Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Open Innovation Diplomacy and a 21st Century Fractal Research, Education and Innovation (FREIE) Ecosystem: Building on the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Concepts and the “Mode 3” Knowledge Production System

  • Published:
Journal of the Knowledge Economy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The traditional Triple Helix innovation model focuses on university–industry–government relations. The Quadruple Helix innovation systems bring in the perspectives of the media-based and culture-based public as well as that of civil society. The Quintuple Helix emphasizes the natural environments of society, also for the knowledge production and innovation. Therefore, the quadruple helix contextualizes the triple helix, and the quintuple helix the quadruple helix. Features of the quadruple helix are: culture (cultures) and innovation culture (innovation cultures); the knowledge of culture and the culture of knowledge; values and lifestyles; multiculturalism, multiculture, and creativity; media; arts and arts universities; and multi-level innovation systems (local, national, global), with universities of the sciences, but also universities of the arts. The democracy of knowledge, as a concept and metaphor, highlights and underscores parallel processes between political pluralism in advanced democracy, and knowledge and innovation heterogeneity and diversity in advanced economy and society. The “mode 3” knowledge production system (MODE3KPS; expanding and extending the “mode 1” and “mode 2” knowledge production systems) is at the heart of the fractal research, education and innovation ecosystem. MODE3KPS universities or higher education systems are interested in integrating and combining mode 1 and mode 2. The concept of open innovation diplomacy (OID) encompasses the concept and practice of bridging distance and other divides (cultural, socioeconomic, technological, etc.) with focused and properly targeted initiatives to connect ideas and solutions with markets and investors ready to appreciate them and nurture them to their full potential. In this sense, OID qualifies as a new and novel strategy, policy-making, and governance approach in the context of the quadruple and quintuple innovation helices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Carayannis, BILAT, March 2011, SAIS TRC, June 2011 and Springer JKEC, Fall 2011.

  2. See Carayannis and Campbell, IJTM, 2009.

  3. See Carayannis and Campbell, IJTM, 2009.

  4. See Carayannis, BILAT, March 2011, SAIS TRC, June 2011 and Springer JKEC, Fall 2011.

  5. Furthermore, see Milbergs [84].

  6. See discussion on democracy in the conclusion of this article.

  7. “Culture is the invisible force behind the tangibles and observables in any organization, a social energy that moves people to act. Culture is to the organization what personality is to the individual—a hidden, yet unifying theme that provides meaning, direction, and mobilization” [67].

  8. Technology is defined as that “which allows one to engage in a certain activity…with consistent quality of output,” the “art of science and the science of art” [27], or “the science of crafts” [6].

  9. We consider the following quote useful for elucidating the meaning and role of a “knowledge nugget” as a building block of the “mode 3 innovation ecosystem”: “People, culture, and technology serve as the institutional, market, and socio-economic ‘glue’ that binds, catalyzes, and accelerates interactions and manifestations between creativity and innovation as shown in Figure 3, along with public-private partnerships, international Research & Development (R&D) consortia, technical/business/legal standards such as intellectual property rights as well as human nature and the ‘creative demon’. The relationship is highly non-linear, complex and dynamic, evolving over time and driven by both external and internal stimuli and factors such as firm strategy, structure, and performance as well as top-down policies and bottom-up initiatives that act as enablers, catalysts, and accelerators for creativity and innovation that leads to competitiveness” [31] (p. 593).

  10. Of course there may also be systems of clusters and networks or clusters and networks of systems.

  11. Carayannis and von Zedtwitz [35].

  12. Networking is important for understanding the dynamics of advanced and knowledge-based societies. Networking links together different modes of knowledge production and knowledge use and also connects (subnationally, nationally, transnationally) different sectors or systems of society. Systems theory, as presented here, is flexible enough for integrating and reconciling systems and networks, thus creating conceptual synergies.

  13. Carayannis and Alexander [33].

  14. Carayannis and Alexander [29].

  15. Carayannis [27] discusses chaos theory and fractals in connection to technological learning and knowledge and innovation system architectures: “Chaos theory is a close relative of catastrophe theory, but has shown more potential in both explaining and predicting unstable non-linearities, thanks to the concept of self-similarity or fractals [patterns within patterns] and the chaotic behavior of attractors (Mandelbrot) as well as the significance assigned to the role that initial conditions play as determinants of the future evolution of a non-linear system [61]. There is a strong affinity with strategic incrementalism, viewed as a third-order (triple-layered), feedback-driven system that can exhibit instability in any given state as a result of the operational, tactical, and strategic technological learning…that takes place within the organization in question.”

  16. “A fractal is a geometric object which is rough or irregular on all scales of length, and so which appears to be ‘broken up’ in a radical way. Some of the best examples can be divided into parts, each of which is similar to the original object. Fractals are said to possess infinite detail, and some of them have a self-similar structure that occurs at different levels of magnification. In many cases, a fractal can be generated by a repeating pattern, in a typically recursive or iterative process. The term fractal was coined in 1975 by Benoît Mandelbrot, from the Latin fractus or ‘broken’. Before Mandelbrot coined his term, the common name for such structures (the Koch snowflake, for example) was monster curve. Fractals of many kinds were originally studied as mathematical objects. Fractal geometry is the branch of mathematics which studies the properties and behavior of fractals. It describes many situations which cannot be explained easily by classical geometry, and has often been applied in science, technology, and computer-generated art. The conceptual roots of fractals can be traced to attempts to measure the size of objects for which traditional definitions based on Euclidean geometry or calculus fail” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal).

  17. On “innovation culture,” see also [69] (pp. 954, 958, 962).

  18. For a further possible application of the Creative Knowledge Environments, see [101].

  19. Figure 4 should be seen here as a suggestion, as an input for discussion. The conceptual feasibility of Fig. 4 still would have to be tested.

  20. Loet Leydesdorff [74] launched the interesting intellectual experiment of engaging in theorizing on “N-tuple helices” of innovation systems, introducing here multidimensional view perspectives.

  21. This, of course, also challenges our external and internal governance models of higher education. For an overview on governance approaches in higher education, see Ferlie et al. [55]; see also [3]. On structures and changes of universities, see also [71–73].

  22. In the German language, “university-related” would qualify as “außeruniversitär” [13] (p. 99).

  23. The “academic firm,” as a notion and concept, was first developed by Campbell and Güttel [21].

  24. In many contexts, this second option appears to be more realistic, particularly when we analyze multinational companies or corporations that operate in global context.

  25. Another branch of knowledge can be based on education and its diversified manifestations.

  26. In that context, also the mutual overlapping between R&D, S&T, and information and communication technology should be stressed.

  27. Should we add a further comment to the concepts of modes 1 and 2, it would be interesting to consider how modes 1 and 2 relate to the notions of “science one” and “science two,” which were developed by Umpleby [111].

  28. Concerning a further-going discussion of the technology life cycles, see [46, 109].

  29. A political mode could be seen as a particular political approach (clustering political parties, politicians, ideologies, values, and policies) to society, democracy, and the economy. Conservative politics, liberal politics, or social democratic politics could be captured by the notion of a “political mode.”

  30. Perhaps, only when the whole world is being defined as one global knowledge cluster and innovation network, then, for the moment, we cannot aggregate and escalate further to a mega-cluster or mega-network.

  31. For example, Joseph A. Schumpeter [105] emphasized this method-based criterion for democracy.

  32. For more information on Freedom House, see http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=1.

  33. On the web, the Democracy Ranking can be visited at http://www.democracyranking.org/en/.

  34. For attempts trying to analyze the quality of a democracy, see for example Campbell and Schaller [20].

  35. On “democratic innovation,” see, furthermore, Saward [104].

  36. The disjointed incrementalism approach to decision making (also known as partisan mutual adjustment) was developed by Lindblom [76, 77] and Lindblom and Cohen [78] and found several fields of application and use: “The Incrementalist approach was one response to the challenge of the 1960s. This is the theory of Charles Lindblom, which he described as ‘partisan mutual adjustment’ or disjointed incrementalism. Developed as an alternative to RCP, this theory claims that public policy is actually accomplished through decentralized bargaining in a free market and a democratic political economy” (http://www3.sympatico.ca/david.macleod/PTHRY.HTM).

  37. “Studies have shown that the early period of a new area of technology is often characterized by technological ferment but that the pace of change slows after the emergence of a dominant design” (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4035/is_1_45/ai_63018122/print).

  38. The term constitutes the brainchild or conceptual branding of the authors as part of this journey of discovery and ideation.

References

  1. Anbari FT, Umpleby SA (2006) Productive research teams and knowledge generation. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 26–38

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barth TD (2010) Konzeption, Messung und Rating der Demokratiequalität. Brasilien, Südarfika, Australien und die Russische Föderation 1997–2006. VDM Verlag Dr. Müller, Saarbrücken

    Google Scholar 

  3. Biegelbauer P (ed) (2010) Steuerung von Wissenschaft? Die Governance des österreichischen Innovationssystems. Studienverlag, Innsbruck

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brandenburger AM, Nalebuff BJ (1997) Co-opetition. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bush V (1945) Science: the endless frontier. United States Government Printing Office, Washington. http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm#transmittal

  6. von Braun CF (1997) The innovation war. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  7. Caduff C, Siegenthaler F, Wälchli T (2010) Art and artistic research. Zurich Yearbook of the Arts. Zurich University of the Arts, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  8. Campbell DFJ (1992) Die Dynamik der politischen Links-Rechts-Schwingungen in Österreich: Die Ergebnisse einer Expertenbefragung. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 21(2):165–179

    Google Scholar 

  9. Campbell DFJ (1994) European nation-state under pressure: national fragmentation or the evolution of suprastate structures? Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal 25(6):879–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell DFJ (1999) Evaluation universitärer Forschung. Entwicklungstrends und neue Strategiemuster für wissenschaftsbasierte Gesellschaften. SWS-Rundschau 39(4):363–383

    Google Scholar 

  11. Campbell DFJ (2000) Forschungspolitische Trends in wissenschaftsbasierten Gesellschaften. Strategiemuster für entwickelte Wirtschaftssysteme. Wirtschaftspolitische Blätter 47(2):130–143

    Google Scholar 

  12. Campbell DFJ (2001) Politische Steuerung über öffentliche Förderung universitärer Forschung? Systemtheoretische Überlegungen zu Forschungs- und Technologiepolitik. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 30(4):425–438. http://www.oezp.at/pdfs/2001-4-04.pdf

  13. Campbell DFJ (2003) The evaluation of university research in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. In: Shapira P, Kuhlmann S (eds) Learning from science and technology policy evaluation: experiences from the United States and Europe. Edward Elgar, Camberley, pp 98–131

    Google Scholar 

  14. Campbell DFJ (2005) Demokratie, Demokratiequalität und Grundrechte: Ein Vergleich der Fiedler- und EU-Verfassung. Unpublished Manuscript, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  15. Campbell DFJ (2006) The university/business research networks in science and technology: knowledge production trends in the United States, European Union and Japan. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 67–100

    Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell DFJ (2006b) Nationale Forschungssysteme im Vergleich. Strukturen, Herausforderungen und Entwicklungsoptionen. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 35(1):25–44. http://www.oezp.at/oezp/online/online.htm

  17. Campbell DFJ (2008) The basic concept for the democracy ranking of the quality of democracy. Democracy Ranking, Vienna. http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/basic_concept_democracy_ranking_2008_A4.pdf

  18. Campbell DFJ (2010) Key findings (summary abstract) of the Democracy Ranking 2010 and the Democracy Improvement Ranking 2010. Democracy Ranking, Vienna. http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/Key%20findings%20of%20the%20Democracy%20Ranking%202010_A4.pdf

