This paper introduces the concept of Triple Helix systems as an analytical construct that synthesizes the key features of university–industry–government (Triple Helix) interactions into an ‘innovation system’ format, defined according to systems theory as a set of components, relationships and functions. Among the components of Triple Helix systems, a distinction is made between (a) R&D and non-R&D innovators; (b) ‘single-sphere’ and ‘multi-sphere’ (hybrid) institutions; and (c) individual and institutional innovators. The relationships between components are synthesized into five main types: technology transfer; collaboration and conflict moderation; collaborative leadership; substitution; and networking. The overall function of Triple Helix systems – knowledge and innovation generation, diffusion and use – is realized through a set of activities in the knowledge, innovation and consensus spaces. This perspective provides an explicit framework for the systemic interaction between Triple Helix actors that was previously lacking, and a more fine-grained view of the circulation of knowledge flows and resources within and among the spaces, helping to identify existing blockages or gaps. From a Triple Helix systems perspective, the articulation and the non-linear interactions between the spaces can generate new combinations of knowledge and resources that can advance innovation theory and practice, especially at the regional level.
MarsanAjmone G.MaguireK. (2011), ‘Categorisation of OECD regions using innovation-related variables’, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2011/03, OECD Publishing, https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1787/5 kg8bf42qv7k-en.
2.
AlmeidaM.MelloJ.M.C.EtzkowitzH. (2012), ‘Social innovation in a developing country: Invention and diffusion of the Brazilian cooperative incubator’, International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, Vol 6, No 3, pp 206–224.
3.
AmasonA.C. (1996), ‘Distinguishing the effect of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 39, pp 123–148.
4.
AmasonA.C.SapienzaH.J. (1997), ‘The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict’, Journal of Management, Vol 23, pp 495–516.
5.
ArcherD.CameronA. (2009), Collaborative Leadership – How to Succeed in an Interconnected World, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
6.
ArundelA.BordoyC.KanervaM. (2008), ‘Neglected innovators: How do innovative firms that do not perform R&D innovate? – results of an analysis of the Innobarometer 2007 survey, No 215’, INNO-Metrics Thematic Paper, European Commission, DG Enterprise, Brussels.
7.
AsheimB.CoenenL.Svensson-HenningM. (2003), Nordic SMEs and Regional Innovation Systems, Nordisk Industrifond, Oslo.
8.
Azagra-CaroJ.M.CaratG.PontikakisD. (2010), ‘Geographical implications of the TH: Inclining the columns to make the temple look straight, a first glance at monetary indicators on university–industry cooperation’, Research Evaluation, Vol 19, No 2, pp 119–128.
9.
BaldiniN. (2006), ‘University patenting and licensing activity: A review of the literature’, Research Evaluation, Vol 15, No 3, pp 197–207.
10.
BennerM. (2012), ‘Innovation policy in hard times: Lessons from the Nordic countries’, European Planning Studies, Vol 20, No 9, pp 1455–1468.
11.
BergekA.JacobssonS.HekkertM. (2007), ‘Attributes in innovation systems: A framework for analysing energy system dynamics and identifying goals for system-building activities by entrepreneurs and policy makers’, in FoxonT.KohlerJ.OughtonC., eds, Innovations for a Low Carbon Economy: Economic, Institutional and Management Approaches, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
12.
BergekA.JacobssonS.CarlssonB.LindmarkS.RickneA. (2008), ‘Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: A scheme of analysis’, Research Policy, Vol 37, No 3, pp 407–429.
13.
BiancoM.ViscardiN. (2008), ‘Research organization in the university: The case of a leading Uruguayan group in basic science’, International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, Vol 7, No 3, pp 237–249.
14.
BjerregaardT. (2010), ‘Industry and academia in convergence: Micro-institutional dimensions of R&D collaboration’, Technovation, Vol 30, No 2, pp 100–108.
15.
BoardmanP.C. (2009), ‘Government centrality to university–industry interactions: University research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers’, Research Policy, Vol 38, No 10, pp 1505–1516.
16.
BooyensI. (2011), ‘Are small, medium- and micro-sized enterprises engines of innovation? – the reality in South Africa’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 38, No 1, pp 67–78.
17.
