Cilt 10 Sayı 1 (2022): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Makaleler

Dörtlü ve beşli sarmal üniversite-sanayi iş birliği modelleri

PDF
  • Halit Keskin,
  • Esra Ovalı
Halit Keskin
Prof. Dr., Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, İşletme Bölümü, Yönetim ve Organizasyon Anabilim Dalı, İstanbul, Türkiye
Esra Ovalı
Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, İşletme Bölümü, İstanbul, Türkiye

Yayınlanmış 26.03.2022

Anahtar Kelimeler

  • Dörtlü, Beşli, Sarmal
  • Quadruple, Quintuple, Helix

Nasıl Atıf Yapılır

Dörtlü ve beşli sarmal üniversite-sanayi iş birliği modelleri. (2022). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 10(1), 447-461. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v10i1.2031

Telif Hakkı (c) 2022 Halit Keskin- Esra Ovalı

Creative Commons License

Bu çalışma Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License ile lisanslanmıştır.

Nasıl Atıf Yapılır

Dörtlü ve beşli sarmal üniversite-sanayi iş birliği modelleri. (2022). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 10(1), 447-461. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v10i1.2031

Öz

Çalışmanın temel amacı, üçlü sarmal üniversite-sanayi iş birliği modelinin uzantısı olan dörtlü ve beşli sarmal modelleri inovasyon, sanat, yaratıcılık, çevre ve sürdürülebilir kalkınma boyutlarında açıklamaktır. Bu noktada üniversite-sanayi iş birliği modellerine yönelik öneriler, üçlü, dörtlü ve beşli sarmal inovasyon modelleri arasındaki ilişkiler ve sarmalların sürdürülebilirliğe katkıları ortaya koyulmuştur. Böylelikle üniversite, sanayi ve devlet iş birliğinde şekillenen üçlü sarmal model, medya ve kültür odaklı halk (sivil toplum) sarmalının dahil olmasıyla dörtlü sarmal inovasyon modeline dönüşmüştür. Bu kapsamda üçlü sarmal üç taraflı ağları ve hibrit örgütleri vurgularken, dörtlü sarmal sistem firmalar, kurumlar ve paydaşlar çerçevesinde iç içe geçmiş iş birliklerine, birlikte evrime ve uzmanlaşmaya odaklanmıştır. Dörtlü sarmal inovasyon sisteminde sanat ve inovasyonun birlikte evrimi bilgi üretimi ve inovasyon için merkezi bir rol üstlenmiştir. Beşli sarmal inovasyon modeli ise dörtlü sarmallara toplumun doğal çevresinin/çevrelerinin eklenmesiyle oluşmuştur. Bilgi, uzmanlık, inovasyon ve ekolojiyi disiplinlerarası çerçevede birleştiren beşli sarmal yaklaşım, sürdürülebilir kalkınmayı gerçekleştirmektedir.