  19. Campbell DFJ (2011) Wissenschaftliche “Parallelkarrieren”als Chance. Wenn Wissenschaft immer öfter zur Halbtagsbeschäftigung wird, könnte eine Lösung im „Cross-Employment“liegen. Guest Commentary for DIE PRESSE (February 2, 2011). http://diepresse.com/home/bildung/meinung/635781/Wissenschaftliche-Parallelkarrieren-als-Chance?direct=635777&_vl_backlink=/home/bildung/index.do&selChannel=500

  20. Campbell DFJ, Schaller C (eds) (2002) Demokratiequalität in Österreich. Zustand und Entwicklungsperspektiven. Opladen: Leske + Budrich. http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12473

  21. Campbell DFJ, Güttel WH (2005) Knowledge production of firms: research networks and the “scientification” of business R&D. Int J Technol Manag 31(1/2):152–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Campbell DFJ, Barth TD (2009) Wie können Demokratie und Demokratiequalität gemessen werden? Modelle, Demokratie-Indices und Länderbeispiele im globalen Vergleich [How can democracy and the quality of democracy be measured? Models, democracy indices and country-based case studies in global comparison]. SWS-Rundschau 49(2):209–233. http://www.ssoar.info/ssoar/View/?resid=12471

  23. Carayannis EG (1993) Incrementalisme Strategique. Le Progrès Technique (no. 2). Paris, France

  24. Carayannis EG (1994). Gestion Strategique de l’Apprentissage Technologique. Le Progrès Technique (no. 2). Paris, France

  25. Carayannis EG (1999) Knowledge transfer through technological hyperlearning in five industries. International Journal of Technovation 19(3, March):141–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Carayannis EG (2000) Investigation and validation of technological learning versus market performance. International Journal of Technovation 20(7, July):389–400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Carayannis EG (2001) The strategic management of technological learning. CRC, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  28. Carayannis EG (2004) Measuring intangibles: managing intangibles for tangible outcomes in research and innovation. Int J Nucl Knowl Manag 1:49–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Carayannis EG, Alexander J (1999) Winning by co-opeting in strategic government–university–industry (GUI) partnerships: the power of complex, dynamic knowledge networks. J Technol Transf 24(2/3, August):197–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Carayannis EG, Alexander J (1999) Technology-driven strategic alliances: tools for learning and knowledge exchange in a positive-sum world. In: Dorf RC (ed) The technology management handbook. CRC, Boca Raton (1–32 until 1–41)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Carayannis EG, Gonzalez E (2003) Creativity and innovation = competitiveness? When, how, and why, vol. 1, chapter 8. In: Shavinina LV (ed) The international handbook on innovation. Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp 587–606

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Carayannis EG, Gonzalez E, Wetter J (2003) The nature and dynamics of discontinuous and disruptive innovations from a learning and knowledge management perspective, vol. 1, chapter 4. In: Shavinina LV (ed) The international handbook on innovation. Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp 115–138

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Carayannis EG, Alexander J (2004) Strategy, structure and performance issues of pre-competitive R&D consortia: insights and lessons learned. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 52(2)

  34. Carayannis EG, Laget P (2004) Transatlantic innovation infrastructure networks: public–private, EU-US R&D partnerships. R&D Management 34(1):17–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Carayannis EG, von Zedtwitz M (2005) Architecting gloCal (global–local), real–virtual incubator networks (G-RVINs) as catalysts and accelerators of entrepreneurship in transitioning and developing economies. Technovation 25:95–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Carayannis EG, Alexander JM (2006) Global and local knowledge. Glocal transatlantic public–private partnerships for research and technological development. Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills

    Google Scholar 

  37. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2006) “Mode 3“: meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 1–25

    Google Scholar 

  38. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2006) Conclusion: key insights and lessons learned for policy and practice. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 331–341

    Google Scholar 

  39. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2006) Introduction and chapter summaries. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp ix–xxvi