BreschiS.MalerbaF. (1997), ‘Sectoral innovation systems: Technological regimes, Schumpeterian dynamics and spatial boundaries’, in EdquistC., ed, Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter/Cassell Academic, London and Washington.
18.
CallonM. (1992), ‘The dynamics of techno-economic networks’, in CoombsR.SaviottiP.WalshV., eds, Technological Change and Company Strategies: Economic and Sociological Perspectives, Academic Press, London.
19.
CampbellE.G.PowersJ.B.BlumenthalD.BilesB. (2004), ‘Inside the Triple Helix: Technology transfer and commercialization in the life sciences’, Health Affairs, Vol 23, No 1, pp 64–76.
20.
CarlssonB., ed (1997), Technological Systems and Industrial Dynamics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London.
21.
CarlssonB. (1998), ‘Innovation and knowledge spillovers: A systems cum evolutionary perspective’, in EliassonG.GreenC., eds, Microfoundations of Economic Growth: A Schumpeterian Perspective, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, pp 156–168.
CarlssonB.JacobssonS.HolménM.RickneA. (2002), ‘Innovation systems: Analytical and methodological issues’, Research Policy, Vol 31, No 2, pp 233–245.
24.
CarlssonB.StankiewiczR. (1991), ‘On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics, No 1, pp 93–118.
25.
CasasR.de GortariR.SantosM.J. (2000), ‘The building of knowledge spaces in Mexico: A regional approach to networking’, Research Policy, Vol 29, No 2, pp 229–241.
26.
ChrislipD. (2002), The Collaborative Leadership Fieldbook: A Guide for Citizens and Civic Leaders, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
27.
CohenW.M.LevinR.C.MoweryD.C. (1987), ‘Firm size and R&D intensity: A re-examination’, Journal of Industrial Economics, Vol 35, pp 543–563.
CookeP. (2004), ‘The molecular biology revolution and the rise of bioscience megacentres in North America and Europe’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol 22, No 2, pp 161–177.
30.
CurridE. (2007), The Warhol Economy, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
31.
CusumanoM.A.ElenkovD. (1994), ‘Linking international technology transfer with strategy and management: A literary commentary’, Research Policy, Vol 23, No 2, pp 195–215.
32.
DavidP.A.ForayD. (2003), ‘Economic fundamentals of the Knowledge Society’, Policy Futures in Education, Vol 1, pp 20–49.
33.
DavidP.A.ForayD.SteinmuellerW.E. (1999), ‘The research network and the new economics of science: From metaphors to organizational behaviours’, in GambardellaA.MalerbaF., eds, The Organisation of Innovative Activities in Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
34.
De ClercqD.ThongpapanlN.DimovD. (2009), ‘When good conflict gets better and bad conflict becomes worse: The role of social capital in the conflict–innovation relationship’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol 37, pp 283–297.
35.
DebackereK. (2000), ‘Managing academic R&D as a business at KU Leuven: Context, structure and process’, R&D Management, Vol 30, pp 323–328.
36.
DebackereK.VeugelersR. (2005), ‘Improving industry science links through university technology transfer units: An analysis and a case’, Research Policy, Vol 34, No 3, pp 321–342.
37.
DeBressonC.AmesseF. (1991), ‘Networks of innovators: A review and introduction to the issue’, Research Policy, Vol 20, No 5, pp 363–379.
38.
DolfsmaW.LeydesdorffL. (2009), ‘Lock-in and break-out from technological trajectories: Modelling and policy implications’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol 76, pp 932–941.
DoloreuxD.PartoS. (2005), ‘Regional innovation systems: Current discourse and unresolved issues’, Technology in Society, Vol 27, pp 133–153.
41.
DosiG.FreemanC.NelsonR.R.SilverbergG.SoeteL., eds (1998), Technology and Economic Theory, Pinter, London.
42.
EdquistC. (1997), ‘Systems of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics’, in EdquistC., ed, Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations, Pinter, London.
43.
EdquistC. (2005), ‘Systems of innovation: Perspectives and challenges’, in FagerbergJ.MoweryD.C.NelsonR.R., eds, The Oxford Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, pp 181–208.
44.
EtzkowitzH. (1993), ‘Technology transfer: The second academic revolution’, Technology Access Report, No 6, pp 7–9.
45.
EtzkowitzH. (2002), MIT and the Rise of Entrepreneurial Science, Routledge, London.
46.
EtzkowitzH. (2003), Innovation in innovation: The Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations', Social Science Information, Vol 42, pp 293–338.
47.
EtzkowitzH. (2008), The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government Innovation in Action, Routledge, London.
48.
EtzkowitzH. (2012), ‘Triple Helix clusters: Boundary permeability at university–industry–government interfaces as a regional innovation strategy’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, Vol 30, No 5, pp 766–779.
49.
EtzkowitzH.KlofstenM. (2005), ‘The innovating region: Towards a theory of knowledge-based regional development’, R&D Management, Vol 35, pp 243–255.
50.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (1995), ‘The Triple Helix: University–industry–government relations: A laboratory for knowledge-based economic development’, EASST Review, Vol 14, pp 14–19.
51.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (1998), ‘The endless transition: A “triple helix” of university–industry–government relations’, Minerva, Vol 36, pp 203–208.
52.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (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.
53.
EtzkowitzH.RaikenL. (1980), ‘Artists' social movements of the 1960's and 70's: From protest to institution-formation’, paper presented at Eastern Sociological Society Thematic Session, Boston, MA, distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse, ERIC No ED186326, see: http://www.eric.ed.gov/.
54.
EtzkowitzH.SchaflanderG. (1969), Ghetto Crisis, Little Brown, Boston, MA.
55.
EtzkowitzH.MelloJ.M.C.AlmeidaM. (2005), ‘Towards “meta-innovation” in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a Triple Helix’, Research Policy, Vol 34, No 4, pp 411–424.
56.
EtzkowitzH.RangaM.BennerM.GuaranysL.MaculanA.M.KnellerR. (2008), ‘Pathways to the entrepreneurial university: Towards a global convergence’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 35, pp 1–15.
FeldmanM.P.DesrochersP. (2004), ‘Truth for its own sake: Academic culture and technology transfer at Johns Hopkins University’, Minerva, Vol 42, No 2, pp 105–126.
59.
FinkelsteinS.MooneyA.C. (2003), ‘Not the usual suspects: How to use board process to make boards better’, Academy of Management Executive, Vol 17, No 2, pp 101–113.
60.
FreemanC. (1987), Technology Policy and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, Pinter, London.
61.
FreemanC. (1988), ‘Japan: A new national innovation system?’, in DosiG.FreemanC.NelsonR.R.SilverbergG.SoeteL., eds, Technical Change and Economic Theory, Pinter, London.
62.
FreemanC. (1991), ‘Networks of innovators: A synthesis of research issues’, Research Policy, Vol 20, No 5, pp 499–514.
63.
FreemanC.LundvallB.-Å., eds (1988), Small Countries Facing the Technological Revolution, Pinter, London.
64.
FreibergerP.SwaineM. (2000), Fire in the Valley: The Making of the Personal Computer, McGraw-Hill, New York.
65.
FurmanJ.L.MacGarvieM. (2009), ‘Academic collaboration and organizational innovation: The development of research capabilities in the US pharmaceutical industry, 1927–1946’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol 18, No 5, pp 929–961.
66.
GalendeJ.de la FuenteJ.M. (2003), ‘Internal factors determining a firm's innovative behaviour’, Research Policy, Vol 32, No 5, pp 715–736.
67.
GalendeJ.GonzalesSuarez I. (1999), ‘A resource-based analysis of the factors determining a firm's R&D activities’, Research Policy, Vol 28, No 8, pp 891–905.
68.
GebhardtC. (2012), ‘The entrepreneurial state: The German entrepreneurial regions program as an attenuator for the financial crisis’, European Planning Studies, Vol 20, No 9, pp 1469–1482.
69.
GeunaA.NestaL.J.J. (2006), ‘University patenting and its effects on academic research: The emerging European evidence’, Research Policy, Vol 35, No 6, pp 790–807.
70.
GeunaA.RossiF. (2011), ‘Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting’, Research Policy, Vol 40, No 8, pp 1068–1076.
71.
GibneyJ.CopelandS.MurieA. (2009), ‘Towards a “new” strategic leadership of place for the knowledge-based economy’, Leadership, Vol 5, pp 5–23.
