What contextual factors shape ‘innovation in innovation’? Integration of insights from the Triple Helix and the institutional logics perspective

Institutional analysis of the context effects on structures for innovation – A response to Hollingsworth’s call

Hollingsworth (2000: 596) called for the use of institutional theory to understand the context effects of innovation and tried to address and connect two important but separate issues: ‘(l) why do societies vary in their style of innovativeness?; and (2) how should we go about doing institutional analysis?’ In his study, he tries to improve institutional analysis by categorizing institutions into five levels, namely social institutions, institutional arrangements, institutional sectors, organizational structures and outputs/performance. At the end of his study, he sets out implications for future innovation studies.

However, Hollingsworth’s (2000) emphasis is mainly on technology innovation or scientific discoveries rather than on structures or policies for technology innovation. The same focus has been retained in his later study (Hollingsworth, 2006), where he continues to address how institutional environment and organizational characteristics affect major scientific discoveries. Although Hollingsworth’s (2000) thesis has potential for understanding the relations between institutional frameworks and structures for innovation, neither Hollingsworth himself nor other scholars have followed up his study in this direction. There are two reasons for this. First, the five-level structure of institutional analysis suggested by Hollingsworth (2000) is still too complex to be applied in empirical studies. And second, as implied earlier, Hollingsworth has not provided a framework for understanding different structures for innovation.

This article responds to and continues on from Hollingsworth’s study by integrating the insights provided by both the Triple Helix (Etzkowitz, 2008) and institutional logics (Friedland & Alford, 1991; Thornton et al., 2012): the former helps distinguish different patterns of structures for innovation under the name of Triple Helix; the latter has recently been developed by Thornton et al. (2012) into a more nuanced approach to institutional analysis. To facilitate the theoretical integration, the concept of institutionalization is also adopted in our analysis.

Before further introduction of the institutional-logics perspective, two theses of the theory are especially important for our study. First, Thornton et al. (2012) claim that the (multiple) institutional logics prevailing within one context will affect decisively how the actors communicate their interests, determine which problems are salient and which solutions are appropriate. Second, Friedland and Alford (1991) state that it is the multiple and contending logics that provide the dynamic for potential change (innovation) in organizations and societies. Accordingly, the following assumptions are evinced: (1) when the Triple Helix model was initially developed in Western societies, there must have been certain (ideal) institutional logics that facilitated the process; (2) thus, when the Triple Helix model is adopted in a non-Western context, the incompatibility between the local and ideal institutional logics may explain the challenges of implementing the Triple Helix model there; (3) when the Triple Helix model is applied to a non-Western society, logics associated with the original model are likely to be imported as well; and (4) the differences between the institutional logics aligned with the Western Triple Helix model and local institutional logics may become a source of dynamics for change or innovation, which may lead to different styles of Triple Helix development.

Despite certain disparities/dissimilarities, most Western societies have some characteristics in common, and an attempt is made here to extract a list of ‘ideal’ Western logics supporting an ‘ideal’ Triple Helix model. The endeavour to combine the Triple Helix and the institutional theory is twofold. First, the Triple Helix development is interpreted from an institutional-theory perspective, where four stages of the institutionalizing of an ideal model of Triple Helix observed in the West are distinguished. Second, ‘ideal’ institutional logics aligned with the Triple Helix activities of each stage in the Western contexts are identified.

Institutional logics

Institutional theory has become a popular and powerful explanatory tool for actions of both individual and collective actors (Dacin et al., 2002: 45). It mainly stresses the dependency of actors’ actions on institutions, such as wider environmental contexts, rules and norms (Meyer et al., 2007: 188). One central concept in institutional theory is institution. Institutions can generally be understood as social orders (Berger & Luckmann, 1967), social rules (Burns & Flam, 1987) or a logic of appropriateness (March & Olsen, 2006), composed of appropriate rules and exemplary behaviour. Social orders, rules and exemplary behaviour become institutions when they are perceived by actors to be natural, appropriate, expected and legitimate. In other words, they are institutionalized. However, a lack of consensus on boundaries and content of institutions has become an obstacle in empirical studies (Hollingsworth, 2000). Compared to Hollingsworth’s efforts to concretize institutional analysis, Thornton et al. (2012) develop a more nuanced approach, which they call institutional logics, ‘that incorporates macro structure, culture, and agency, through cross-level processes (society, institutional field, organization, interactions, and individuals) that explain how institutions both enable and constrain action’ (Thornton et al., 2012: vi).