PDF

Referanslar

  1. Alexander, A.T., Pearsons, S.R., Fielding, S.N. ve Bessant, J.R. (2012). The open innovation era. Are university services up to the challenge? Spain: Wiley.
  2. Arnold, M. (2013). Interdisciplinary research. Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.
  3. Arrow, K. (1962). The Economi Implications of Learning by Doing. Review of Economic Studies, 24, 155-173. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-15430-2_11.
  4. Barth, Thorsten D. (2011). The Idea of a Green New Deal in a Quintuple Helix Model of Knowledge, Know-How and Innovation. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 2(1): 1-14. doi: 10.4018/jsesd.2011010101.
  5. Bhaskar, R. (2010). Interdisciplinarity and climate change: Transforming knowledge and practice our global future. New York: Routledge.
  6. Campbell, D.F.J. ve Barth, T.D. (2009a). Wie können Demokratie und Demokratiequalität gemessen werden? Modelle, Demokratie-Indices und Länderbeispiele im globalen Vergleich. SWS-Rundschau, 49(2), 208–233.
  7. Campbell, D.F.J. (2009b). Externe Umwelten. Interdisziplinäre Wissenschaft im Wandel. Vienna: LIT.
  8. Campbell, DFJ ve Carayannis, E.G. (2013). Quality of democracy and innovation. Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.
  9. Carayannis, E. G. (2004). Measuring intangibles: managing intangibles for tangible outcomes in research and innovation. International Journal of Nuclear Knowledge Management, 1(1/2), 49–67.
  10. Carayannis, E. ve von Zedwitz, M. (2005), Architecting glocal (global–local), real–virtual incubator networks (G-RVINs) as catalysts and accelerators of entrepreneurship in transitioning and developing economies: lessons learned and best practices from current development and business incubation practices. International Journal of Technovation, 25, 2, 95–110. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00072-5.
  11. Carayannis E.G., ve Alexander J.M. (2006a). Global and local knowledge. Glocal transatlantic public–private partnerships for research and technological development. United States:Palgrave MacMillan.
  12. Carayannis, E.G. ve Campbell, D.F.J. (2006b). Mode 3: meaning and implications from a knowledge systems perspective. Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia. Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger.
  13. Carayannis, E.G. (2008). Knowledge-driven creative destruction, or leveraging knowledge for competitive advantage: strategic knowledge arbitrage and serendipity as real options drivers triggered by co-opetition, co-evolution and co-specialization. Journal of Industry and Higher Education, 22, 343–353. doi: 10.5367/000000008787225957.
  14. Carayannis E.G. ve Campbell, D.F.J. (2009). Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46, (3/4), 201–234. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374.
  15. Carayannis, E.G. ve Campbell, D.F.J. (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. doi: 10.4018/jsesd.2010010105.
  16. Carayannis, E.G. ve Campbell, D. F. J. (2011). 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 Sytem. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 2, 327-372. doi: 10.1007/s13132-011-0058-3.
  17. Carayannis, E.G., Barth, T.D. ve Campbell, D.F.J. (2012). The Quintuple Helix Innovation Model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(2):1-12. doi: 10.1186/2192-5372-1-2.
  18. Carayannis, E.G. ve Campbell, D.F.J. (2013). Mode 3 knowledge production in quadruple helix innovation systems: Quintuple Helix and social ecology. Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.
  19. Carayannis, E.G., ve Rakhmatullin, R. (2014a). The Quadruple/Quintuple Innovation Helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5, 212–239. doi: 10.1007/s13132-014-0185-8.
  20. Carayannis, E.G. ve Campbell, D.F.J. (2014b). Developed Democracies versus Emerging Authocracies: Arts, Democracy, and Innovation in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 3, 1-12. doi: 10.1186/S13731-014-0012-2.
  21. Carayannis, E.G. ve Campbell, D.F.J. (2015). Art and Artistic Research in Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems. Arts, Rearch, Innovation and Society, 29-51.
  22. Carayannis, E.G., Grigoroudis, E., Campbell, D.F.J., Meissner, D. ve Stamati, D. (2017). The ecosystem as helix: An Exploratory Theory-Building Study of Regional Co-opetitve Entrepreneural Ecosystems as Quandruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models. R&D Management, 48(1): 148-162. doi: 10.1111/radm.12300.
  23. Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Rehman, S. S. ve Samarakoon, N. (2019). Ambidextrous cybersecurity: The seven pillars (7Ps) of cyber resilience. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 223-234. doi: 10.1109/TEM.2019.2909909.
  24. Carayannis, E.G., Grigoroudis, E. ve Alexander J.M. (2020). In pursuit of smart growth: Technology Transfer Theories, Policies and Practices. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 45 (6), 1607-1610. doi: 10.1007/s10961-020-09779-5.
  25. Carayannis, E.G. ve Morawska-Jancelewicz, J. (2021a). The future of Europe: Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 as Driving Forces of Future Universities, Journal of the Knowledge Management, 1-27. doi: 10.1007/s13132-021-00854-2.
  26. Carayannis, E. G., Dezi, L., Greogri, G. ve Calo, E. (2021b). Smart environments and techno-centric and human-centric innovations for Industry and Society 5.0: A quintuple helix innovation system view towards smart, sustainable, and inclusive solutions. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1-31. doi: 10.1007/s13132-021-00763-4.
  27. Carayannis, E.G. ve Grigoroudis, E. (2022). Towards an Ambidextrous, Robust and Resilient Impact Assesment of Sustainable Smarter Specialisation Strategies, Journal of the Knowledge Management, 1-43. doi: 10.1007/s13132-022-00991-2.
  28. Colapinto, C. ve Porlezza C. (2012). Innovation in creative industries: from the quadruple helix model to the systems theory, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3, 343-353. doi: S13132-011-0051-X.
  29. Costa, J. ve Matias, J. C. (2020). Open Innovation 4.0 as an enhancer of sustainable innovation ecosystems. Sustainability, 12, 8112. doi: 10.3390/su12198112.
  30. Damianisch A. (2013) Artistic research. Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. New York: Springer.
