Abstract
Carayannis and Campbell (e.g., 2009; 2010) have argued for using Quadruple and Quintuple Helices as models encompassing and generalizing Triple-Helix dynamics. In the meantime, Quadruple and Quintuple Helices have been adopted by the European Committee for the Regions and the European Commission as metaphors for further strategy development such as in EU-programs in Smart Specialization, Plan S, Open Innovation 2.0, etc. Here we argue that the transition from a Double Helix to a Triple Helix can change the dynamic from a trajectory to a regime. However, next-order transitions (e.g., to Quadruple, Quintuple, or N-tuple Helices) can be decomposed and recombined into interacting Triple Helices. For example, in the case of four helices A, B, C, and D, one can distinguish ABC, ABD, ACD, and BCD; each triplet can generate synergy. The Triple-Helix synergy indicator can thus be elaborated for more than three dimensions. However, whether innovation systems are national, regional, sectorial, Triple-Helix, Quadruple-Helix, etc., can inform policies with evidence when one proceeds to measurement. A variety of perspectives can be used to interpret the data. Software for testing perspectives will be introduced.
Highlights
The success of the Triple Helix (TH) model of University–Industry– Government Relations in both research and policy agendas lies in its continuing applicability and capacity for stimulating fresh thought (e.g., Cai and Etzkowitz, 2020)
Quadruple and Quintuple Helices have been adopted by the European Committee for the Regions and by the European Commission, as metaphors for further strategy development such as in European Union (EU) programs for Smart Specialization, Plan S, Open Innovation 2.0, etc
In this article we argue that the transition from a Double Helix to a Triple Helix model can change the dynamic from a trajectory to a regime
Summary
The success of the Triple Helix (TH) model of University–Industry– Government Relations (see Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1995) in both research and policy agendas lies in its continuing applicability and capacity for stimulating fresh thought (e.g., Cai and Etzkowitz, 2020). Carayannis and Campbell (2009; 2010) have argued for using Quadruple and Quintuple Helices as models encompassing and generalizing Triple-Helix dynamics (see Bunders et al, 1999). In this article we argue that the transition from a Double Helix to a Triple Helix model can change the dynamic from a trajectory to a regime This is a step change: the notion of a regime underpins the case made that subsequent next-order transitions (e.g. to Quadruple, Quintuple, or N-tuple Helices) can – for analytical reasons – always be decomposed and recombined into interacting Triple Helices. No further step changes occur in such expansions For this reason, the Triple Helix model has a status different from policy models which can be derived from it; the mechanisms can be explained. Our objective is to explain the potential generation of synergy in TH, QH, and higher-order policy models
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 call