    Google Scholar 

  40. Carayannis EG, Sipp C (2006) E-development toward the knowledge economy: leveraging technology, innovation and entrepreneurship for “smart development”. Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills

    Google Scholar 

  41. Carayannis EG, Ziemnowicz C (eds) (2007) Rediscovering Schumpeter. Creative destruction evolving into “mode 3”. Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills

    Google Scholar 

  42. Carayannis EG, Spillan JE, Ziemnowicz C (2007) Introduction: why Joseph Schumpeter’s creative destruction? Everything has changed. In: Carayannis EG, Ziemnowicz C (eds) Rediscovering Schumpeter. Creative destruction evolving into “mode 3”. Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills, pp 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  43. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2009) “Mode 3” and “quadruple helix”: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management 46(3/4):201–234. http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=27&year=2009&vol=46&issue=3/4

  44. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2010) Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A Proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development 1(1):41–69. http://www.igi-global.com/bookstore/article.aspx?titleid=41959

  45. Carayannis, Elias G (2012). The knowledge of culture and the culture of knowledge. Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills (in press)

  46. Cardullo MW (1999) Technology life cycles. In: Dorf RC (ed) The technology management handbook. CRC, Boca Raton (3–44 until 3–49)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Colapinto C, Porlezza C (2012) Innovation in creative industries: from the quadruple helix model to the systems theory. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1) (in press). http://www.springerlink.com/content/rx725r81u9l199g5/

  48. Cesaroni F, Gambardella A, Garcia-Fontes W, Mariani M (2004) The chemical sectoral system: firms, markets, institutions and the processes of knowledge creation and diffusion. In: Malerba F (ed) Sectoral systems of innovation. Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 121–154

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Danilda I, Lindberg M, Torstensson B-M (2009) Women Resource Centres. A quattro helix innovation system on the European Agenda. Paper. http://www.hss09.se/own_documents/Papers/3-11%20-%20Danilda%20Lindberg%20&%20Torstensson%20-%20paper.pdf

  50. De Geus A (1988) Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review 66:2, 70 (Winter)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Drucker P (1985) Innovation and entrepreneurship. Penguin Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  52. Dubina IN, Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (2012) Creativity economy and a crisis of the economy? Coevolution of knowledge, innovation, and creativity, and of the knowledge economy and knowledge society. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1) (in press). http://www.springerlink.com/content/t5j8l12136h526h5/

  53. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy 29:109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Etzkowitz H (2003) Research groups as “quasi-firms”: the invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy 32:109–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ferlie E, Musselin C, Andresani G (2008) The steering of higher education systems: a public management perspective. Higher Education 56(3):325–348. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n22v78885l377144/fulltext.pdf

  56. Fischer-Kowalski M, Haberl H (eds) (2007) Socioecological transitions and global change. Trajectories of social metabolism and land use. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  57. Florida R (2004) The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. Basic Books, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  58. Gerybadze A, Reger G (1999) Globalization of R&D: recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Research Policy 28:251–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Geuna A, Martin BR (2003) University research evaluation and funding: an international comparison. Minerva 41:277–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  61. Gleick J (1987) Chaos: making a new science. Viking, New York

    Google Scholar 

  62. Godoe H (2007) Doing innovative research: “mode 3” and methodological challenges in leveraging the best of three worlds. In: Carayannis EG, Ziemnowicz C (eds) Rediscovering Schumpeter. Creative destruction evolving into “mode 3”. Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills, pp 344–361

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hall PA (1993) Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state. The case of economic policymaking in Britain Comparative Politics 25:257–296

    Google Scholar 

  64. Hemlin S, Allwood CM, Martin BR (2004) Creative knowledge environments. The influences on creativity in research and innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hooghe L, Marks G (2001) Multi-level governance and european integration. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  66. Kaiser R, Prange H (2004) The reconfiguration of national innovation systems—the example of German biotechnology. Research Policy 33:395–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Killman R (1985) Gaining control of the corporate culture. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kline SJ, Rosenberg N (1986) An overview of innovation. In: Landau R, Rosenburg N (eds) The positive sum strategy. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kuhlmann S (2001) Future governance of innovation policy in Europe—three scenarios. Research Policy 30:953–976