72.
GoldsteinH.A. (2010), ‘The “entrepreneurial turn” and regional economic development mission of universities’, Annals of Regional Science, Vol 44, No 1, pp 83–109.
73.
HamiltonW.B. (1966), ‘The research triangle of North Carolina: A study in leadership for the common weal’, South Atlantic Quarterly, Vol 65, pp 254–278.
74.
HeerwagenJ.KellyK.KampschroerK. (2010), ‘The changing nature of organizations, work and workplace’, downloaded on 08 April 2013 from: http://www.wbdg.org/resources/chngorgwork.php.
75.
HeidenreichM. (2009), ‘Innovation patterns and location of European low- and medium-technology industries’, Research Policy, Vol 38, No 3, pp 483–494.
76.
HekkertM.SuursR.A.A.NegroS.KuhlmannS.SmitsR. (2008), ‘Attributes of innovation systems: A new approach for analysing technological change’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol 74, pp 413–432.
77.
HolbrookA.WolfeD. (2002), Knowledge, Clusters and Regional Innovation: Economic Development in Canada, Queen's School of Policy Studies, Kingston, Ontario.
78.
HugginsR. (2008), ‘Universities and knowledge-based venturing: Finance, management and networks in London’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, Vol 20, No 2, pp 185–206.
79.
InzeltA. (2004), ‘The evolution of university–industry–government relationships during transition’, Research Policy, Vol 33, No 6–7, pp 975–995.
80.
IversenE.J.GulbrandsenM.KlitkouA. (2007), ‘A baseline for the impact of academic patenting legislation in Norway’, Scientometrics, Vol 70, No 2, pp 393–414.
JehnK.A. (1995), ‘A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intra-group conflict’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 40, pp 256–282.
83.
JehnK.A.MannixE.A. (2001), ‘The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intra-group conflict and group performance’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 44, No 238–251.
84.
JensenM.B.JohnsonB.LorenzE.LundvallB.A. (2007), ‘Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation’, Research Policy, Vol 36, No 5, pp 680–693.
85.
KaufmannA.TödtlingF. (2001), ‘Science–industry interaction in the process of innovation: The importance of boundary-crossing between systems’, Research Policy, Vol 30, No 5, pp 791–804.
86.
KlofstenM.Jones-EvansD.SchärbergC. (1999), ‘Growing the Linköping Technopole: Longitudinal study of the Triple Helix development in Sweden’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 24, No 2–3, pp 125–138.
87.
KondeV. (2004), ‘Internet development in Zambia: A Triple Helix of government–university–partners’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol 27, No 5, pp 440–451.
88.
KrussG. (2008), ‘Balancing old and new organisational forms: Changing dynamics of government, industry and university interaction in South Africa’, Technology Analysis and Strategic ManagementVol 20, No 6, pp 667–682.
89.
KuhlmannS. (2001), ‘Future governance of innovation policy in Europe: Three scenarios’, Research Policy, Vol 30, No 6, pp 953–976.
90.
KwonK.S.ParkH.W.SoM.LeydesdorffL. (2012), ‘Has globalization strengthened South Korea's national research system? – national and international dynamics of the Triple Helix of scientific co-authorship relationships in South Korea’, Scientometrics, Vol 90, No 1, pp 163–176.
91.
SmithLawton H.SharmisthaBagchi-Sen S. (2010), ‘Triple Helix and regional development: A perspective from Oxfordshire in the UK’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol 22, pp 805–818.
92.
LeeM.S.PetersonS.J. (2000), ‘Culture, entrepreneurial orientation and global competitiveness’, Journal of World Business, Vol 35, pp 401–416.
93.
LeydesdorffL. (1996), ‘Luhmann's sociological theory: Its operationalisation and future perspectives’, Social Science Information, Vol 35, pp 283–306.
94.
LeydesdorffL. (1997), ‘The new communication regime of university–industry–government relations’, in EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL., eds, Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations, Cassell Academic, London.
95.
LeydesdorffL. (2000), ‘The Triple Helix: An evolutionary model of innovations’, Research Policy, Vol 29, No 2, pp 243–255.
96.