The concept of institutional logics was first introduced by Alford and Friedland (1985) for describing how contradictory practices and beliefs inherent in modern Western societies shape individuals’ actions in the political arena. Friedland and Alford (1991) developed the institutional-logics approach further as an explanation for institutional change: modern Western societies have central institutions with potentially incompatible institutional logics; it is the incompatibility of logics that provides the dynamic for potential change. Since then the approach has developed into a growing research area in organization studies. Nevertheless, the institutional-logics perspective had not been elaborated in a deliberative and systematic manner, until the publication of Thornton et al.’s (2012) book, The Institutional Logics Perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process.

The institutional-logics perspective is developed from the new institutional theory, sharing views with Meyer and Rowan (1977), Zucker (1977) and DiMaggio and Powell (1983) about how institutions shape organizational structures and constrain individual behaviours. It also distinguishes from and transforms the new institutional theory in that the focus is no longer on isomorphism but on the effects of differentiated institutional logics on the practices of individuals and organizations that provide sources for change, and the influences of individual and organizational actors on changing institutional logics (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008; Thornton et al., 2012).

According to Friedland and Alford (1991: 248), each society consists of a set of institutional orders, and each of the institutional orders has a central institutional logic that constitutes its organizing principles and is available for elaboration by organizations and individuals. Institutional logics have both material and symbolic characteristics. Following such understanding, Thornton and Ocasio (1999: 804) define institutional logics as ‘the socially constructed, historical pattern of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality’. In spite of the original focus of institutional logics at the macro-societal level, institutional logics can also be examined at the level of organizational field (Greenwood et al., 2011) and even within a single organization (McPherson & Sauder, 2013). When applying the institutional-logics perspective in understanding the development of the Triple Helix model, the logics under investigation in this article lie at both the societal and organizational field levels.

Institutionalization

Another central concept of institutional theory is institutionalization. Meyer and Rowan (1977: 341) define institutionalization as a process ‘by which social processes, obligations, or actualities, come to take on a rule-like status in social thought and action’. The institutionalized social orders and rules are beyond question and cannot be compared to alternatives. Similarly, DiMaggio and Powell (1991: 14) argue that ‘institutionalization tends to reduce variety, operating across organizations to override diversity in local environments’.

Institutionalization processes take place within organizational fields. An organizational field is defined as ‘those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations in the field’ (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983: 148). The organizational field involves a process of structuration, which occurs through interaction and information exchange, generating structures of prestige dominated by certain organizations as well as shared norms and practices. Once an organizational field has become mature, whatever change occurs will lead toward greater conformity.

Social movements/reforms often become institutionalized or isomorphic across national contexts (Cai, 2010). For instance, the Triple Helix as a strategy for developing innovation systems tends to be commonly adopted in most countries in the world, regardless of their economic development levels and traditional cultures. Therefore, Benner and Sandström (2000) understand the development of the Triple Helix model as a process of institutionalization.

Several stages can be distinguished along with the institutionalization process. Greenwood et al. (2002) outline six stages of institutional change, including (1) precipitating jolts, (2) de-institutionalization, (3) pre-institutionalization, (4) theorization, (5) diffusion and (6) re-institutionalization. In the process some institutions disappear, while emerging structures proliferate and gain legitimacy throughout an organizational field to become institutionalized. Some other studies have developed similar frameworks for understanding institutionalization processes, such as Rogers’ (2003) five-stage model: (1) agenda setting, (2) matching, (3) redefinition, (4) clarifying and (5) routinizing; and Levine’s (1980) four-stage model: (1) recognition of needs, (2) planning and formulating a solution, (3) initiation and implementation of a plan and (4) institutionalization or termination.

