Smart Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems

“Global warming” represents an ecological (also socio-ecological) issue of importance and concern. Currently it can be stated that concentrations of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere are reaching historical all-time highs, which is causing severe ecological and environmental problems, for example, global warming (World Meteorological Organization, 2017). Due to the escalation of global warming, it is time for humanity to think and act responsibly and determine sustainable solutions. Global warming, in addition to climate change, has caused the world to undertake new responsibilities (see IPCC, 2007a, 2007b), which not only include further climate change but in the long term also hold humanity accountable in the prevention of new political and/or social conflicts, war on resources, new environmental catastrophes, as well as serious crises in the market economies (see UNDP, 2007; UNEP, 2008). The special challenge of global warming can be tackled by “sustainable development.” Sustainable development concerns us all and takes place on the local as well as global level. Hence, sustainable development has to be understood in the context of “gloCal knowledge economy and society” (see Carayannis & Campbell, 2011; Carayannis & Alexander, 2006; Carayannis & Von Zedtwitz, 2005). Therefore, we must perceive global warming not as a challenge but rather as an opportunity to live innovatively and effectively in union with nature for a better tomorrow.

The Wikipedia definition of knowledge, also cross-referencing to the Oxford English dictionary, lists as a crucial element of knowledge “the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.” The Wikipedia definition furthermore associates knowledge to “expertise, and skills” that a person may have gained either by experience or through education. Currently, there exists a general belief (indicated by numerous publications) that knowledge becomes increasingly important for society, economy, and also democracy. Advancements and a sustainable development of society and the economy appear unlikely without leveraging and enhancing knowledge. This adds plausibility for using concepts such as the knowledge-based society, the knowledge-based economy, and the knowledge-based democracy (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009, p. 224). Perhaps there is even a shift not only to speak of the knowledge-based society and economy but of a knowledge society and a knowledge economy per se that is being endogenously driven by knowledge. The concept of a knowledge democracy consequently complements such propositions.

The author team of Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott, and Trow (Gibbons et al., 1994) distinguishes between two different modes of knowledge production. “Mode 1” focuses on the traditional role of university research in an elderly “linear model of innovation” understanding. This reflects a basic university research, interested in “first/basic principles” and “discoveries,” with a disciplinary research structure, where quality is being controlled primarily by disciplinary peers or a disciplinary peer review process. These disciplinary peers exercise a strong quality gatekeeper function and represent also a university (higher education) system with powerful hierarchies, built into the institutions (Gibbons et al., 1994, p. 1, 3, 24, 33–34, 43–44, 167). Success in Mode 1 (of Mode 1 university research) is defined as a quality or excellence that is approved by hierarchically established peers: “Success in Mode 1 might perhaps be summarily described as excellence by disciplinary peers” (Gibbons et al., 1994). Mode 1 is not concerned with the application, diffusion, and use of knowledge, and Mode 1 does not focus on features in relation to problem-solving for the society or the economy. Nonlinear innovation models are of no major concern for Mode 1.

Society could be designed or understood to consist of different subsystems (or systems). The political system and the economic system are such examples. Politics and the economy are being embedded by society; thus society, in this understanding, is more comprehensive than politics and the economy. For every societal subsystem, the other subsystems of society or society as a whole represents “social environments” (societal environments). In a spatial (spatial-political) multi-level architecture, societies could be located at different levels of aggregation, ranging from sub-national (local, regional) to national and transnational (supranational, global). Society again is being contextualized by the “natural environment” (the natural environments).

Universities, or higher education institutions (HEIs) in more general, have three main functions: teaching and education, research (research and experimental development, R&D), and the so-called “third mission” activities, for example, innovation (Campbell & Carayannis, 2013b, p. 5). In reference to “arts universities” now, the question and challenge arise, whether to which extent and in which way the arts universities differ from the (more traditional) universities in the sciences. Arts universities obviously place an emphasis on the arts, and the arts are not identical with the sciences. However, also arts universities frequently make references to the sciences; thus also arts universities can express competences in teaching and in carrying out research in the sciences. The other major challenge of arts universities is to engage in “artistic research” and “arts-based innovation.” By this, arts universities (and other higher education institutions in the arts) are also being linked to and are being interlinked with national innovation systems and multilevel innovation systems. This widens the whole interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary spectrum of higher education systems. “Artistic research” furthermore complements the “teaching of arts” at arts universities (see also the propositions formulated by Bast, 2013). Hybrid and innovative combinations of universities of arts and universities of the sciences are possible and indicate organizational opportunities for promoting creativity (Campbell, 2013b).

The Lancet Commission (2017) has released a critical report on the ecological status of the world, with the following core assessment: