Knowledge is increasingly ‘polyvalent’ as theoretical, practical and interdisciplinary implications form a common center of gravity. The changing nature of knowledge drives the institutional spheres of university and industry together in advanced industrial societies and developing countries, alike. Government policy lags and leads a shift from mono helix to triple helix knowledge production under different societal conditions. An entrepreneurial scientific role and an entrepreneurial university embedded in a triple helix of university-industry-government relations is the epicenter of innovation in a ‘third academic revolution’, the next ‘great transformation’.
Amesse, F. and Cohendet, P. ( 2001) Technology Transfer Revisited from the Perspective of the Knowledge-Based Economy. Research Policy30(9):1459-78.
2.
Audretsch, D., Link, A. and Scott, J. ( 2002) Public/Private Technology Partnerships: Evaluating SBIR Supported Research. Research Policy31(1): 145-58.
3.
Beesley, L. ( 2003) Science Policy in Changing Times: Are Governments Poised to Take Full Advantage of an Institution in Transition? Research Policy32(8): 1519-32.
4.
Carayol, N. ( 2003) Objectives, Agreements and Matching in Science-Industry Collaborations: Reassembling the Pieces of the Puzzle. Research Policy32(6): 887-908.
5.
Di Gregorio, D. and Shane, S. ( 2003) Why Do Some Universities Generate More Start-Ups than Others? Research Policy32(2): 209-28.
6.
Durkheim, Emile ( 1997) The Division of Labor in Society. Free Press: New York, NY.
7.
Etzkowitz, H. ( 1983) Entrepreneurial Scientists and Entrepreneurial Universities in American Academic Science. Minerva21(2/3): 198-233.
8.
Etzkowitz, H. ( 2002) MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science. Routledge: London and New York, NY.
9.
Etzkowitz, H. ( 2003) Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Social Science Information42(3): 293-338.
10.
Etzkowitz, H. ( 2008) The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. Routledge: London.
11.
Etzkowitz, H. and Mello, J. ( 2004) The Rise of Triple Helix Cluster: Innovation in Brazilian Economic and Social Development. International Journal of Technology and Management & Sustainable Development2(3):159-71.
12.
Fischer, E. and Lipson, C. ( 1988) Thinking about Science: Max Delbruck and the Origins of Molecular Biology. Norton: New York, NY.
13.
Fodor, J. ( 1983) Modularity of Mind. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
14.
Fransman, M. ( 2001) Designing Dolly: Interactions between Economics, Technology and Science and the Evolution of Hybrid Institutions. Research Policy30(2): 263-74.
15.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. ( 1994) The New Production of Knowledge. Sage : London.
16.
Goldfarb, B. and Henrekson, M. ( 2003) Bottom-Up versus Top-Down Policies towards the Commercialization of University Intellectual Property. Research Policy32(4): 639-58.
17.
Griliches, Z. ( 1988[1957]) Technology, Education and Productivity: Early Papers with Notes to Subsequent Literature. Blackwell: Oxford.
18.
Hayashi, T. ( 2003) Effect of R&D Programmes on the Formation of University-Industry-Government Networks: Comparative Analysis of Japanese R&D Programmes. Research Policy32(8):1421-42.
19.
Hellstrom, T. ( 2003) Governing the Virtual Academic Commons. Research Policy32(3): 391-402.
20.
Kuznets, S. ( 1965) Economic Growth and Structure. Norton : New York, NY.
21.
Lazonick, W. ( 1991) Business Organization and the Myth of the Market Economy . Cambridge University Press:Cambridge .
22.
Leydesdorff, L. and Meyer, M. ( 2006) The Triple Helix Indicators of Knowledge-Based Innovation Systems. Research Policy35(10): 1441-49.
23.
Lofsten, H. and Lindelof, P. ( 2002) Science Parks and the Growth of New Technology Based Firms-Academic-Industry Links, Innovations and Markets. Research Policy31(6): 859-76.
24.
Long, P. ( 1991) Invention, Authorship, ‘Intellectual Property,’ and the Origin of Patents: Notes toward a Conceptual History. Technology and Culture32(4): 846-84.
25.
Macleod, C. ( 1988) Inventing the Industrial Revolution. Cambridge University Press:Cambridge.
26.
Mangematin, V., Lemarié, S., Boissin, J.-P., David, C., Corolleur, F., Coronini, R. and Trommetter, M. ( 2003) Development of SMEs and Heterogeneity of Trajectories: The Case of Biotechnology in France. Research Policy32(4): 639-58.
27.
Marx, K. ( 1993) The Grundrisse. Penguin Books: New York, NY.
28.
Mazotti, M. ( 2004) Enlightened Mills: Mechanizing Olive Oil Production in Mediterranean Europe. Technology and Culture45(2): 277-304.
29.
Mokyr, J. ( 2002) Innovation in an Historical Perspective: Tales of Technology and Evolution. B. Steil et al. (eds.) Technological Innovation and Economic Performance, pp. 24-49. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
30.
Mowery, D. and Rosenberg, N. ( 1998) Paths of Innovation: Technological Change in 20th Century America. Cambridge University Press:New York, NY.
31.
Nevins, A. ( 1962) The State Universities and Democracy. University of Illinois Press: Urbana, IL.
32.
Owen-Smith, J. ( 2003) From Separate Systems to a Hybrid Order: Accumulative Advantage across Public and Private Science at Research One Universities. Research Policy2(6): 1081-1104.
33.
Owen-Smith, J. and Powell, W. ( 2003) The Expanding Role of University Patenting in the Life Sciences: Assessing the Importance of Experience and Connectivity. Research Policy32(9): 1695-1711.
34.
Polanyi, K. ( 1957) The Great Transformation. Beacon Press : Boston, MA.
35.
Ranga, L., Debackere, K. and Tunzelman, N. ( 2003) Entrepreneurial Universities and the Dynamics of Academic Knowledge Production: A Case of Basic vs. Applied Research in Belgium. Scientometrics58(2): 301-20.
36.
Rashdall, H. ( 1896) The Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages. Oxford University Press: Oxford.
37.
Rogers, M.E., Yin, Y. and Hoffmann, J. ( 2000) Assessing the Effectiveness of Technology Transfer Offices at US Research Universities. The Journal of the Association of University Technology Managers12: 47-80.
38.
Schiffer, M. ( 2003) Draw the Lightning Down: Benjamin Franklin and Electrical Technology in the Age of Enlightenment. University of California Press: Berkeley, CA.
39.
Shinn, T. and Lamy, E. ( 2006) Paths of Commercial Knowledge: Forms and Consequences of University-Enterprise Synergy in Scientist-Sponsored Firms. Research Policy35(10): 1465-76.
40.
Thursby, J. and Kemp, S. ( 2002) Growth and Productive Efficiency of University Intellectual Property Licensing. Research Policy31(1): 109-24.
41.
Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Callaert, J., Debackere, K. and Zimmerman, E. ( 2004) Balancing Entrepreneurial and Scientific Activities: Feasible or Mission Impossible? An Examination of the Performance of University Research Groups at K. U. Leuven, Belgium. Research Policy33(3): 443-54.
42.
Viale, R. ( 1991) Metodo e Società nella Scienza. Franco Angeli: Milano.