All these authors share the notion that any institutional change basically includes three stages: first, organizational actors realize there is a need for change; then they initiate organizational changes; and finally the changes either become institutionalized or are terminated. As the Triple Helix framework involves organizations from different sectors, the organizational changes can be understood from two dimensions: intra-organizational and inter-organizational.

Four stages in Triple Helix development

The rise of the Triple Helix model has coincided with the rise of the knowledge-based economy and innovation system, in which economic growth is based on continuous innovation and advances in science and technology. The Triple Helix model referred in this article follows the definition provided by the Helix Conference official website:

The Triple Helix concept comprises three basic elements: (1) a more prominent role for the university in innovation, on a par with industry and government in a knowledge-based society; (2) a movement toward collaborative relationships among the three major institutional spheres, in which innovation policy is increasingly an outcome of interaction rather than a prescription from government; (3) in addition to fulfilling their traditional functions, each institutional sphere also ‘takes the role of the other’ performing new roles as well as their traditional function. Institutions taking non-traditional roles are viewed as a major potential source of innovation in innovation. (Triple Helix Conference website, 2011)

The Triple Helix relationship of university–industry–government is, to a large extent, about competition and cooperation for resources, redistribution of power and network building. From the institutional-logics perspective, the meanings of power, resources and networks vary by institutional logics (Thornton et al., 2012). Hence the evolution of the Triple Helix model may have different trajectories in different institutional contexts. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) distinguish three types of Triple Helix models, namely the ‘statist model’ (Figure 1), the ‘laissez-faire model’ (Figure 2), and the ‘balanced model’ (Figure 3) (Ranga & Etzkowitz, 2013).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Statist model.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Laissez-faire model.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

Balanced helix model.

The ideal or balanced model of Triple Helix ‘begins from two opposing standpoints: a statist model of government controlling academia and industry, and a laissez-faire model with industry, academia and government separate and apart from each other, interacting only modestly across strong boundaries’ (Etzkowitz, 2008: 12). In the statist model (Figure 1), government controls both academia and industry, and is expected to take the lead in developing projects and providing the resources for new initiatives. Examples can be seen in the former Soviet Union, France and many Latin American countries. In the laissez-faire model (Figure 2), industry, academia and government are separate and independent of each other. These actors interact only modestly across strong boundaries. This model is typically exemplified by the USA.

The global tendency is a move towards a balanced model (Figure 3), in which the three institutional spheres overlap and collaborate. The model represents a change ‘from one of strong boundaries between separate institutional spheres and organizations to a more flexible overlapping system, with each taking the role of the other’ (Etzkowitz, 2002: 2). The balanced model is considered to be preferable or ideal: ‘The balanced configuration offers the most important insights for innovation, because the most favourable environments for innovation are created at the intersections of the spheres’ (Ranga & Etzkowitz, 2013: 239). However, a pure model of this type, especially with balanced interactions between the three spirals, can hardly exist in reality. Nevertheless, such a balanced Triple Helix model has been used as an ideal-type or a normative framework by Triple Helix scholars to explain the functions of the Triple Helix model as well as the underlying rationale.

The Triple Helix literature (Etzkowitz, 2002, 2003, 2008; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1997, 2000; Leydesdorff, 2012; Leydesdorff & Etzkowitz, 1998) implies that the development of the (ideal) Triple Helix model entails several steps. For instance, Etzkowitz (2008) has more explicitly distinguished three steps of the development of the Triple Helix, namely ‘Triple Helix impetus’, ‘taking the role of the other’ and ‘from bilateral to trilateral interactions’. Here the Triple Helix development is reinterpreted from the perspective of institutionalization, in which four stages are suggested:

The four-stage development model differs from Etzkowitz’s three-step model in two respects. First, while the three-step model tends to describe the path to the ideal Triple Helix from two opposing standpoints (a statist model and a laissez-faire model), the four-stage model focuses on the development of the ideal Triple Helix model. Second, Etzkowitz looks mainly at the development process from a time-sequential perspective, but the focus of the four-stage model is how the concept of Triple Helix has been institutionalized. Nevertheless, there are many overlaps between the two approaches. Etzkowitz’s work indeed provides solid foundations for the interpretation of the institutionalization process of the Triple Helix. Although the four stages are presented sequentially, this is done mainly to facilitate the analysis. In practice there are overlaps between these stages, the second and third stages in particular being likely to occur almost simultaneously.