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Kuhn TS (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  71. Krücken G (2003) Mission impossible? Institutional barriers to the diffusion of the “third academic mission” at German universities. Int J Technol Manag 25(1/2):18–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Krücken G (2003) Learning the “new, new thing”: on the role of path dependency in university structures. High Educ 46(3):315–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Krücken G, Meier F, Müller A (2007) Information, cooperation, and the blurring of boundaries—technology transfer in German and American discourses. High Educ 53(6):675–696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Leydesdorff L (2012) The triple helix, quadruple helix,…, and an N-tuple of helices: explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1) (in press). http://www.springerlink.com/content/x543613918677871/

  75. Lindberg M, Danilda I, Torstensson B-M (2012) Women Resource Centres—a creative knowledge environment of quadruple helix. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1) (forthcoming). http://www.springerlink.com/content/t47q129240051g31/

  76. Lindblom CE (1959) The science of muddling through. Public Administration Review 19:79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Lindblom CE (1965) The intelligence of democracy. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  78. Lindblom CE, Cohen DK (1979) Usable knowledge: social science and social problem solving. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  79. Lundvall B-Å (ed) (1992) National systems of innovation. Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  80. Malerba F (ed) (2004) Sectoral systems of innovation. Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  81. McKelvey M, Orsenigo L, Pammolli F (2004) Pharmaceuticals analyzed through the lens of a sectoral innovation system. In: Malerba F (ed) Sectoral systems of innovation. Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 73–120

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  82. McNiff S (1998) Art-based research. Jessica Kingsley, London

    Google Scholar 

  83. McNiff S (2008) Art-based research. In: Knowles JG, Cole AL (eds) Handbook of the arts in qualitative research. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 29–40

    Google Scholar 

  84. Milbergs E (2005) Innovation ecosystems and prosperity. Center for Accelerating Innovation. http://www.innovationecosystems.com

  85. Miyata Y (2003) An analysis of research and innovative activities of universities in the United States. In: Shavinina LV (ed) The international handbook on innovation. Pergamon, Amsterdam, pp 715–738

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  86. Müller WC, Strøm K (2000) Conclusion: coalition governance in Western Europe. In: Strøm K (ed) WC Müller. Coalition governments in Western Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 559–592

    Google Scholar 

  87. National Science Board (2010) Science and engineering indicators 2010. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdfstart.htm

  88. Nelson RR (ed) (1993) National innovation systems. A comparative analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  89. Nelson R, Winter S (1982) Dynamics of technological change. Columbia University Press, New York

  90. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  91. Nowotny H, Scott P, Gibbons M (2003) Mode 2 revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva 41:179–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. O’Donnell G (2004) Human Development, Human Rights, and Democracy. In: O’Donnell G, Cullell JV, Iazzetta OM (eds) The quality of democracy. Theory and applications. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, IN, pp 9–92

    Google Scholar 

  93. OECD (1994) Frascati manual. The measurement of scientific and technological activities. Proposed standard practice for surveys of research and experimental development. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  94. OECD (1998) Science, technology and industry outlook. OECD, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  95. OECD (2002) Frascati manual 2002. The measurement of scientific and technological activities. proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. OECD, Paris. http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?CID=&LANG=EN&SF1=DI&ST1=5LMQCR2K61JJ

  96. OECD (2006) Research and development statistics. OECD, Paris (Online database)

    Google Scholar 

  97. Pfeffer T (2006) Virtualization of research universities. Raising the right questions to address key functions of the institution. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 307–330

    Google Scholar 

  98. Plasser F (ed) (2004) Politische kommunikation in Österreich. Ein praxisnahes Handbuch. WUV-Universitätsverlag, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  99. Plasser F, Plasser G (2002) Global political campaigning. A worldwide analysis of campaign professionals and their practices. Praeger, Westport