LeydesdorffL. (2003), ‘The mutual information of university–industry–government relations: An indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics’, Scientometrics, Vol 58, pp 445–467.
LeydesdorffL. (2008), ‘Configurational information as potentially negative entropy: The Triple Helix model’, Entropy, Vol 10, pp 391–410.
99.
LeydesdorffL.EtzkowitzH. (1996), ‘Emergence of a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 23, pp 279–86.
100.
LeydesdorffL.EtzkowitzH. (1998), ‘The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies’, Science and Public Policy, Vol 25, pp 195–203.
101.
LeydesdorffL.MeyerM. (2006), ‘Triple Helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the Special Issue’, Research Policy, Vol 35, No 10, pp 1441–1449.
102.
LeydesdorffL.MeyerM. (2010), ‘The decline of university patenting and the end of the Bayh-Dole effect’, Scientometrics, Vol 83, No 2, pp 355–362.
103.
LeydesdorffL.DolfsmaW.Van der PanneG. (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.
104.
LoweC.U. (1982), ‘The Triple Helix – NIH, industry, and the academic World’, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, Vol 55, pp 239–246.
105.
LuhmannN. (1975), ‘Systemtheorie, Evolutionstheorie und Kommunikationstheorie’, Soziologische Gids, Vol 22, No 3, pp 154–168.
106.
LuhmannN. (1984), Soziale Systeme: Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, published in English (1995), as Social Systems, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
107.
LunaM.TirtidoR. (2008), ‘Business associations and their contribution to knowledge networks in Mexico’, International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, Vol 7, No 3, pp 251–264.
108.
LundvallB.-Å. (1988), ‘Innovation as an interactive process: From user–producer interaction to national systems of innovation’, in DosiG., ed, Technology and Economic Theory, Pinter, London.
109.
LundvallB.-Å., ed. (1992), National Systems of Innovation, Pinter, London.
110.
MalerbaF. (2002), ‘Sectoral systems of innovation and production’, Research Policy, Vol 31, No 2, pp 247–264.
111.
MaskellP.MalmbergA. (1997), ‘Towards an explanation of regional specialization and industry agglomeration’, European Planning Studies, Vol 5, pp 25–41.
112.
MasonC.HarrisonR. (1992), ‘Strategy for closing the small firms finance gap’, in CaleyD.LeighR.SmallboneD., eds, Small Enterprise Development, Paul Chapman, London.
113.
MelloJ.M.C.RochaAlves F.C. (2004), ‘Networking for regional innovation and economic growth: The Brazilian Petropolis technopole’, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol 27, No 5, pp 488–497.
114.
MetsT. (2010), ‘Entrepreneurial business model for classical research university’, Inzinerine Ekonomika – Engineering Economics, Vol 21, No 1, pp 80–89.
115.
MetsT.AndrijevskajaJ.VarblaneU. (2008), ‘The role of the University of Tartu in the development of entrepreneurship in the region of South Estonia’, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, Vol 8, No 6, pp 648–664.
116.
MeyerM. (2006), ‘Are patenting scientists the better scholars? – an exploratory comparison of inventor-authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology’, Research Policy, Vol 35, No 10, pp 1646–1662.
117.
MillerW. (1997), ‘Stanford University Business School and Joint Venture Silicon Valley’, verbal interview with Henry Etzkowitz.
118.
NelsonR.R., ed. (1993), National Innovation Systems, Oxford University Press, New York.
119.
NelsonR.R.RosenbergN. (1993), ‘Technical innovation and national systems’, in NelsonR.R., ed, National Innovation Systems, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–21.
120.
ParsonsT. (1951), The Social System, The Free Press, New York.
121.
ParsonsT.ShilsE., eds (1951), Toward a General Theory of Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
122.
ParsonsT.SmelserN.J. (1956), Economy and Society, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
123.
PelledL.H.EisenhardtK.M.XinK.R. (1999), ‘Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict and performance’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 44, pp 1–28.
124.
PowellW.W. (1990), ‘Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization’, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol 12, pp 295–336.
125.
RangaL.M.MiedemaJ.L.JornaR.J. (2008), ‘Enhancing the innovative capacity of small firms through Triple Helix interactions: Challenges and opportunities’, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol 20, pp 697–716.
126.
RangaM.EtzkowitzH. (2012), ‘Great expectations: An innovation solution to the contemporary economic crisis’, European Planning Studies, Vol 20, No 9, pp 1429–1438.
127.
RangaM.PerälampiJ.KansikasJ. (2013), ‘University brainpower unchained: A comparative analysis of university–business cooperation in the US and Finland’, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (forthcoming).
128.
RodriguesC.MeloA. (2010), ‘The Triple Helix Model as inspiration for local development policies: An experience-based perspective’, Working Paper SACSJP, University of Aveiro, Aveiro.
129.
RothaermelF.T.AgungS.D.JiangL. (2007), ‘University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol 16, No 4, pp 691–791.
130.
RuuskaI.TeiglandR. (2009), ‘Ensuring project success through collective competence and creative conflict in public–private partnerships: A case study of Bygga Villa, a Swedish Triple Helix e-government initiative’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol 27, No 4, pp 323–334.
131.
SábatoJ.MackenziM. (1982), La Producción de Technologia: Autónoma o Transnacional, Nueva Imagen, Mexico.
132.
SaenzT.W. (2008), ‘The path to innovation: The Cuban experience’, International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, Vol 7, No 3, pp 205–221.
SchumpeterJ.A. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, George Allen and Unwin, New York.
135.
SchumpeterJ. (1951), Essays on Economic Topics, Kennikat Press, Port Washington, New York.
136.
SchutzA. (1964), Collected Papers II: Studies in Social Theory, BrodersenA., ed, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
137.
ShannonC.E. (1948), ‘A mathematical theory of communication’, Bell System Technical Journal, Vol 27, pp 379–423 and pp 623–656.
138.
SimmelG. (1922 [1955]), Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations, WolffK, translator and ed, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
139.
SteinmuellerW.E. (1994), ‘Basic research and industrial innovation’, in DodgsonM.RothwellR., eds, The Handbook of Industrial Innovation, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 54–66.
140.
SternbergR. (2000), ‘Innovation networks and regional development: Evidence from the European Regional Innovation Survey (ERIS)’, European Planning Studies, Vol 8, No 4, pp 389–407.
141.
StorperM. (1997), The Regional World, The Guilford Press, New York.
142.
SvenssonP.KlofstenM.EtzkowitzH. (2012), ‘The Norrkoping way: A knowledge-based strategy for renewing a declining industrial city’, European Planning Studies, Vol 20, No 4, pp 505–525.
143.
ThwaitesA.WynarczykP. (1996), ‘The economic performance of innovative small firms in the South East region and elsewhere in the UK’, Regional Studies, Vol 30, pp 135–149.
144.
TijssenR.J.W. (2006), ‘Universities and industrially relevant science: Towards measurement models and indicators of entrepreneurial orientation’, Research Policy, Vol 35, No 10, pp 1569–1585.
145.
TijssenR.J.W. (2012), ‘Co-authored research publications and strategic analysis of public–private collaboration’, Research Evaluation, Vol 21, No 3, pp 204–215.
146.
TödtlingF.KaufmannA. (2001), ‘The role of the region for innovation activities of SMEs’, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol 8, No 3, pp 203–215.
Van DyneL.SaavedraR. (1996), ‘A naturalistic minority influence experiment: Effects on divergent thinking, conflict and originality in work-groups’, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol 35, No 1, pp 151–168.
149.
Van LooyB.MagermanT.DebackereK. (2007), ‘Developing technology in the vicinity of science: An examination of the relationship between science intensity (of patents) and technological productivity within the field of biotechnology’, Scientometrics, Vol 70, No 2, pp 441–458.
150.
WangJ.ShapiraP. (2012), ‘Partnering with universities: A good choice for nanotechnology start-up firms?’, Small Business Economics, Vol 38, No 2, pp 197–215.
151.
WolfeD. (2003) Clusters Old and New: The Transition to a Knowledge Economy in Canada's Regions, Queen's School of Policy Studies, Kingston, Ontario.
152.
WongP.K. (2007), ‘Commercializing biomedical science in a rapidly changing “Triple Helix” nexus: The experience of the National University of Singapore’, Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol 32, No 4, pp 367–95.