Stage I. Realization of needs

In the first stage, as suggested by Etzkowitz (2008: 8), ‘a Triple Helix regime typically begins as university, industry, and government enter into a reciprocal relationship with each other in which each attempts to enhance the performance of the other’. The rapid development and increasing complexity of technology can radically alter the environment of many types of organizations. It has been acknowledged that single organizational sectors alone can no longer respond to changes and uncertainties unless they cooperate with each other. In this stage, the collaboration between university, industry and government for enhancing the local economy is mainly through their traditional roles. For example, universities produce and transfer more knowledge to industry and society, while gaining additional funding sources from industry and government to strengthen the performance of research.

In many Western countries, there is a broad social consensus that economic competition depends on the creation of new and better technologies/products as the supporting logics for Triple Helix development. As such, the enhancement of knowledge generation and technology innovation becomes essential. Due to such a belief, although many Western universities have suffered governmental budget cuts since the 1980s, the actual public funding spent on higher education has not declined but is instead being directed through more diversified channels. For instance, some public funding has been used to provide incentives and to promote university and industry cooperation for knowledge generation and knowledge transfer. Nowadays one common governmental strategy is to concentrate funding on supporting research and development (R&D) in fast-growing or high-potential areas in the expectation that the investment will eventually pay off through economic growth led by the companies that benefit from cutting-edge knowledge. For their survival or sustainable development, firms strongly believe, too, that innovation is key (Cefis & Marsili, 2006) and in so doing they seek cooperation with universities to strengthen their R&D.

Therefore the institutional logic aligned with the first-stage activities is the social belief, shared by government and industry, that knowledge production and technology advancement are the keys to economic growth and success in economic competition. While government and industry are motivated by this belief, the university’s involvement in technology transfer in the initial stage is driven mainly by public policies and financial incentives. Under such circumstances, the first stage of the Triple Helix commences, in which university, industry and government realize the need for developing a reciprocal relationship.

Stage II. Intra-organizational transformation

The emerging demands for cooperation with others address challenges that gradually lead to the second stage of Triple Helix development, where internal transformation is characterized by ‘taking the role of the other’ (Etzkowitz, 2008: 9). This means that, in addition to performing its traditional tasks (as primary activities), each takes the role of the other (as secondary activities), but meanwhile university, industry or government retain their respective primary roles and distinct identities. Universities retain their traditional roles of teaching and research, but also devote attention to the capitalization of knowledge; patents, start-up companies, etc. Firms continue to produce goods and services, but also engage in research and provide training at high levels (e.g. through a corporate university). Government is responsible for resolving market failures by adjusting public policies and setting up market rules, but also makes available venture capital to start new companies, particularly for high-risk businesses. The supporting institutional logics for these activities are the cultures of (1) market orientation and (2) process management.

Taking the role of the other is driven mainly by the institutional order of market, in which the fundamental norms are concerned with self-interest and profit-seeking. To increase their revenues, universities directly engage in business activities, such as selling education and research services, and setting up university-owned companies. Meanwhile, companies establish corporate universities to develop the skills of their professionals and managers for the needs of company development. Government also offers venture capital to help start new enterprises to promote regional economic growth. To adapt to the new functions, each sector has to be more innovative in developing organizational structures and strategies.

Thus taking the role of the other can also be perceived as organizations learning from each other and also as a way of organizational innovation. One of the main drivers of organizational learning and innovation is market orientation (Hurley & Hult, 1998), which is defined as ‘the organization culture that most effectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviours for the creation of superior value for buyers and, thus, continuous superior performance for the business’ (Narver & Slater, 1990: 21). Adopting a market-orientation approach in an organization is about how the organization is oriented to the market, paying more attention to consumers’ needs, competitors’ advantages and inter-functional coordination (Narver & Slater, 1990). Market-oriented culture has been considered to be a key to enhancing competitive advantages for organizations to best pursue interest and profit (Liao et al., 2011).

One competitive advantage pursued by organizations is knowledge or technology innovation. ‘The innovation process is highly dependent on the knowledge accumulation and learning processes in the organization’ (Lopperi & Soininen, 2005: 4). To ensure knowledge accumulation and learning from existing knowledge, it is important to apply ‘process management’ which ‘involves adherence to routines through the adoption of standardized best practices throughout an organization’ and ‘ensures that organizational processes are repeated, allowing for continued efficiency improvements’ (Benner & Tushman, 2002: 678). In this light, innovation is more incremental and exploitative in nature than explorative.

Lang (2009: 25–34), a Hong Kong-based economist, observed that the success of technology innovation in the West is to be largely attributed to the culture of process management. The ethos of process management can also be reflected in research activities in the West. In a Western conception, research is basically about knowledge accumulation and transmission through the ‘trial-and-error’ method and by following a rigid academic protocol (Lang, 2009: 5–6). It follows that new knowledge is always generated from existing knowledge and the process of knowledge generation is well documented. Following the logic of process management, organizations’ competitive advantages when ‘taking the role of the other’ are based on their existing know-how. Thus the Triple Helix model enables knowledge and technology organizations to contribute to innovation through incorporating existing knowledge/technology (Marques et al., 2006).

Stage III. Inter-organizational interactions

During the process of ‘taking the role of the other’, organizational actors in the three sectors have realized that engaging in others’ fields is a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving the desired goals. In addition, intra-organizational transformation also gives rise to new challenges and demands within and between sectors. As a solution, they need even closer cooperation and interaction with each other (Etzkowitz, 2008). Thus the third step in the development of the Triple Helix is the evolution of trilateral interactions between the three sectors, characterized by increasing interdependency between the three spirals: One spiral has a significant influence on the other’s actions, and through the interactions, organizations in each spiral are able to adopt new ideas from the others to solve problems and meet new needs. For instance, a university’s knowledge production cannot be carried out by itself, but needs industry not only as a source of research problems but also as a strong partner in knowledge production. Meanwhile, university technology transfer is largely dependent on the conditions or environments created by the government. ‘The firm is thus transformed from a competitive unit related to other firms solely through the market to a Triple Helix entity increasingly based on relationships with other firms as well as academia and government’ (Etzkowitz, 2008: 58). The interactions also result in the creation of hybrid organizations, such as incubators, joint research centres, science parks, etc. With respect to the third stage, the key institutional logics in Western society are (1) legal protection of intellectual property (IP) and (2) civil society.

The most crucial development in Triple Helix inter-organizational relations is the cooperation and interaction between university and industry, founded on trust between the two parties. The trust is largely guaranteed by a mature institutional context for IP protection. For instance, the technology transfer between university and industry in the USA has only developed at a fast pace since the 1980 Bayh–Dole Act, according to which universities are able to retain ownership of inventions made with federally funded research. Thus a firm that engages in productizing an invention patented by a university can hold an exclusive licence once this is granted by the university.

According to Etzkowitz (2008: 62), effective interaction between the three spirals is also contingent upon broad social participation, including both top-down and bottom-up initiatives. As such, the Triple Helix model can best be developed in a civil society which allows free mobilization and organization, debate and initiatives, and hence encourages diverse sources of innovation. He further implies that successful Triple Helix operation is not coordinated entirely by the state, but also depends on the commitment at the local level as well as the inputs of a variety of innovation actors. Etzkowitz (2003) argued that it was the re-establishment of civil society that made the Triple Helix possible in Brazil. It has also been argued elsewhere that, as policies related to innovation systems are often confronted with issues that are both complex and controversial, one way to deal with such a complex problem is thus via citizen involvement (Griessler, 2012). Etzkowitz’s position is consistent with the ideas of Quadruple Helix (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009), in which society or the general public is added as the fourth helix, but Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz (2003) do not admit the necessity of transforming the Triple Helix into a Quadruple Helix, arguing that civil society or the general public is the institutional foundation on which the Triple Helix evolved. Although civil society is characterized by its alleged independence from the state (Perry & Fuller, 1991), it cannot live without the state. Neither can it exist without reference to a market dominated by private actors. Instead, it serves as a buffer zone between the control of authorities and private initiatives (Seppälä, 1992: 2) thereby making it easier for both top-down governance and grassroots initiatives to interact and engage with each other in innovation processes (Carayannis & Campbell, 2012: 3). Therefore, in this study, civil society is considered as one type of institutional logic supporting the ideal Triple Helix model rather than as an additional helix.

Stage IV. Institutionalization of the Triple Helix concept

The final stage is the institutionalization of the Triple Helix. This means that the Triple Helix concept and its associated activities have become a set of routines or practices that are reproduced over time and tend to serve as a cognitive framework structuring the actions of key actors, such as academia, industry and government. As stated by Benner and Sandström (2000: 292), the Triple Helix model becomes a new kind of institutional order based on the interactions of political, industrial and academic interests, and is institutionalized in an organizational field consisting of the state, industry and the academic system. However, such an understanding tends to take a simplistic view of the institutional environment, as if the Triple Helix culture becomes the only institutional order surrounding all the three groups of organizations. According to the institutional-logics perspective, organizations are embedded in different, often conflicting, institutional orders, or an inter-institutional system (Thornton et al., 2012).

It should be mentioned that the classic Triple Helix literature does not suggest that university, industry and government merge into one organizational field, but that there are overlaps between the three fields/spheres. Etzkowitz (2008) has specifically elaborated the institutionalization of the Triple Helix concept in each sector, although without explicitly using the term institutionalization. He implies that in an ideal situation, actors in the three sectors of government, university and industry all share similar views regarding their collaboration.

In their study on regional innovation systems in western Sweden, Fogelberg and Thorpenberg (2012) find a gap ‘between the expectation of an ideal-type of Triple Helix process and actors’ view of the actual development process’ (Fogelberg & Thorpenberg, 2012: 355). They argue that the bigger the gap, the greater the tension counterproductive to the goal of stimulating innovation through Triple Helix collaboration, implying that when the Triple Helix model is institutionalized, the gap is supposed to be minimized.

Thus the institutionalization process is about the structuration of an ideal model of Triple Helix, meaning that the actors in different sectors in a nation or region have shared certain concepts regarding Triple Helix relations between university, industry and government. Politicians and governmental officials in particular tend to use these common understandings to unite their audiences for the successful implementation of Triple Helix-driven innovation systems. As Fogelberg and Thorpenberg (2012: 354) put it: ‘Policy managers at the national and regional level aimed to align their agenda to a common theory-laden language that a broad set of actors could understand and sign up to [the Triple Helix].’ Such a definition of the institutionalization of the Triple Helix does not posit any ideal linear path for transitions in different national contexts and regional settings.

As institutions are composed of three pillars, namely: regulative, normative and cognitive, the processes of institutionalization also occur in all three categories. Regulative, normative and cognitive institutionalization processes are grounded in different logics but are also intertwined with each other (Scott, 1995). To achieve institutionalization, two institutional logics in particular are important, namely: (1) the market competition environment, and (2) democracy in policymaking. Both are important in the process of collective sense-making and belief-shaping.

The Triple Helix model has often been used by national and regional governments as a strategy to promote the development of innovation systems which challenge traditional ways of organizing research (i.e. collegial control) and technology development (Benner & Sandström, 2000: 292). In this respect, the institutionalization of the Triple Helix starts in the pillar of regulative institutions. The governmental approach is to leverage funding for cooperation between academia and industry. Although universities and academics may not consider the Triple Helix strategy the right option, most of them take part in Triple Helix activities because they want to secure funding for their survival and development. In Colbeck’s (2002: 398) words, ‘[regulative] institutionalization occurs as individuals find it expedient to comply with the rules’. For instance, Benner and Sandström’s (2000) study on ‘Institutionalizing the Triple Helix’ deals with the regulative process mainly by emphasising the funding agencies’ roles in the structuration of the institutional order of the Triple Helix.

‘Normative institutionalization processes are grounded in a collective sense of what is appropriate’, Colbeck writes (2002: 398). In its attempt to adjust academic research to the knowledge interests of industry, the Triple Helix model goes against the traditional academic norm that it is professors who decide what is to be studied. The participants will not believe that the innovation of the Triple Helix model is right unless it has brought them benefits. Therefore, for the Triple Helix model to be appreciated by the participants, the funding and evaluation systems must be shrewdly designed.

The institutionalization of the Triple Helix may take many rounds of revisions and adjustments, based on feedback from those involved. The importance of feedback loops in the evolution of the Triple Helix has been pointed out by Viale and Pozzali (2010: 583–584): When a government tries to promote university and industry cooperation by introducing financial incentives for relevant participants, the effect is determined by either positive or negative feedback generated by the impact of these incentives on the behaviour of the actors concerned. While negative feedback tends to produce resistance to change and leads to inertia, positive feedback shakes the stability of the status quo and catalyses change. Thus the Triple Helix is likely to develop in competitive market systems where feedback mechanisms are well developed. While there has always been competition in industry, the key to developing the Triple Helix lies in the competition logics in the field of the university. This explains why the phenomena associated with the Triple Helix model, such as the second academic revolution, the dual academic career and the entrepreneurial university, are more often observed in the competitive university systems of the USA and the UK than in relatively more centralized universities of continental Europe.

To effectively adopt the feedback from participants in the policymaking process also requires a political system in which social groups and individuals involved in and affected by a policy programme have a chance to influence the policymaking. As Carayannis and Campbell (2012: 3) noted: ‘democracy shapes and drives government, academic, and industrial policies and practices and where a proper calibration of the issues addressed and the frequency modulation of the feedback received via [a democratic action] allows for higher order learning to impart intelligence and enact wisdom in choices and initiatives’.

The realization of regulative and normative institutionalization can already show the success of implementing the Triple Helix model, but it is the cognitive pressures that eventually lead to the final institutionalization of the Triple Helix. ‘Cognitive institutionalization processes occur as more and more individuals assume that an activity is naturally the way things are done, and act accordingly’ (Colbeck, 2002: 405). It suggests that individuals find it hard to conceive of alternatives to the model advocated by the Triple Helix. To this end, both a democratic policymaking process and a competitive market environment are crucial, as both are important mechanisms in public learning (or collective sense-making) which play a key role in influencing the belief systems of the actors in a given field (Cai, 2013).

A summary of institutional logics aligned with Triple Helix activities

The congruency between ideal institutional logics and ideal Triple Helix activities at each stage is summarized in Table 1 in light of the discussion above. In an environment consisting of the ideal institutional logics often found in Western societies, the Triple Helix model is likely to be developed and even institutionalized. These ideal institutional logics are at the levels of both society and organizational field.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Institutional logics in the evolution of the ‘ideal’ Triple Helix model.

Stages of development	Major Triple Helix activities	Favourable institutional logics
Stage I. Realization of the needs	Realizing the importance of entering a reciprocal relationship between university, industry and government	Shared beliefs on knowledge as a key to economic growth
Stage II. Intra-organizational transformation	Taking the role of the other	Market orientation Process management
Stage III. Interactions between organizations	Growing and innovating through cooperation with others Generating hybrid organizations	Effective IP Protection system Civil society
Stage IV. Institutionalization of the Triple Helix model	Feedback loops between policymakers and participants Institutionalized norms of ‘entrepreneurial university’, ‘knowledge-based formation and growth’, and ‘innovation state’ (Etzkowitz, 2008)	Competitive market Democratic policymaking