Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This contribution explores how work on Triple Helix (TH) indicators has evolved. Over the past 15 years a body of literature has emerged that brings together a variety of approaches to capture, map or measure the dynamics of TH relationships. We apply bibliographic coupling and co-citation in combination with content analysis to develop a better understanding of this literature. We identify several clusters that can be aggregated to two broad streams of work—one ‘neo-evolutionary’, the other ‘neo-institutional’ in nature. We make this observation both for bibliographic coupling and co-citation analyses which we take as indication of an emerging differentiation of the field. Our content analysis underlines this observation about the ‘two faces’ of the TH. We conclude this paper with a discussion of future opportunities for research. We see great potential in developing the application side of TH indicators.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A complete set of coupling and co-citation analyses at journal, author and other levels would go beyond the scope and scale of a journal article. The authors had to make a selection but are happy to make available other analyses to the interested colleague.

  2. Interestingly, closer inspection of citing works indicates that other scholars view the TH as a complementary framework rather than an alternative framework even though they are often discussed as competing concepts.

  3. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff differentiate the TH from Sábato’s (1975) ‘Triangle’ model in which the state is seen to play a dominating role (Sabato and Mackenzie 1982; cf. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000).

  4. Leydesdorff has worked with a wide range of co-authors to elaborate this model and apply it to bibliometric, webometric and patent data (see e.g. Park et al. 2005, #45; Leydesdorff and Fritsch 2006, #19; Leydesdorff et al. 2006, #26).

References

  • Abramson, N. (1963). Information theory and coding. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acosta, M., & Coronado, D. (2003). Science–technology flows in Spanish regions—An analysis of scientific citations in patents. Research Policy, 32(10), 1783–1803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acosta, M., Coronado, D., & Fernández, A. (2009). Exploring the quality of environmental technology in Europe: Evidence from patent citations. Scientometrics, 80(1), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auranen, O., & Nieminen, M. (2010). University research funding and publication performance—An international comparison. Research Policy, 39, 822–834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N. (2006). University patenting and licensing activity: A review of the literature. Research Evaluation, 15(3), 197–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. P. (2006). Entrepreneurial universities and technology transfer: A conceptual framework for understanding knowledge-based economic development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bibexcel. (2008). A toolbox for biblio-metricians. Version 2008-05-13, developed by Professor Olle Persson. http://www.umu.se/inforsk and http://www8.umu.se/inforsk/Bibexcel/index.html/.

  • Braczyk, H. J., Cooke, P., & Heidenreich, M. (Eds.). (1998). Regional innovation systems: The role of governance in a globalized world. London: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callaert, J., Van Looy, B., Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., & Thijs, B. (2006). Traces of prior art: An analysis of non-patent references found in patent documents. Scientometrics, 69(1), 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in Quadruple Helix innovation systems. SpringerBriefs in Business, 7. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2062-0_1.

  • Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation: Issues in higher education. Oxford: Pergamon/IAU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P., & Wyatt, S. (1988). Citations in patents to the basic research literature. Research Policy, 17(2), 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danell, R., & Persson, O. (2003). Regional R&D activities and interactions in the Swedish Triple Helix. Scientometrics, 58, 203–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, P. A., & Foray, D. (2002). An introduction to the economy of the knowledge society. International Social Science Journal, 54(171), 9–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages. Research Policy, 27, 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Social Science Information, 42, 293–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (Eds.). (1997a). Universities in the global knowledge economy. London: Cassell Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997b). Universities and the global knowledge economy: A Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: A Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Special issue of Minerva, 36, 203–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(2), 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eun, J. H., Lee, K., & Wu, G. S. (2006). Explaining the ‘University-run enterprises’ in China: A theoretical framework for university–industry relationship in developing countries and its application to China. Research Policy, 35, 1329–1346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Esquinas, M., Sebastián, J., López-Facal, J., & Tortosa-Martorell, E. (2009). Growth rings in the tree of science. The Institutional Evolution of the Spanish Council for Scientific Research. Revista internacional de sociología, 67, 251–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furukawa, T., Shirakawa, N., & Okuwada, K. (2011). Quantitative analysis of collaborative and mobility networks. Scientometrics, 87(3), 451–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garnsey, E. (1998). The genesis of the high technology milieu: A study in complexity. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22, 361–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47, 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W. (2003). Bibliometrics as a research field. Leuven: K.U. Leuven, F.E.T.E.W.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Schlemmer, B. (2007). National research profiles in a changing Europe (1983–2003): An exploratory study of sectoral characteristics in the Triple Helix. Scientometrics, 70, 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heimeriks, G., Horlesberger, M., & Van Den Besselaar, P. (2003). Mapping communication and collaboration in heterogeneous research networks. Scientometrics, 58(2), 391–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemlin, S., & Rasmussen, S. B. (2006). The shift in academic quality control. Science, Technology and Human Values, 31, 173–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: A detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, E. J., Gulbrandsen, M., & Klitkou, A. (2007). A baseline for the impact of academic patenting legislation in Norway. Scientometrics, 70(2), 393–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3), 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamada, T., & Kawai, S. (1989). An algorithm for drawing general undirected graphs. Information Processing Letters, 31(1), 7–15.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14, 10–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khan, G. F., & Park, H. W. (2011). Measuring the triple helix on the web: longitudinal trends in the university–industry–government relationship in Korea. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62, 2443–2455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitson, M., Howells, J., Braham, R., & Westlake, S. (2009). The connected university: Driving recovery and growth in the UK economy. London: NESTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klitkou, A., Nygaard, S., & Meyer, M. (2007). Tracking techno-science networks: A case study of fuel cells and related hydrogen technology R&D in Norway. Scientometrics, 70(2), 491–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford, C. H., Hall, J., Josty, P., Matos, S., & Jacobson, A. (2006). Indicators and outcomes of Canadian university research: Proxies becoming goals? Research Policy, 35(10), 1586–1598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawton-Smith, H. (2013). The research university, entrepreneurship and regional development: The case of Oxford University, Part Two. In A. Olechnicak, R. Capello, & G. Gorzelak (Eds.), Universities, cities and regions loci for knowledge and innovation creation (pp. 193–210). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lengyel, B., & Leydesdorff, L. (2011). Regional innovation systems in hungary: The failing synergy at the national level. Regional Studies, 45(5), 677–693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepori, B., Barré, R., & Filliatreau, G. (2008). New perspectives and challenges for the design and production of S&T indicators. Research Evaluation, 17, 33–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The challenge of scientometrics: The development, measurement, and self-organization of scientific communications. Leiden: DSWO Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Triple Helix as an evolutionary model of innovation. Research Policy, 29(2–3), 243–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2001). A sociological theory of communication: the self-organization of the knowledge-based society. Parkland, FL: Universal Publishers. http://www.upublish.com/books/leydesdorff.htm.

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2003). The mutual information of university–industry–government relations: An indicator of the Triple Helix dynamics. Scientometrics, 58, 445–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2008). On the normalization and visualization of author co-citation data. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 77–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The Triple Helix of university-industry-government relation. In E. Carayannis & D. Campbell (Eds.), The encyclopedia of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations (February 2012). In Elias, G. Carayannis (Ed.), Encyclopedia of creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (pp. 1844–1851). New York: Springer; with an additional note on N-Tuple of Helices, in: ibidem, pp. 1400–1402.

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a Triple Helix of university—industry—government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23, 279–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., Dolfsma, W., & Van der Panne, G. (2006). Measuring the knowledge base of an economy in terms of Triple-Helix relations among ‘technology, organization, and territory’. Research Policy, 35(2), 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies (Conference Report). Science and Public Policy, 25(3), 195–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Fritsch, M. (2006). Measuring the knowledge base of Regional Innovation Systems in Germany in terms of a Triple Helix dynamics. Research Policy, 35(10), 1538–1553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2003). The Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations: A model for innovation in the ‘knowledge-based’ economy. Scientometrics, 58(2), 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2006). The Triple Helix, indicators, and knowledge-based innovation systems. Research Policy, 35(10), 1441–1449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2007). The scientometrics of a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Scientometrics, 70(2), 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Sun, Y. (2009). National and international dimensions of the Triple Helix in Japan: University–industry–government versus international co-authorship relations. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 778–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, L. M., Chen, L. X., Wu, Y. S., & Yuan, J. P. (2012). The role of Chinese universities in enterprise–university research collaboration. Scientometrics, 90(1), 253–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López, J. J., & Robertson, A. (2007). Ethics or politics? The emergence of ELSI Discourse in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology, 44, 201–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucio-Arias, D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2009). The dynamics of exchanges and references among scientific texts, and the autopoiesis of discursive knowledge. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 261–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.-Å. (1988). Innovation as an interactive process: From user–producer interaction to the national system of innovation. In G. Dosi, C. Freeman, R. Nelson, G. Silverberg, & L. Soete (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory (pp. 349–369). London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundvall, B.-Å. (Ed.). (1992). National Innovation Systems: Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London: Pinter Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luukkonen, T., Tijssen, R. J. W., Persson, O., & Sivertsen, G. (1993). The measurement of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 28(1), 15–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshakova, I. V. (1973). System of connections between documents based on references (as the Science Citation Index). Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsiya, Seriya, 2(6), 3–8. (in Russian).

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinelli, A., Meyer, M., & von Tunzelmann, N. (2008). Becoming an entrepreneurial university? A case study of knowledge exchange relationships and faculty attitudes in a medium-sized, research-oriented university. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 259–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, H., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht: Reidel/Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, G. S., Narin, F., & Deeds, D. L. (2000). An analysis of the critical role of public science in innovation: The case of biotechnology. Research Policy, 29, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2000). Does science push technology? Patents citing scientific literature. Research Policy, 29, 409–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2002). Tracing knowledge flows in innovation systems. Scientometrics, 54(2), 193–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2005). Knowledge integrators or weak links? Inventor–authors: An exploratory comparison of patenting researchers with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology ISSI 2005. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Sweden (pp. 34–44).

  • Meyer, M. (2006). Are patenting scientists the better scholars? An exploratory comparison of inventor–authors with their non-inventing peers in nano-science and technology. Research Policy, 35(10), 1646–1662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. (2012). Triple Helix indicators—A bibliometric perspective. Hélice, 1(2), 4–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., & Bhattacharya, S. (2004). Commonalities and differences between scholarly and technical collaboration: An exploration of co-invention and co-authorship analyses. Scientometrics, 61(3), 443–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Siniläinen, T., & Utecht, J. T. (2003). Towards hybrid Triple Helix indicators: A study of university-related patents and a survey of inventors. Scientometrics, 58(2), 321–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Krahmer, F., & Schmoch, U. (1998). Science-based technologies: University–industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy, 27(8), 835–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: An assessment of the effects of the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30(1), 99–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Hamilton, K. S., & Olivastro, D. (1997). The increasing linkage between U.S. technology and public science. Research Policy, 26(3), 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., & Noma, E. (1985). Is technology becoming science? Scientometrics, 7(3–6), 369–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (Ed.). (1993). National innovation systems. A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

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

  • OECD (2003). Turning science into business: Patenting and licensing at public research organisations. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/9789264100244-en.

  • Pajek (2008). Pajek wiki. http://pajek.imfm.si/doku.php.

  • Park, H. W., Hong, H. D., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). A comparison of the knowledge-based innovation systems in the economies of South Korea and the Netherlands using Triple Helix indicators. Scientometrics, 65(1), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal trends in networks of university–industry–government relations in South Korea: The role of programmatic incentives. Research Policy, 39, 640–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (1984). Sectoral patterns of technical change: Towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy, 13, 343–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O. (1994). The intellectual base and research fronts of JASIS 1986–1990. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Persson, O., Danell, R., & Schneider, J. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In Celebrating scholarly communication studies. Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th Birthday (pp. 9–24). Leuven: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI). Retrieved January 17, 2010, from http://www8.umu.se/inforsk/Bibexcel/ollepersson60.pdf.

  • Price, D.J. de Solla. (1965). Is technology historically independent of science? A study in statistical historiography. Technology and Culture, 6(4), 553–568.

  • Ranga, L. M., Debackere, K., & Von Tunzelmann, N. (2003). Entrepreneurial universities and the dynamics of academic knowledge production: A case study of basic vs. applied research in Belgium. Scientometrics, 58, 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sábato, J. (1975). El pensamiento latinoamericano en la problemática ciencia–technología–desarrollo-dependencia. Buenos Aires: Paidós.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabato, J., & Mackenzie, M. (1982). La producción de tecnología. Autónoma o transnacional. Mexico City: Nueva Imagen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, C. B., & Miller, F. A. (2010). Reframing norms: Boundary maintenance and partial accommodations in the work of academic technology transfer. Science and Public Policy, 37, 689–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saragossi, S., & von Pottelsberghe, B. (2003). What patent data reveal about universities: The case of Belgium. Journal of Technology Transfer, 28(1), 47–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmoch, U. (1993). Tracing the knowledge transfer from science to technology as reflected in patent indicators. Scientometrics, 26(1), 193–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), 379–423.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Shinn, T. (2002). The Triple Helix and the new production of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 32, 599–614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

  • Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24, 265–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S., Ward, V., & House, A. (2011). Impact in the proposals for the UK’s Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy. Research Policy, 40(10), 1369–1379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storper, M. (1997). The regional world: Territorial development in a global economy. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, D., Thelwall, M., & Harries, G. (2007). UK academic Web links and collaboration—An exploratory study. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 231–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., & Negishi, M. (2010). Measuring the relationships among university, industry and other sectors in Japan’s national innovation system: A comparison of new approaches with mutual information indicators. Scientometrics, 82, 677–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Theil, H. (1972). Statistical decomposition analysis: With applications in the social and administrative sciences. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Toynbee, A. J. (1934). Introduction: The geneses of civilizations: A study of history (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uranga, M. G., Kerexeta, G. E., & Campas-Velasco, J. (2007). The dynamics of commercialization of scientific knowledge in biotechnology and nanotechnology. European Planning Studies, 15(9), 1199–1214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hemert, P., Nijkamp, P., & Verbraak, J. (2009). Evaluating social science and humanities knowledge production: An exploratory analysis of dynamics in science systems. Innovation. The European Journal of Social Science Research, 22, 443–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Looy, B., Magerman, T., & Debackere, K. (2007). Developing technology in the vicinity of science: An examination of the relationship between science intensity (of patents) and technological productivity within the field of biotechnology. Scientometrics, 70(2), 441–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilanova, M. R., & Leydesdorff, L. (2001). Why Catalonia cannot be considered as a regional innovation system. Scientometrics, 50(2), 215–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M., Andries, P., Zimmermann, E., Deleus, F. (2002). Linking science to technology: Using bibliographic references in patents to build linkage schemes. Scientometrics, 54(1–2), 399–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. D. (1984). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research Policy, 37(8), 1188–1204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper started out as a brief research note for the HÉLICE newsletter (Meyer 2012). We would like to thank the Editor, Devrim Göktepe, for ‘commissioning’ this piece of work and are grateful to both guest editors as well as Loet Leydesdorff and Henry Etzkowitz for encouraging comments early on in the process and their suggestion to develop the paper further. We would also like to gratefully acknowledge the feedback from two anonymous referees.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7PE, UK

    Martin Meyer

  2. Department of Informatics, London Southbank University, London, UK

    Kevin Grant

  3. Department of Business and Management, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

    Piera Morlacchi & Dagmara Weckowska

  4. ECOOM Research Centre for R&D Monitoring, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium

    Martin Meyer

  5. SC-Research Institute, University of Vaasa, Lapua, Finland

    Martin Meyer

  6. Innogen, Institute for Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Dagmara Weckowska

Authors
  1. Martin Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kevin Grant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Piera Morlacchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dagmara Weckowska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Meyer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Meyer, M., Grant, K., Morlacchi, P. et al. Triple Helix indicators as an emergent area of enquiry: a bibliometric perspective. Scientometrics 99, 151–174 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1103-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1103-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation