Abstract
While the Triple Helix and Quadruple Helix models are popular in innovation studies, the relations between them have not been addressed extensively in the literature. There are diverse interpretations of helix models in empirical studies that apply them, but these sometimes deviate from the original theses of the models. Such a situation can confuse newcomers to the field in terms of which helix model to apply in their empirical research. We discern that the cause of this research challenge is a lack of systematic comparison of the two models. To bridge the research gap, this paper compares the models from the perspectives of how they were introduced and discussed in the literature and improved and how useful they are in addressing the innovation processes in contemporary society. Our major findings are as follows: First, reviewing the extant literature applying the two helix models for identifying research gaps, we discover that these studies were influenced by three views on the relations between the two models that were located on a continuum between two extreme ends—namely, isolation versus integration of the two models. Second, we provide a systematic comparison of both the advantages and weaknesses of the two models, and this may help researchers choose suitable helix models as conceptual/analytical tools in their empirical innovation studies. Third, our comparison of the two models shows that they are largely supplementary to each other when analysing innovation processes in contemporary society, providing a ground for potential synergy building between the two helix models.
Highlights
Innovation studies are teeming with new concepts that attempt to capture the new features of contemporary society
Among the most popular conceptual frameworks used in innovation studies, the Triple Helix and Quadruple Helix models of innovation are two seemingly competing concepts that have been broadly applied in empirical investigations in innovation studies
The Triple Helix model was originally proposed by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1995) to explain the dynamic interactions between academia, industry and government for fostering entrepreneurship, innovation and economic growth in a knowledge-based economy (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000)
Summary
Innovation studies are teeming with new concepts that attempt to capture the new features of contemporary society. Instead of seeing the Triple Helix as an outof-date concept, the authors value its conceptual elaboration on the interactions of university, industry and government and include civil society in their analytical framework In other words, they see the transition from the Triple Helix model to the Quadruple Helix model as an evolutionary process. The Quadruple Helix model was applied to study the role of non-profit organisations in innovation systems, Arranz et al (2020) appreciated the theoretical rationales of Triple Helix interactions Their analytical framework centred on how nonprofit organisations interact with the traditional helices of university, industry and government. As König et al (2020) noted, ‘there is not one Quadruple Helix, but a continuum of models, or at least varieties where different additional spheres become the focus: a “Triple Helix” +1) users model, +2) firm-centered Living Lab model, +3) public sector-centered Living Lab model and + 4) citizen-centered model or private-public-people partnerships (PPPP)’
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