    Google Scholar 

  100. Polanyi M (1962) The republic of science: its political and economic theory. Minerva 1:54–74. http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_5100/polanyi_1967.pdf and http://fiesta.bren.ucsb.edu/∼gsd/595e/docs/41.%20Polanyi_Republic_of_Science.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  101. Resetarits R, Resetarits-Tincul A-M (2012) Fuzzy concepts—a new approach in the description of boundaries as creative knowledge environments in educational sciences. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1) (in press). http://www.springerlink.com/content/j463335233513170/

  102. Rycroft RW, Kash DE (1999) The complexity challenge. Technological innovation for the 21st century. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  103. Ritterman J, Bast G, Mittelstraß J (eds) (2011) Art and research. Can artists be researchers? Springer, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  104. Saward M (ed) (2006) Democratic innovation: deliberation, representation and association. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  105. Schumpeter JA (1942) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Harper, New York

    Google Scholar 

  106. Shapira P, Kuhlmann S (eds) (2003) Learning from science and technology policy evaluation. Experiences from the United States and Europe. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  107. Shavinina LV (2003) The international handbook on innovation. Pergamon, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  108. Steinmueller WE (2004) The European software sectoral system of innovation. In: Malerba F (ed) Sectoral systems of innovation. Concepts, issues and analyses of six major sectors in Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 193–242

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  109. Tassey G (2001) R&D Policy Models and Data Needs. In: Feldman MP, Link AN (eds) Innovation policy in the knowledge-based economy. Kluwer Academic, Boston, pp 37–71

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  110. Umpleby SA (1997) Cybernetics of conceptual systems. Cybernetics and Systems: An International Journal 28:635–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Umpleby SA (2002) Should knowledge of management be organized as theories or as methods? In: Trappl R (ed) Cybernetics and systems 2002. Proceedings of the 16th European meeting on cybernetics and systems research, vol 1. Austrian Society for Cybernetic Studies, Vienna, pp 492–497

    Google Scholar 

  112. Umpleby SA (2005) What I learned from Heinz von Foerster about the construction of science. Kybernetes 34(1/2):278–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Volkens A, Klingemann H-D (2002) Parties, ideologies, and issues. Stability and change in fifteen European party systems 1945–1998. In: Luther KR, Müller-Rommel F (eds) Political parties in the New Europe. Political and analytical challenges. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 143–167

    Google Scholar 

  114. Von Hippel E (1995) The sources of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  115. Hippel E (2005) Democratizing innovation. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  116. Von Zedtwitz M, Gassmann O (2002) Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization: four different patterns of managing research and development. Research Policy 31(4):569–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Von Zedtwitz M, Heimann P (2006) Innovation in clusters and the liability of foreignness of international R&D. In: Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ (eds) Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Praeger, Westport, pp 101–122

    Google Scholar 

  118. Yau LFC (2012) The arts in a knowledge economy: creation of other knowledges. Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3 (1) (in press). http://www.springerlink.com/content/n38t14j275250376/

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, Department of Information Systems and Technology Management, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

    Elias G. Carayannis

  2. Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies (IFF), Institute of Science Communication and Higher Education Research (WIHO), University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria

    David F. J. Campbell

  3. Unit for Quality Enhancement (UQE), University of Applied Arts Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    David F. J. Campbell

Authors
  1. Elias G. Carayannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David F. J. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elias G. Carayannis.

Additional information

On the OID concept, see Carayannis, NATO Conference, 2010; Carayannis, BILAT Conference, Vienna, Austria, March 2011; Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies Transatlantic Research Center Conference, Washington, DC, June 2011, and Springer Journal of the Knowledge Economy (JKEC), Fall 2011 (forthcoming).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J. Open Innovation Diplomacy and a 21st Century Fractal Research, Education and Innovation (FREIE) Ecosystem: Building on the Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Concepts and the “Mode 3” Knowledge Production System. J Knowl Econ 2, 327–372 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0058-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0058-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation