The Capitalization of Knowledge
Show Less

The Capitalization of Knowledge

A Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government

Edited by Riccardo Viale and Henry Etzkowitz

This ground-breaking new volume evaluates the capacity of the triple helix model to represent the recent evolution of local and national systems of innovation. It analyses both the success of the triple helix as a descriptive and empirical model within internationally competitive technology regions as well as its potential as a prescriptive hypothesis for regional or national systems that wish to expand their innovation processes and industrial development. In addition, it examines the legal, economic, administrative, political and cognitive dimensions employed to configure and study, in practical terms, the series of phenomena contained in the triple helix category.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 9: The Role of Boundary Organizations in Maintaining Separation in the Triple Helix

Sally Davenport and Shirley Leitch


Sally Davenport and Shirley Leitch INTRODUCTION Life Sciences Network, an umbrella group of industry and scientists who support genetic engineering, wants the chance to contradict evidence given by groups opposed to GE and to put new evidence before [the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification]. (Beston, 2001, p. 8) A new hybrid organizational representation of action that is neither purely scientific nor purely political is created. (Moore, 1996, p. 1621) The triple helix is said to consist of co-evolving networks of communication between three institutional players: universities (and other research organizations), industry and government (Leydesdorff, 2000). This separation into three separate ‘strands’ implies the existence of only three players, with distinct boundaries between each sphere of activity. However, there are other organizations that mediate the interaction between science, industry and government, such as bioethics councils (Kelly, 2003) and environmental groups (Guston, 2001; Miller, 2001). These new boundary organizations have arisen in the triple helix, in order to manage ‘boundary work’ and ‘boundary disputes’ as a result of the ‘new demands on researchers and their organizations’ (Hellstrom and Jacob, 2003, p. 235). Boundaries are drawn based on the assumption that they describe ‘a stable order’. This implies that the ordering of human actions and interactions circumscribed by the boundary is restraining (Hernes and Paulsen, 2003, p. 6). However, boundaries can be both enabling and constraining (Hernes, 2003, 2004). In the mainstream management literature there is much talk of breaking down boundaries, as they are perceived to be a barrier to...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.