channels used in
interactions between different stakeholders of the various helix models need to be taken into
account when analysing geographical aspects of interactions. This is particularly important
because of the nature of the knowledge flows involved, a finding that is in agreement with
De Fuentes and Dutrénit’s (2016) conclusions.
The present research also revealed that few studies have examined barriers to
cooperation between universities and industries from the academic researchers’ point of
view. This line of investigation could allow researchers to compare these barriers, thereby
encouraging the development of national policies that support innovation.
In addition, future studies need to explore the role of consumer allocation in creating
business incubation models to meet non-regional and organisational needs (McAdam et al., 2016).
With regard to quadruple and quintuple helixes, researchers still have much to study, namely, the
impacts of relationships between the various helixes of economies, societies and the environment.
Nowadays, it is almost imperative to think about triple, quadruple helix, n-helix in terms
of regionalisation of innovation. In fact, in Europe, for instance, the regional innovation
system is imperative for funding innovation. The 1990 concept of regional innovation
system (Cooke, 1996), from which the European smart specialization rises, ascends on the
necessity of fosterer the technological, economic, political or cultural levels in many
countries. Similar policies are needed for the triple, quadruple and n-helix models to develop
the interaction between the actors of the helixes in the new smart specialization regions.
Those policies undergo the mapping of the universities’ specialisations, the industry/society
necessities and financial measures that could foster the relations between all the
stakeholders.
Another area that we believe could have more political incentives is smart cities. Smart
cities propose the application of state-of-the-art technology in the development of public
services, combining innovation and efficiency in the management of urban processes,
sustainability and citizen integration. In this line of thought, we believe that important
policies are important in support of municipalities and universities that instigate the
creation of smart cities, creating regional development.
We also believe that political measures that promote clusters between government,
industry and universities promoting new projects for regions, are needed. Those policies
could promote entrepreneurship programmes, innovation programmes, and specialised
educational programmes that contribute to the region development.
 In terms of results from triple helix, countries are increasingly concerned about the Helix and its
outputs of university research in both the economy and society. The European Union (EU), evolution
for example, has been wagering for some years on incentives for cooperation between
universities and industry. If we look at the financing programmes of the latest European
frameworks, an impressive percentage of EU funds have been used in business innovation
with the support of universities. In this way, we think it is important that researches related
to the triple helix focus on studies dedicated to policies to support cooperation between
universities and industry, and their contribution to society and economy. 829

References
Afonso, O., Monteiro, S. and Thompson, M. (2012), “A growth model for the quadruple helix”, Journal of
Business Economics and Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 849-865.
Alizadeh, T. and Sipe, N. (2015), “Brisbane’s digital strategy: an economic strategy for the digital age?”,
Australian Planner, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 35-41.
Armitage, A. and Keeble-Allen, D. (2008), “Undertaking a structured literature review or structuring a
literature review: tales from the field”, The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods,
Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 103-114.
Audretsch, D.B. and Keilbach, M. (2008), “Resolving the knowledge paradox: knowledge-spillover
entrepreneurship and economic growth”, Research Policy, Vol. 37 No. 10, pp. 1697-1705.
Baccarne, B., Logghe, S., Schuurman, D. and De Marez, L. (2016), “Governing quintuple helix
innovation: urban living labs and socio-ecological entrepreneurship”, Technology Innovation
Management Review, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 22-30.
Beesley, L. (2005), “The management of emotion in collaborative tourism research settings”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 261-275.
Benner, M. and Sandström, U. (2000), “Institutionalizing the triple helix: research funding and norms in
the academic system”, Research Policy, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 291-301.
Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F. (2009), “‘Mode 3’and‘Quadruple helix’: toward a 21st century
fractal innovation ecosystem”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 46
Nos 3/4, pp. 201-234.
Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F. (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, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 327-372.
Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F. (2012), “Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how
do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other?”, International Journal of
Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 41-69.
Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D. and Campbell, D.F. (2012), “The quintuple helix innovation model: global
warming as a challenge and driver for innovation”, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1-12.
Carayannis, E.G., Depeige, A. and Sindakis, S. (2014), “Dynamics of ultra-organizational co-opetition
and circuits of knowledge: a knowledge-based view of value ecology”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 1020-1035.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Coccia, M. (2004), “Spatial metrics of the technological transfer: analysis and strategic management”,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 31-51.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-152.
JSTPM Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R. and Walsh, J.P. (2002), “Links and impacts: the influence of public research
on industrial R&D”, Management Science, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
10,3
Colapinto, C. and Porlezza, C. (2012), “Innovation in creative industries: from the quadruple helix model
to the systems theory”, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 343-353.
Cooke, P. (1996), “The new wave of regional innovation networks: analysis, characteristics and
strategy”, Small Business Economics, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 159-171.
830 Cooke, P. (2005), “Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: exploring
‘globalisation 2’ – a new model of industry organisation”, Research Policy, Vol. 34 No. 8,
pp. 1128-1149.
Coronado, D., Acosta, M. and Leon, D. (2004), “Regional planning of R&D and science–technology
interactions in Andalucia: a bibliometric analysis of patent documents”, European Planning
Studies, Vol. 12 No. 8, pp. 1075-1095.
Dasgupta, P. and David, P.A. (1994), “Toward a new economics of science”, Research Policy, Vol. 23
No. 5, pp. 487-521.
De Fuentes, C. and Dutrénit, G. (2016), “Geographic proximity and university-industry interaction: the
case of Mexico”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 329-348.
Etzkowitz, H. (1993), “Enterprises from science: the origins of science-based regional economic
development”, Minerva, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 326-360.
Etzkowitz, H. (1996), “The triple helix: Academic-industry-government relations - implications for the
New York regional innovation environment”, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
Vol. 787 No. 1, pp. 67-86.
Etzkowitz, H. (1997), “From zero-sum to value-added strategies: the emergence of knowledge-based
industrial policy in the states of the United States”, Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 412-424.
Etzkowitz, H. (1998), “The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the new university–
industry linkages”, Research Policy, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 823-833.
Etzkowitz, H. (2003), “Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university-industry-government
relations”, Social Science Information, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 293-337.
Etzkowitz, H. (2012), “An innovation strategy to end the second great depression”, European Planning
Studies, Vol. 20 No. 9, pp. 1439-1453.
Etzkowitz, H. and Brisolla, S.N. (1999), “Failure and success: the fate of industrial policy in Latin
America and South East Asia”, Research Policy, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 337-350.
Etzkowitz, H. and Dzisah, J. (2008), “Rethinking development: circulation in the triple helix”, Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 653-666.
Etzkowitz, H. and Klofsten, M. (2005), “The innovating region: toward a theory of knowledge-based
regional development”, R & D Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 243-255.
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, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 109-123.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Terra, B.R.C. (2000), “The future of the university and the
university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm”, Research Policy,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 313-330.
Frenken, K., Hölzl, W. and de Vor, F. (2005), “The citation impact of research collaborations: the case of
European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988-2002)”, Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, Vol. 22 Nos 1/2, pp. 9-30.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994), The New
Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage.
Gouvea, R., Kassicieh, S. and Montoya, M.J.R. (2013), “Using the quadruple helix to design strategies for
the green economy”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 221-230.
Hagedoorn, J., Link, A.N. and Vonortas, N.S. (2000), “Research partnerships”, Research Policy, Vol. 29 Helix and its
Nos 4/5, pp. 567-586.
evolution
Inzelt, A. (2004), “The evolution of university–industry–government relationships during transition”,
Research Policy, Vol. 33 Nos 6/7, pp. 975-995.
Jones, M.V., Coviello, N. and Tang, Y.K. (2011), “International entrepreneurship research (1989-
2009): a domain ontology and thematic analysis”, Journal of Business Venturing , Vol. 26
No. 6, pp. 632-659.
Ketikidis, P., Solomon, A., Siavalas, F. and Bota, E. (2016), “Quintuple Helix co-creation as a pillar for
831
responsible (environmentally and socially) entrepreneurship”, in Zbuchea, A. and Nikolaidis, D.
(Eds), Responsible Entrepreneurship: Vision, Development and Ethics, Bucharest, pp. 379-389.
Kim, J.Y. and Lee, M.J. (2016), “Living with casinos: the triple-helix approach, innovative solutions, and
big data”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 110, pp. 33-41.
Koschatzky, K. (2005), “Foresight as a governance concept at the interface between global challenges
and regional innovation potentials”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 619-639.
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,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 25-35.
Leydesdorff, L. and Etzkowitz, H. (1996), “Emergence of a triple helix of university–industry-
government relations”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 279-286.
Leydesdorff, L. and Fritsch, M. (2006), “Measuring the knowledge base of regional innovation systems
in Germany in terms of a triple helix dynamics”, Research Policy, Vol. 35 No. 10, pp. 1538-1553.
Leydesdorff, L., Dolfsma, W. and Van der Panne, G. (2006), “Measuring the knowledge base of an
economy in terms of triple-helix relations among ‘technology, organization, and territory’”,
Research Policy, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 181-199.
Luengo, M.J. and Obeso, M. (2013), “The triple helix effect on innovation performance”, Revista de
Administração de Empresas, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 388-399.
Lundvall, B.A. (1992), National Innovation System: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive
Learning, Pinter, London.
McAdam, M., Miller, K. and McAdam, R. (2016), “Situated regional university incubation: a multi-level
stakeholder perspective”, Technovation, Vol. 50, pp. 69-78.
Malecki, E.J. (2005), “The United States: still on top?”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 13 No. 8,
pp. 1173-1192.
Meyer, M. (2003), “Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research-based ventures
and public support mechanisms”, R&D Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 107-115.
Meyer-Krahmer, F. and Schmoch, U. (1998), “Science-based technologies: university–industry
interactions in four fields”, Research Policy, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 835-851.
Miller, K., McAdam, R., Moffett, S., Alexander, A. and Puthusserry, P. (2016), “Knowledge transfer in
university quadruple helix ecosystems: an absorptive capacity perspective”, R&D Management,
Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 383-399.
Mowery, D.C. (2011), “Learning from one another? International policy ‘emulation’ and university–
industry technology transfer”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 1827-1853.
Nelson, R.R. (1993), National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis, Oxford university press,
Oxford.
Parayil, G. (2003), “Mapping technological trajectories of the green revolution and the gene revolution
from modernization to globalization”, Research Policy, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 971-990.
Park, J., Jeong, S., Yoon, Y. and Lee, H. (2015), “The evolving role of collaboration in developing
scientific capability: evidence from Korean government-supported research institutes”, Science
and Public Policy, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 255-272.
JSTPM Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Waltman, L. and van Eck, N.J. (2016), “Constructing bibliometric networks: a
comparison between full and fractional counting”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 10 No. 4,
10,3 pp. 1178-1195.
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007), “Entrepreneurship education”, International Small Business Journal:
Researching Entrepreneurship, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 479-510.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Bachrach, D. and Podsakoff, N. (2005), “The influence of
832 management journals in the 1980s and 1990s”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 473-488.
Ranga, M. and Etzkowitz, H. (2012), “‘Spaces’ a triple helix governance strategy for regional
innovation”, in Innovation Governance in an Open Economy, Routledge, Abingdon,
pp. 65-82.
Rashman, L., Withers, E. and Hartley, J. (2009), “Organizational learning and knowledge in public
service organizations: a systematic review”, International Journal of Management Reviews,
Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 463-494.
Ritala, P. and Huizingh, E. (2014), “Business and network models for innovation: strategic logic and the
role of network position”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 66 Nos 2/3,
pp. 109-119.
Rodrigues, C. and Melo, A. (2012), “The triple helix model as an instrument of local response to the
economic crisis”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 20 No. 9, pp. 1483-1496.
Saad, M. and Zawdie, G. (2005), “From technology transfer to the emergence of a triple helix culture: the
experience of Algeria in innovation and technological capability development”, Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 89-103.
Schartinger, D., Rammer, C., Fischer, M.M. and Fröhlich, J. (2002), “Knowledge interactions between
universities and industry in Austria: sectoral patterns and determinants”, Research Policy,
Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 303-328.
Shinn, T. (2002), “The triple helix and new production of knowledge: prepackaged thinking on science
and technology”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 599-614.
Simpson, B. (2004), “After the reforms: how have public science research organisations changed?”, R &
D Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 253-266.
Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L.L. (1997), Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial
University, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2715 North Charles Street, Baltimore, MD,
pp. 21218-24319.
Torchia, M., Calabr`O, A. and Morner, M. (2015), “Public– private partnerships in the health care sector:
a systematic review of the literature”, Public Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 236-261.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-
informed management knowledge by means of systematic review”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Trousset, S. (2014), “Current trends in science and technology policy research: an examination of
published works from 2010-2012”, Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 42 No. S1, pp. S87-S117.
Unger, J.M., Rauch, A., Frese, M. and Rosenbusch, N. (2011), “Human capital and entrepreneurial
success: a meta-analytical review”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 341-358.
Van Eck, N.J. and Waltman, L. (2010), “Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for
bibliometric mapping”, Scientometrics, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 523-538.
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, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 425-441.
Waltman, L., Van Eck, N.J. and Noyons, E.C. (2010), “A unified approach to mapping and clustering of
bibliometric networks”, Journal of Informetrics, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 629-635.
Yang, Y., Holgaard, J.E. and Remmen, A. (2012), “What can triple helix frameworks offer to the analysis Helix and its
of eco-innovation dynamics? Theoretical and methodological considerations”, Science and Public
Policy, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 373-385. evolution
Zhang, G., Duan, H. and Zhou, J. (2016), “Investigating determinants of inter-regional technology
transfer in China: a network analysis with provincial patent data”, Review of Managerial Science,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 345-364.

Further reading 833

Arroyo, R.P., Morales, J.C.C., Muñoz, M.S. and Solano, M.D.C.V. (2015), “Universidad e innovacion: de la
gestion a la accion en el tecnologico de Costa Rica (university and innovation: from the
management to the action in the Costa Rica institute of technology)”, Tec Empresarial, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 19-30.
Cunningham, J.A., Mangematin, V., O’Kane, C. and O’Reilly, P. (2016), “At the frontiers of scientific
advancement: the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly
funded principal investigators”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 778-797.
D’Este, P. and Patel, P. (2007), “University–industry linkages in the UK: What are the factors
underlying the variety of interactions with industry?”, Research Policy, Vol. 36 No. 9,
pp. 1295-1313.
Feldman, J.M. (2007), “The managerial equation and innovation platforms: the case of Linköping and
Berzelius science park”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 15 No. 8, pp. 1027-1045.
Lourenço, F. and Jones, O. (2006), “Developing entrepreneurship education: comparing traditional and
alternative teaching approaches”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 111-140.
Miller, K., McAdam, M. and McAdam, R. (2014), “The Changing University business model: a
stakeholder perspective”, R&D Management, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 265-287.
Ranga, L.M., Miedema, J. and Jorna, R. (2008), “Enhancing the innovative capacity of small firms
through triple helix interactions: challenges and opportunities”, Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 697-716.
Sarto, F., Cuccurullo, C. and Aria, M. (2014), “Exploring healthcare governance literature: systematic
review and paths for future research”, MECOSAN, Vol. 23, pp. 61-80.
Scuotto, V., Ferraris, A. and Bresciani, S. (2016), “Internet of things: applications and challenges in
smart cities: a case study of IBM smart city projects”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 357-367.
Van Eck, N.J. and Waltman, L. (2009), VOSviewer: A Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping –
ERIM Report Series Research in Management.
Van Looy, B., Callaert, J. and Debackere, K. (2006), “Publication and patent behavior of academic
researchers: conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing?”, Research Policy, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 596-608.

Corresponding author
Anderson Galvao can be contacted at: anderson@utad.pt

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com