  31. Dowling, A. (2015). The Dowling review of business-university research collaborations. London: Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, 1-86. Erişim adresi: https://www.gov.uk /government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440927/bis_15_352_The_ dowling_ review_of_business-university_rearch_collaborations_2.pdf.
  32. Dubina, I., Carayannis, E. G. ve Campbell, D.F.J. (2012). Creativity Economy and a Crisis of the Economy? Co-evolution of Knowledge, Innovation, and Creativity, and of the Knowledge Economy and Knowledge Society. Journal of Knowledge Economy, 3,1-24. doi: 10.1007/s13132-011-0042-y.
  33. Dubina, I.N., Campbell, D.F.J., Carayannis, E.G., Chub, A.A., Grigoroudis, E. ve Kozhevina, O.V. (2017). The balanced development of the spatial innovation and entrepreneurial ecosystem based on principles of the systems compromise: a conceptual framework, Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 8, 438–455. doi: 10.1007/s13132-016-0426-0.
  34. Etzkowitz, H., (1990). The Second Academic Revolution: The Role of the Research University in Economic Development. The Research System in Transition, 109-124. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-2091-0_9.
  35. Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The norms of entrepreneural science: cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkages, Research Policy, 27 (8), 823-833. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00093-6.
  36. Etzkowitz, H. ve Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Dynamics od Innovation: From National Systems and Mode 2 to Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4.
  37. European Commission. (2009). The world in 2025. Rising Asia and socio-ecological transition. Brussels: European Commission. Erişim adresi: http://ec.europa.eu/research/social-sciences/pdf/the-world-in-2025report_en.pdf.
  38. Fischer-Kowalski, M. ve Haberl, H. (2007). Socio-ecological transitions and global change. Trajectories of social metabolism and land use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  39. Foray, D., Goddard, J., Beldarrain, X. G., Landabaso, M., McCann, P., Morgan, K., Nauwelaers, C.,ve Ortega-Artilés, R. (2012). Guide to research and innovation strategies for smart specialisation (RIS3). European Commission, 1-126. Erişim Adresi: https://ec.europa.eu/ regional_policy/ sources/ docgener/presenta/smart_specialisation/smart_ris3_2012.pdf
  40. Gibbons, M, Limoges, C, Nowotny, H, Schwartzman, S, Scott, P ve Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
  41. Greening in European higher education institutions. (2021). EUA survey data. Erişim Adresi: https://eua.eu/downloads/ publications/greening%20report.pdf.
  42. Haberl, H., Fischer-Kowalski, M., Krausmann, F., Weisz, H. ve Winiwarter, V. (2004). Progress towards sustainability? What the conceptual framework of material and energy flow accounting (MEFA) can offer. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 199–213.
  43. Tunalı, H. ve Toprak, B. (2017). Dünya’da ve Türkiye’de Üniversite Sanayi İşbirliği ve Yenilikçi Üretim,Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(4), 237-257.
  44. IPPC. (2007). Historical overview of climate change science. Climate Change 2007: The physical science basis – the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, USA: Cambridge University Press.
  45. Kübler, D. (2015). De-nationalization and multi-level gov- ernance. In: Braun, D. and Maggetti, M. (eds), Compara- tive Politics: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 55–89.
  46. The Role of Universities in Regional Innovation Ecosystems, EUA. (2019). Erişim Adresi: https://eua.eu/resources/publications/819:the-role-of-universities-in-regional-innovation ecosystems.html.
  47. Mateus-Berr, R. (2013). Applied design thinking lab and creative empowering of interdisciplinary teams. Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship. New York:Springer. Erişim Adresi: http://link.springer.com /referenceworkentry/ 10.1007/ 978- 1-4614-3858-8_437 and http://www.springerreference.com/ docs/html/ chapterdbid/ 378815.html.
  48. Morawska-Jancelewicz,J. (2021). The Role of Universities in Social Innovation Within Quadruple/ Quintuple Helix Model: Practical Implications from Polish Experience, Journal of the Knowledge Economy. doi: 10.3390/su132413727.
  49. Nowotny, H., Scott, P. ve Gibbons, M. (2003). Mode 2 revisited: the new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.
  50. Öcal, D. (2013). Kunst und Politik. Art and Politics. Master Thesis. Vienna: University of Vienna.
  51. Riviezzo, A., Napolitano, M. R. ve Fusco, F. (2019). Along the pathway of university missions: A sys- tematic literature review of performance indicators. Examining the role of entrepreneurial universities in regional development. Portugal: Universidade de Lisboa.
  52. Roman, M., Varga, H., Cvijanovic, V. ve Reid, A. (2020). Quadruple helix models for sustainable regional innovation: engaging and facilitating civil society participation. Economies, 8(48), 1-15. doi: doi.org/10.3390/economies8020048.
  53. S3 Platform. (2018). The S3 Platform provides advice to EU countries and regions for the design and implementation of their Smart Specialisation Strategy (S3). Smart Specialisation Platform. Erişim adresi: https://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu
  54. UNEP. (2008). Green jobs: towards decent work in sustainable,low-carbon world. Washington/New York: United Nations Environment Program. Erişim adresi: http://www.unep.org/labour_ environment/ PDFs/ Greenjobs/UNEP-Green-Jobs-Report.pdf.
  55. UNDP. (2007). Human Development Report 2007/2008. Fighting climate change: human solidarity in a divided world. New York: United Nations Development Program. Erişim adresi: http://hdr.undp.org/ en/ reports/ global/hdr2007-2008.
  56. Vilalta, J. M., Jové, N., Gómez, V. ve Cayetano, M. (2020). 2nd GUNi international conference on SDGs: Higher education & science take action. Barcelona. Erişim adresi: http://www.guninet.work.org/.
  57. Yardımcı, A. ve Müftüoğlu, E. B. (2015). Üniversite Sanayi İşbirliğine Sanayi Kesiminin Bakışı, Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 70 (4), 815-838. doi: doi.org/10.1501/SBFder_0000002373.