The intermediary as an institutional entrepreneur: institutional change and stability in triple-helix cooperation

Florian Poppen,Reinhold Decker

doi:10.1186/s40604-018-0063-7

Abstract

This paper aims to illustrate how the triple-helix concept can be implemented on a city level by establishing an intermediary among the scientific, economic, and public administration spheres and civil society. By using the example of Bielefeld 2000plus, an initiative founded for this particular purpose, this paper shows that in today’s knowledge society, certain inter-organizational conflicts and challenges regarding cooperation may arise that an intermediary actor can channel efficiently. Furthermore, Bielefeld 2000plus serves as a prototypical example and is used to derive a theoretical model of such an intermediary actor as both the product of and platform for institutional entrepreneurs who try to elicit institutional change. Drawing on extant literature that examines intermediaries with the triple-helix concept, as well as institutional entrepreneurs, this paper discusses how an intermediary can act as an institutional entrepreneur by adopting a bifunctional framework, with all the advantages and disadvantages that this entails. This framework is condensed into the Bifunctional Intermediary (BFI) Model, which may benefit researchers studying triple-helix processes and practitioners seeking to establish an intermediary.

Highlights

IntroductionThe growing importance of scientific knowledge and the subsequent increased cooperation between universities and corporations means that the boundaries between science and the social environment are being crossed at a higher rate than before (Leydesdorff 2000; Leydesdorff et al 2015; Leydesdorff and Fritsch 2006)
By using the example of Bielefeld 2000plus, an initiative founded for this particular purpose, this paper shows that in today’s knowledge society, certain inter-organizational conflicts and challenges regarding cooperation may arise that an intermediary actor can channel efficiently
The growing importance of scientific knowledge and the subsequent increased cooperation between universities and corporations means that the boundaries between science and the social environment are being crossed at a higher rate than before (Leydesdorff 2000; Leydesdorff et al 2015; Leydesdorff and Fritsch 2006)

Summary

Introduction

The growing importance of scientific knowledge and the subsequent increased cooperation between universities and corporations means that the boundaries between science and the social environment are being crossed at a higher rate than before (Leydesdorff 2000; Leydesdorff et al 2015; Leydesdorff and Fritsch 2006). For organizations based in the scientific system, this means rapid change as the possibilities for allocating financial resources incentivize them to broaden their scientific activity and shift their focus toward producing applicable knowledge (Fisher and Atkinson-Grosjean 2002) These developments have led social scientists to call modern society a knowledge society (Karpov 2016; Stehr 2001). Modern society remains a differentiated society; the scientific, economic, political, and educational spheres operate fairly independently of each other and select for themselves— and according to their operations—which elements of the social environment affect them (Luhmann 1977) This makes building networks and embedding science in the broader social context a challenge. This role can either be performed by an individual (Frølund and Ziethen 2016) or by an organization that provides services and counseling (Howells 2006)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion