{"title":"Have Quadruple and Quintuple Helices Emerged? Metaphors, Project Titles, and Empirical Research","authors":"Helen Lawton Smith, Loet Leydesdorff","doi":"10.1163/21971927-bja10033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the original Triple Helix model (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1995), the three “helices” of Universities, Industry and Government and the (3-way) interactions among and between them were proposed as a basis for looking at how entrepreneurship comes into being. Since the original article, other “helix-based” models have been proposed. Some vary the triple and others propose higher numbers of helix – with 4 and 5as the most typical extensions. In the article “Triple, Quadruple, and Higher-Order Helices: Historical phenomena and (neo-)evolutionary models,” Leydesdorff and Lawton Smith (2022) developed an Information-Theory based approach to look more formally at the need for higher-order helices.</p><p>In the case of two helices, processes of mutual shaping can generate historical trajectories that could have been otherwise: other options providing possible states, which have not yet historically been realized (Petersen et al., 2016). Adding a third helix makes a substantive change from an information point of view: a Triple Helix model is not just the sum of three sets of 2-way interactions. However, once this number has been reached further additions can be decomposed into sets of triads (Batagelj et al., 2014; Simmel, 1902). This leads to the suggestion that higher-dimensional helix structures potentially add little to discourse.</p><p>Four (sets of) authors were asked by the Editors of the <em>Triple Helix</em> to respond to Leydesdorff and Lawton Smith (2022). Many insightful and interesting points were raised including convenience, presentation and the need to allow a more unified theory model. These are discussed in this article’s “responses to just criticism” (Shostakovich, 1937). It continues the debate on triple and higher-order helices by summarising and responding to the points made by those commentators. What may be the status of triple and/or higher-order helices?</p>","PeriodicalId":31161,"journal":{"name":"Triple Helix","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Triple Helix","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10033","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the original Triple Helix model (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1995), the three “helices” of Universities, Industry and Government and the (3-way) interactions among and between them were proposed as a basis for looking at how entrepreneurship comes into being. Since the original article, other “helix-based” models have been proposed. Some vary the triple and others propose higher numbers of helix – with 4 and 5as the most typical extensions. In the article “Triple, Quadruple, and Higher-Order Helices: Historical phenomena and (neo-)evolutionary models,” Leydesdorff and Lawton Smith (2022) developed an Information-Theory based approach to look more formally at the need for higher-order helices.
In the case of two helices, processes of mutual shaping can generate historical trajectories that could have been otherwise: other options providing possible states, which have not yet historically been realized (Petersen et al., 2016). Adding a third helix makes a substantive change from an information point of view: a Triple Helix model is not just the sum of three sets of 2-way interactions. However, once this number has been reached further additions can be decomposed into sets of triads (Batagelj et al., 2014; Simmel, 1902). This leads to the suggestion that higher-dimensional helix structures potentially add little to discourse.
Four (sets of) authors were asked by the Editors of the Triple Helix to respond to Leydesdorff and Lawton Smith (2022). Many insightful and interesting points were raised including convenience, presentation and the need to allow a more unified theory model. These are discussed in this article’s “responses to just criticism” (Shostakovich, 1937). It continues the debate on triple and higher-order helices by summarising and responding to the points made by those commentators. What may be the status of triple and/or higher-order helices?
在最初的三螺旋模型(Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1995)中,提出了大学、产业和政府这三个“螺旋”,以及它们之间的(三向)相互作用,作为研究企业家精神如何形成的基础。自最初的文章以来,已经提出了其他“基于螺旋”的模型。一些人改变了三倍,另一些人提出了更高的螺旋数——以4和5作为最典型的扩展。在文章《三重、四重和高阶螺旋:历史现象和(新)进化模型》中,Leydesdorff和Lawton Smith(2022)开发了一种基于信息论的方法,更正式地研究了对高阶螺旋的需求。在两个螺旋的情况下,相互塑造的过程可以产生原本可能不同的历史轨迹:其他选项提供了历史上尚未实现的可能状态(Petersen et al., 2016)。从信息的角度来看,添加第三个螺旋会带来实质性的变化:三螺旋模型不仅仅是三组双向交互的总和。然而,一旦达到这个数字,进一步的加法可以分解为三合集(Batagelj等人,2014;Simmel完成,1902)。这导致了高维螺旋结构可能对话语没有什么帮助的建议。《三重螺旋》的编辑要求四(组)作者回应莱兹多夫和劳顿·史密斯(2022)。提出了许多有见地和有趣的观点,包括方便性、表达方式和允许更统一的理论模型的必要性。这些都在本文的“对公正批评的回应”(肖斯塔科维奇,1937)中进行了讨论。通过总结和回应那些评论者的观点,它继续了关于三重螺旋和高阶螺旋的辩论。三重螺旋和/或高阶螺旋的状态是什么?