Int. j. econ. manag. soc. sci., Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014. pp.

325-333

TI Journals

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences

www.tijournals.com

ISSN:
2306-7276

Copyright 2014. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

Review the Industry-University Interactional Models in KnowledgeBased Economy

Hamzeh Samadi-Miarkolaei *
Ph.D. Student in Public Administration, Lecturer of Payam-e-Noor University, Member of Young Researcher Club, Qaemshahr, I. R. Iran.

Hossein Samadi-Miarkolaei
MS.c, Public Administration, Member of Young Researcher Club, Qaemshahr, I. R. Iran.
*Corresponding author: hamzeh_samadi@yahoo.com

Keywords

Abstract

University
Industry
Theories and Models
Knowledge-based Economy
Iranian Regional Quintuple Helix

The developing of the relations between Industry and University by cause and positive effect on
technological, economic and social changes and transformations was noticed by strategists, politicians
and university and industry planners, and was more effort toward creating an effective linkage between
university and industry. The 21st century is the century of knowledge-based international economic
competition. More than ever, the prosperity of nations depends on the ability of public and private
institutions, policies, managers, and workers to mobilize and exploit knowledge-intensive capabilities
and assets. Industry without online knowledge surely died and knowledge without applying in industrial
operation is not good and is valueless, this meaning is, connecting Industry and University. This present
paper purpose is reviewing the existing theories and models of relationship between Industry, University
and other affecting institutions in knowledge-based economy. In this study, we reviewed Triple Helix
models TH1, TH2, TH3 (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff), Evolutionary Schema (Bercovitz and
Feldmann), Quadruple Helix (Carayannis and Campbell), Quintuple Helix (Carayannis and
Campbell), and represented and reviewed the Islamic Republic of Irans Regional Quintuple Helix
(Samadi-Miarkolaei), and N-Tuple of Helices between Industry and University (Leydesdorff), and at
the end, we said some suggestions to improvement of relations between Industry and University.

1.

Introduction

University-Industry relations emerged as a separate field of study three decades ago as part of an increased policy emphasis on the
commercialization of research and the creation of closer linkage between basic research and societal needs. From the late 1970s many countries
changed their legislation and created support mechanisms to encourage greater interaction between universities and firms, partly in the belief
that industrial innovation had come to rely more heavily on academic research. Interest in university-industry relations also was spurred by the
rapid growth of published research working with an innovation systems perspective and other types of network perspective toward higher
education, scientific research, and industrial innovation [1]. Academic-industry relations have also spread to countries in Europe and Latin
America with different cultural and academic traditions and industrial backgrounds [2, 3].
Innovation Networks are real and virtual infrastructures and infra-technologies that serve to nurture creativity, trigger invention, and catalyze
innovation in a public and/or private domain context (for instance, Government-University-Industry Public-Private Research and Technology
Development Co-operative Partnership) [4, 5, 6].
The network relationships within the Triple Helix are changing the participating institutions into relatively autonomous yet interdependent
spheres. The initial conditions are different in various countries. In the United States, university, industry, and government are becoming less
isolated from each other. In many Latin American countries industries and universities, formerly under strict governmental control, are gaining
relative autonomy from the state. In Europe the unification process paradoxically leads to enhancement of the regional and transnational levels
of governance simultaneously, with different effects in the various member states [7].
In Human Science always we face with two limitations for scientists view that include: Time limitation and Place limitation. Of course,
Cultural limitations and Social Values are added to these limitations. So, based on Contingency and Situational Theory, a special theory
(effective and appropriate at the special situations) may be not applied and effective at the other various situations. About time so same
(acknowledged). At the historical period of times, this sentence is so meaningful become your era and times children.
By connecting University, Industry and Government in the all countries of the world and existing racial, ecological, religious differences,
specially cultural, economic, political, social and technological differences, and differences in law-maker (legislative) and affective institutions
on countries general and individual policies (micro and macro policies), every country could and should doing search, design, and
formulate appropriate model with situation of its own society and follows it.

2.

Knowledge-Based Economy

It was Schumpeter who first recognized the importance of knowledge in economy by his reference to new combinations of knowledge at the
heart of innovation and entrepreneurship. Capital consists in a great part of knowledge and organization knowledge is our most powerful
engine of production organization aids knowledge [8]. Economic models see knowledge first in terms of gathering and processing
information needed to make choices and second as an asset that contributes to production through competence and innovation. First perspective
on knowledge puts the focus on a transformation process whereby data (the actual state of the world) can be transformed first into information

Hamzeh Samadi-Miarkolaei *, Hossein Samadi-Miarkolaei

326

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

(indicators that are accessible to the agents representing the state of the world) and then into knowledge (through the processing the information
in analytical models by agents). To other major perspective is one in which knowledge is regarded as an asset. Here, knowledge may appear
both as an input (competence) and output (innovation) in the production process. Under certain circumstances, it can be privately owned and/or
bought and sold in the market as a commodity. The economics of knowledge is to a high degree about specifying the conditions for knowledge
to appear as a normal commodity. Innovation theory and competence-based theories of the firm address how knowledge can be produced,
mediated and used in a market economy [9]. Foray and Lundvall first introduced the concept of a knowledge-based economy at a workshop of
the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in 1994 [10, 11]. The term knowledge-based economy stems from this
fuller recognition of the place of the knowledge and technology in modern OECD economies. Knowledge-based economies are economies
which are directly based on the production, distribution and use of knowledge and information. The term knowledge-based economy results
from a fuller recognition of the place of the knowledge and technology in economic growth. Knowledge, as embodied in human beings (human
capital) and in technology, has always been central to economic development [10]. In a knowledge-based economy, science, knowledge,
information, and technology have been more importance and more valuable than what they were in the past. So, individuals, groups,
organizations, companies and everybody and everything which having them, they are more successful than other one. In a knowledge-based
economy, there is the main locus of economist and economic model on the Universities and other Higher Education Centers, because they are
the center of scientific and technological transformations and changes and science and knowledge production and dissemination place and could
transform the path of especially the society and generally the world.
In a knowledge-based economy-as against a political economy-the structure of society is continuously upset by transformations which originate
from the techno-sciences [12]. Launched by the European Commission March 2010, Europe 2020 is EUs 10-year growth strategy. It seeks to
enhance the delivery of growth and jobs for the present decade. At the heart of the agenda is the achievement of smart, sustainable, inclusive
growth brought about through greater coordination of national and European policy. Smart growth means developing an economy based on
knowledge and innovation. Sustainable growth means promoting a more resource-efficient, greener and more competitive economy.
Inclusive growth means fostering a high employment economy delivering social and territorial cohesion. Cooke and Leydesdorff [8] noticed
that knowledge economy and knowledge-based economy are common terms nowadays that are often used synonymously. However, this does not
settle the question of whether or not the two expressions actually mean the same thing. They shall argue that knowledge economy is the older
of the two concepts, with its origins in the 1950s. It focused mainly on the composition of the labor force. The term knowledge-based
economy has added the structural aspects of technological trajectories and regimes from a systems perspective [8]. Three sub-dynamics are
reproduced as functions of a knowledge-based economy: (1) wealth generation in the economy, (2) novelty generation by organized science and
technology, and (3) governance of the interactions among these two sub dynamic [11, 13] by policy-making in the public sphere and
management in private sphere. The economic system, the academic system and the political system can be considered as relatively autonomous
subsystems of society which operate with different mechanisms [11].

3. University and Industry Linkage

Policymakers increasingly view universities as engines of economic growth, via the commercialization of intellectual property through
technology transfer. Furthermore, many research universities have adopted formal mission statements regarding the role and importance of
licensing agreements, research joint ventures, and university-based start-up [14]. Dooley and Kirk [15] stated that the channels of universityindustry interaction can broadly be defined into four categories: 1) research support; 2) technology transfer; 3) knowledge transfer; and 4)
cooperative research [15].
Mowery and Sampat [16] also profess the view that government initiatives are based on a poor understanding of the full spectrum of roles that
universities perform in a knowledge-based society. The authors highlight that the BD model ignores the fact that channels of open science, such
as publications, conference presentations, informal interactions between faculty members and industry researchers, or faculty consulting play a
much more important role in university-industry interactions than the formal channels of patent licensing and spin-off creation [16, 17].
According to Doutriaux and Sorondo [18] University-industry linkages take many forms:
1) Teaching and training, especially in science and engineering;
2) Research relationships;
3) Exchange of knowledge, and
4) Technology transfer [18].
In the way of creating and developing effective linkage between University and Industry must be know their basic aims, activities, abilities,
capacities, and differences, and in order to overcoming to this differences and infrastructure the effective relation must recognized their mutual
expectations.
At this view, Aghajani et al [19], Aghajani and Samadi-Miarkolaei [20], and Samadi-Miarkolaei [21, 22], bring some Industry expectations
from University: 1) producing suitable and useful publications; 2) basic and applied research; 3) university course reengineering and its
adaptation and connection with industry needs and requirements; 4) industry personnel and managers teaching; 5) university motion towards
entrepreneurial university, and 6) seminars, conferences and showplaces creating, and bring some University expectations from Industry: 1)
human resources employment by university graduates; 2) knowledge application within industrial operations; 3) researches commercialization
and capitalization; 4) taking good and valuable documents and license; 5) student Industrial apprenticeship; 6) scholarship and placement; 7)
industrial tour and study visits and 8) faculty and staff exchange [19, 20, 21, 22].
University-industry linkage schemes play an instrument role in turning scientific findings into new technologies and commercial applications
and, reciprocally, in suggesting new scientific research directions by providing universities with new questions relevant to industry. Universityindustry linkage schemes can take various forms, including: university research funded by industry; faculty consulting; creation of technology
transfer office to encourage the creation of start-up companies or promote the licensing of intellectual property rights owned by universities to
firms; and industry consortia to support university research. As OECD countries are moving towards knowledge-based economies, research
universities respond to the growing demand for basic knowledge and highly-skilled human capital, and thereby, contribute indirectly to
technological development and productivity growth. Research universities also directly support innovation by providing firms with solutions to
technological problems. In many OECD countries, such direct contribution of research universities to economic development has gained in
importance among policy-makers. Research universities are increasingly asked to proactively accelerate the transfer of their research findings to
the market. University-industry linkage schemes typically seek to raise the direct contribution from research universities to economic
development. There are a number of barriers to collaboration between research universities and industry. One of the main barriers relates to their
different goals. While research universities have as a central goal the understanding of natural phenomena and technologies, industry is
traditionally the main locus of innovation. Despite these two different goals, there are complementarities between the activities of universities

327

Review the Industry-University Interactional Models in Knowledge-based Economy

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

and industry that can be exploited through university-industry linkage schemes in order to boost economic development. Several factors should
be considered when implementing university-industry linkage schemes: 1) Culture, management, and goal alignment; 2) Institutional incentives;
3) Intellectual property rights, and 4) Interactions with other policy instruments [23].
UIG relations can be considered as a knowledge infrastructure where three institutional actors interact as relatively independent entities.
However, as Dzisah and Etzkowitz noted, the coordinating role of government in both developing and developed societies is key to improving
the conditions for active collaboration among institutional spheres [24].

4. Linkage Models of University-Industry

4.1 Evolutionary Schema of University-Industry
Bercovitz and Feldmann [25] represented a conceptual model of University-Industry. Authors noticed that Universities relationships with
industry are formed through a series of sequential transactions such as sponsored research, licenses, spin-off firms and the hiring of students.
Scholars have tended to analyze formal mechanisms such as sponsored research agreements, licenses, or equity swaps. Bercovitz and Feldmann
[25] said that firm-industry interactions combine formal and informal interactions and are influenced by firm strategy and industry
characteristics, university policies as well as the structure of the technology transfer operations and the parameters defined by government
policy. The core elements in university-industry relationships are transactions that occur through the mechanisms of sponsored research support
(including participation and sponsorship of research centers), agreements to license university intellectual property, the hiring of research
students, and new start-up firms [25].
4.2 University-Industry-Government Triple Helix Model
Three models have recently been proposed for the explanation of the socioeconomic relations of the knowledge-base: (1) the model of national
system of innovations, (2) the model of an emerging Mode 2 of the production of scientific knowledge, and (3) the model of a Triple Helix of
university-industry-government relations. The Triple Helix model improves on the national system of innovation model by declaring
governance as a variable. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff focused on the network overlay of communication and expectations that reshape the
institutional arrangements among universities, industries, and governmental agencies. They hypothesized a potentially salient role of the
university since the knowledge production function is increasingly made part of the knowledge infrastructure [26]. The Triple Helix thesis
states that the university can play an enhanced role in innovation in a knowledge-based economy [26, 27].
The Triple Helix model was originally formulated as an alternative to two competing theories [27, 28]: one about national systems of innovation
and the second celebrating the new production of knowledge or Mode 2. The proponents of the Mode 2 thesis argued that the social
system had undergone a radical transition that had changed the mode of knowledge production. Advocates of the Mode 2 thesis argued that
disciplinary-based knowledge would increasingly become obsolete and should be replaced with techno-scientific knowledge generated in transdisciplinary projects [28]. Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff [27, 29] and Leydesdorff [12, 30] proposed the model of a Triple Helix of universityindustry-government relations for explaining structural developments in knowledge-based economies [12, 27, 29, 30]. The triple helix model
illustrates how relations between policy makers, scientists and business must be framed in order to account for healthy linking of research and
technological and commercial opportunities [31]. In the Triple Helix model of knowledge-based economy, the main institutions have first been
defined as university, industry, and government [11, 29]. Etzkowitz [32] noticed that the Triple Helix thesis postulates that the interaction in
university-industry-government is the key to improving the conditions for innovation in a knowledge-based society. Industry operates in the
Triple Helix as the locus of production; government as the source of contractual relations that guarantee stable interactions and exchange; the
university as a source of new knowledge and technology, the generative principle of knowledge-based economies [32].
Shinn noted that the strength of the Triple Helix model is its focus on university relations because the university can be expected to play a
crucial role in the long-term dynamics of the knowledge-based system given the steady stream of students as influx and output to the labor
market. Is the university as an institution changing because of commercial pressures, changes (e.g., cuts) in government funding, entrepreneurial
activities (such as patents, licensing, spin-offs, etc.)? Is there a tendency to provide funding for elite universities as against rank-and-file state
universities that focus primarily on mass education? [33].
4.2.1 Triple Helix 1 (TH1)
The evolution of innovation systems, and the current conflict over which path should be taken in university-industry relations, are reflected in
the varying institutional arrangements of university-industry-government relations. First, one can distinguish a specific historical situation which
one may wish to label Triple Helix I (TH1). In this configuration the nation state encompasses academia and industry and directs the relations
between them (see Fig 1) [26, 27]. In the strong state model government controls academia and industry [34]. The strong version of this
model could be found in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern European countries under existing socialism. Weaker versions were
formulated in the policies of many Latin American countries and to some extent in European countries such as Norway [26, 27].

Hamzeh Samadi-Miarkolaei *, Hossein Samadi-Miarkolaei

328

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

Academia

state

Industry

Academi
a
State

Industry

Figure 1. An etatistic model of universityindustrygovernment [27]. Figure 2. A laissez-faire model of universityindustrygovernment[27].

4.2.2 Triple Helix 2 (TH2)

A second policy model (Fig 2) consists of separate institutional spheres with strong borders dividing them and highly circumscribed relations
among the spheres, exemplified in Sweden by the noted Research 2000 Report and in the US in opposition to the various reports of the
Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable (GUIRR) of the National Research Council [26, 27]. In the laissez-faire model each of
three helices develops quite independently, separated by clear borderlines [34]. Antonelli [35] stated that the institutional domains of
GovernmentUniversityIndustry in TH2 configuration are separated each other by social, cultural, and technological strong rational borders.
One of the basic characteristics of this configuration of institutional model is division of labor between University, Industry, and Government
[35]. In this model, university doing education and research; industry transforming research results to goods and services, and government
support them and provide requirement infrastructures.
4.2.3 Triple Helix 3 (TH3)
Finally, Triple Helix III is generating a knowledge infrastructure in terms of overlapping institutional spheres, with each taking the role of the
other and with hybrid organizations emerging at the interfaces (Fig 3) [26, 27].
In the model of trilateral networks and hybrid organizations, the dynamics of the helices can be characterized by increased overlapping and
the emergence of so-called hybrid organizations at the interfaces. This pattern of amplified interaction defines the preferred scenario for the
development of the advanced and knowledge-based economies [34]. The triple helix model posits three spheres, overlapping and interacting
freely, with each taking the role of the other, producing hybrid organizations such as the science parks, spin-offs, university-run enterprises
and the incubator from interactions. The triple helix development model is derived from Boston regional organizing experience in the 1930s
and 1940s and comprises three basic elements: First, a more prominent role for the university in innovation. Second, a movement toward
collaborative relationships among the three major institutional spheres in which innovation policy is increasingly an outcome of interaction
among university-industry-government. Thirdly, in addition to fulfilling their traditional functions, each institutional sphere it also taking the
role of the other [36].

Tri-lateral networks and

hybrid organizations

Academia

State

Industry

Figure 3: The Triple Helix Model of UniversityIndustryGovernment Relations [27].

329

Review the Industry-University Interactional Models in Knowledge-based Economy

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

According to Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz [26] Triple Helix I is largely viewed as a failed developmental model. With too little room for
bottom up initiatives, innovation was discouraged rather than encouraged. Triple Helix II entails a laissez-faire policy, nowadays also
advocated as shock therapy to reduce the role of the state in Triple Helix I. In one form of another, most countries and regions are presently
trying to attain some form of the fully fledged Triple Helix III model [26], and the (neo-) evolutionary model of a Triple Helix UniversityIndustry-Government Relations focuses on the overlay of expectations, communications, and interactions that potentially feedback on the
institutional arrangements among the carrying agencies [37].
4.3. Quadruple Helix of relationship between University and Industry
The metaphor of a Triple Helix (TH) of university-industry-government relations [27] more or less invites proposals to extend the model to
more than three helices [38]. In a paper by topic Can The Public Be Considered as a Fourth Helix in University-Industry-Government
Relations?, Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz [13] entered within a new phase of University-Industry Relations. The believed that the formulation of
public demand for technological innovations may help to stimulate the transition to an increasingly knowledge-based economy [13]. Carayannis
and Campbell [39] extended the Triple Helix to Quadruple Helix by adding the helix of a media-based and culture-based public [6, 39, 40].
Quadruple Helix, in this contex, means to add to the triple helix of Government, University, and Industry a fourth helix that we identify as the
media-based and culture-based public. This fourth helix associates with media, creative industries, culture, values, lifecycles, art,
and perhaps also the nation of the creative class, [6, 39]. Afonso et al., [42] believed that according to the Quadruple Helix Innovation Theory
(QHIT), a countrys economic structure lies on four pillars/helices: Academia; Firms, Government and Civil Society, and economic growth is
generated by the clustering and concentration of talented and productive people. Creative cities and knowledge regions are thus considered the
true engines of economic growth. The role of Civil Society is specified on the assumption side of our economy, where households demand for
and consume the innovation, knowledge, technology, products and services, in the form of the final good, the aggregate output of our economy
[42].

Figure 4 & 5. Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix of relationship between University and Industry [6, 40, 41]

4.4. Quintuple Helix of relationship between University and Industry

Carayannis and Campbell [41] contextualized the Triple Helix and Quadruple Helix to The Quintuple Helix by further adding on the helix of the
environment (natural environment). The Quintuple Helix thus offers an analytical frame or framework where knowledge and innovation, on
the one hand, are being connected with the environment, on the other hand. By this the Quintuple Helix addresses and incorporates features of
social ecology [41]. Furthermore: The Quintuple Helix can be proposed as a framework for transdisciplinary (and interdisciplinary) analysis
of sustainable development and social ecology [6, 41]. According to Carayannis and Campbell [6, 41], The Triple Helix may be regarded as a
core model for innovation, resulting from interactions in knowledge production referring to universities (higher education), industries
(economy), and governments (multilevel). The Triple Helix is being contextualized by the broader innovation model of the Quadruple Helix,
which is blending in features of the public, for example civil society and the media-based and culture-based public. The Quintuple Helix
innovation model, finally, contextualizes the Quadruple Helix (and Triple Helix). The Quintuple Helix brings in the perspective of the natural
environments of society and the economy for knowledge production and the innovation system. For the purpose of further discussion and
analysis we lastly wane to propose and introduce the five-helix model of the Quintuple Helix, where the environment or the natural
environments represent the fifth helix [6, 41]. Carayannis and Campbell [6] so believed that a sustainable balance between the paths of
development of society and the economy, with their natural environments, is essential for the further progress of human civilizations. The
Quintuple Helix, however, also emphasizes that the natural environments should be conceptualized as drivers for the further advancing of
knowledge production and innovation systems. Thus, the Quintuple Helix model appears to be compatible with the interests, also analytical
interests of social ecology and sustainable development [6] (see Fig 4 & 5).
4.5. Iranian regional Quintuple Helix of relationship between University and Industry
Managing the relationships between University-Industry never is simple. Indeed, by existence of the mediating and interfacing institutions,
university-industry relations are quite complex and it would become more complex because of the presence of more helices. In order to
enhancement of the University and Industry relationships and collaborations, based on administrative and political system of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, Samadi-Miarkolaei [21, 43], represents an Iranian Regional Five-looped Interactional Model (Quintuple Helix) that includes
following loops (see Fig 6):
1) Government. As a supplier of the infrastructures and as a catalyzer and facilitator of the relationships between University and Industry,
Government plays a key role. Government performs these by supporting finance (funding), policy-making, and creating and preparing the

Hamzeh Samadi-Miarkolaei *, Hossein Samadi-Miarkolaei

330

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

appropriate grounds for these relations. Governments modify and control interactions between two players of science and technology. So,
governments play a key role in societys development and its motion towards accomplishment to its best goals and objectives. In order to
provide an appropriate encouraging climate and space to university and industry collaborations, the role of the government must be transformed
from an actor and agent to an enabler and regulator through an incremental process. There are two reasons for governments involvement within
related affaires to innovation and countrys technological development such as: 1) existential necessity of basic researches as public goods, and
2) planning and controlling of the technological national innovation system. Indeed, the government plays two basic roles in innovation system:
first, technology supply as public goods and technology demand for public goods, and second, managing the national innovation system as a
dynamic system that has competitive interaction with comparable systems in the world. Government is a subsystem of the national innovation
system and furthermore, because of its surrounding on national innovation system, government could plan and control it.
2) University as an educational and research institution and as a science and knowledge producer, and as a technology transfer sphere plays a
key role in a part of the relationships between University and Industry. Because of the knowledge importance in the knowledge-based economy,
economic models focus on the role of the university and that considered as a central core. University could cause society development in the all
of aspects such as economic, cultural, technological, political, citizenship and social aspects. Likewise, the role of the university must be
changed towards providing research and technological services to industry, instead of preparing only human resources. In order to attain this,
beside traditional educational and research structure, the universities structure should be service-oriented. Universities should be involved in
technology transfer and diffusion. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, this includes knowledge transfer partnerships and knowledge transfer
networks, which provide financial-social development. Also, Universities should be engaged in knowledge management cycle: knowledge
creation, knowledge retention, knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing (among their members and with other partners), and knowledge utilizing.
3) Industry is the manufacturing part of national economy. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, there are numerous and different industries that
manufacture different service, agricultural, and industrial goods. Countrys industries can be categorized into two parts: industries that
manufacture terminal goods and industries that manufacture hardy instrumental goods. In addition to achievement to self-owned profits, as a
main transformer of conducted researches and produced knowledge by the university to creation of the new productions, goods, and services,
industry provides peoples (society) needed productions and services. Industry is considered as a commercialization and capitalization hub of
the science, knowledge, and research results.
4) Assembly of Islamic Council (the House of the Nation) as legislative institution and reflector of people willingness, performs in definition
and modification of the type and the extent of relationships and interactions between university and industry by legislating and policy-making
activities. The Assembly of Islamic Council could participate in these linkages by bringing laws in appropriateness to country cultural, religious,
and ecological conditions. Now, it can be said that the Assembly of Islamic Council placed out of the relationships between GovernmentUniversity-Industry approximately.
According to (56) basis of Islamic Republic of Iran basic law (or construction), faculties at I.R. Iran are: legislative power, Executive power
and the Judgment power that are at based on Velayat and Imam Surrounding1 that powers are independent together (I.R.I. basic law 2011).
Separating power do at Islamic Republic of Iran and France. For this subject, Government influences on relationship between University and
Industry in Iran. The Assembly and Judgment power are effect on this relation. The Assembly of Islamic Council is pivot of decision-making in
the country. The Assembly of Islamic Council includes number of commissions and Assemblys Research Bureau that are responsible for
exploration, disquisition and investigation about all of the affaires within the country.
According to (57) basis of Islamic Republic of Irans basic law (or construction) legislative power takes Assembly of Islamic Council that by
voting person come to there and for doing take to Judgment and executive power (IRI. basic law 2011).
Irans Assembly at general problems at Islamic limitation takes law. Iran Assembly cans entre to all country works. All international treaties
and agreements should take Assembly agreement at foreign relation entre. Judgment power is independent power that support individual, group
and social that have this duties: 1) taking and bring law; 2) general low and developing freedom, and 3) doing law [43].
5) Society (People and Environment) that have main role in this relationships and collaborations. Resources supplying of university and
industry such as human resources, natural resources and other resources, and attaining to scientific, cultural, economic, political, social and other
advancements, is affected by connections and interactions between university and industry. It is society that wants to create relation and
collaboration between university and industry and needs the results of these relations.
In effect of interacting and involving the helices in relationships, it is created a joint area in Iranian regional five-looped interactional model
(Quintuple Helix) (see diagram 8), and in this area, all of helices play effectively and actively their own role. There are following collaborations
in this area: 1) Incubators; 2) Techno-markets; 3) Research and Knowledge Commercialization and Capitalization; 4) Science and Technology
Parks; 5) Conferences, Seminars and Showplaces; 6) Faculty and Staff Exchange; 7) Spin-off Firms; 8) Start-up Firms; 9) R&D Contracts; 10)
Participative Researches; 11) Taking Good and Valuable Documents and License to Students and Professors Research Project; 12) Patenting;
13) Licensing; 14) Granting; 15) Technology Transfer, and 16) Intellectual Property Rights [21, 43].

1. Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran

331

Review the Industry-University Interactional Models in Knowledge-based Economy

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

Figure 6. Iranian regional Quintuple Helix of relationship between University and Industry [21, 43].

4.6. N-Tuple Helicesof relationship between University and Industry

The Triple Helix indicator can be extended algorithmically, for example, with local-global as a fourth dimension or, more generally, to an Ntuple of helices [12]. In response to Carayannis and Campbells [39] introduction of a Quadruple Helix and the further extension to a Quintuple
Helix by Carayannis and Campbell [41], Leydesdorff [12, 38] argued that an N-tuple of helices can be expected in a pluriform and differentiated
society [12, 38]. Leydesdorff [38] argued that a pluriform society is no longer coordinated by a central instance, but functions in terms of
interactions among variously coded communications. Money, for example, can be considered as a prime example of a symbolically generalized
medium of communication: it enables us to pay without having to negotiate the price of a commodity. Power, truth, trust, and affection are other
performative media. In a knowledge-based economy, in other words, one should not only optimize the retention of wealth from knowledge,
but also nourish the generation of further research questions from social and economic demand. Variety is required in different dimensions of a
triple or n-tuple helix so that differently coded discourses can select upon each other and interact [38]. One may wish to move beyond the Triple
Helix model with three relevant selection environments, but every further dimension requires substantive specification, operationalization in
terms of potentially relevant data, and sometimes the further development of relevant indicators [38]. Iranian regional five-looped interactional
model (Quintuple Helix) Samadi-Miarkolaei [21, 43] place in this type, why which in this model in addition of three institutional spheres
namely University, Industry, and Government, are determined and explained the role of Assembly of Islamic Council and Society (such as:
People, Media, Culture, Religion, Environment, and Country Natural Ecology).

5.

Conclusion

By considering above text, in the evolutionary way of the university and industry relations, it is predictable that mission and nature of effective
institutional spheres have been changing and transforming in this relations. In the primary relations models (TH1), government encompassed
university and industry and directs the relations between them, and surely they have specified and limited mission and roles and interactions
between two spheres defined and modified by government. But, by moving toward newer models (e.g. TH2), we saw that the boundaries among
three institutional spheres university-industry-government have been more clear, and create exactly division of labor among them. University
doing education and research, and produces science and knowledge; industry transforming research results to goods and services (capitalization
or wealth creation), and government support them and provide requirement infrastructures. In the TH3 model, interactions take the more
dynamics, in addition to their owned traditional roles universities and other educational centers taking the roles of the other spheres, means, in
addition to student and human resources teaching and education, doing science research, science and knowledge production, creating and
administrating University-based Companies (Incubators (growth centers), Science and Technology Parks, Technology Transfer Offices
(TTO), Techno-Markets, Spin-off and Start-up Firms that are created by student and faculty personnel to exploit a research result produced with
the research institution's physical, human and financial resources and to apply and commercialization science and knowledge), doing basic and
applied research, manufacturing productions result in their produced science and knowledge (Innovation, Entrepreneurship, research
Capitalization and Commercialization), and self-funding, University taking the role of the other. Today, in addition to their traditional role,
Industry doing research and education, creating participative R&D with government and university, making educational centers and teaches
their personnel (taking the role of the other). So Government goes beyond its traditional roles and mission by policy-making, cooperation in
research and development (R&D), education, production and manufacturing, funding, and collaboration in university-based companies, hybrid
organizations, and multi-lateral networks result in this interactions (taking the role of the other). By moving towards new models, we would
observe that institutions come together closely, taking overlap, and slowly has been increase on extent of this overlapping, until could not
determine the limits and boundaries between institutions and could not say that a special activity is related to one special institution. In other
word, it causes institutions re-separation and re-autonomous, means, every institution entered to every aspects and situations (such as: teaching,
education, research, commercialization, innovation, funding, R&D, and company creating), without being professional in a special aspect. In the
other word, could say that by increasingly overlapping in more developing models of linkage between university and industry omit limits and
boundaries and this is worried, if policy-making and managing these interactions and exchanges do not work well by weakness of policy-maker
and managing institutions. And finally, this sentence is correct that main and central core of National and Regional Innovation System is
University-Government-Industry Triple Helix, but every country could and should doing search, design, and formulate appropriate
regional models of relationships between university and industry with situation of its own society and effective institutions on countries policymaking and legislative processes and general and individual policies (micro and macro policies), and follows it. Thus, by consideration to

Hamzeh Samadi-Miarkolaei *, Hossein Samadi-Miarkolaei

332

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

affecting factors and institutions on University-Industry relation models increased new helices, until according to Leydesdorff [38], N-Tuple of
Helices model create.
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, institutions such as: University-Government-Industry-Assembly of Islamic Council-Judgment Power-Society
(including: people by difference ideas, thought, races, religious, values, cultures, traditions, rituals, habits, and life style), Media (including:
press, publications, scientific journal, radio, and TV) and Natural and Ecological Environment could consider as N helices of regional relation
model University-Industry. In this way, the role of main institutions must be redefine, and study, clear and highlight the role of new institutions
and their affects. We have argued that University-Industry relations can be more complex by adding the next helix. Next helix would be
international environment and international interactions between institutional spheres. Institutional spheres are active within the global arena,
not within vacuum.

References
[1]
Gulbrandsen, M. Mowery, C.D. and Feldman, M. (2011). Introduction to the special section: Heterogeneity and universityindustry relations. Research
Policy, 40, 15.
[2]
Leydesdorff, L. and Guoping, Z. (2001). University-Industry-Government Relations in China: An emergent national system of innovations. Industry
and Higher Education, 15(3), 179-182.
[3]
Etzkowitz,
H.
(2005).
The
Bi-Evolution
of
the
University
in
the
Triple
Helix
Era.
http://www.ie.ufrj.br/eventos/seminarios/pesquisa/a_universidade_e_o_desenvolvimento_regional.pdf Accessed 22 March 2005.
[4]
Carayannis, E.G. and Alexander, J. (1999). Winning by Co-opeting in Strategic Government-University-Industry (GUI) Partnerships: The Power of
Complex, Dynamic Knowledge Networks. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24 (2/3, August), 197210.
[5]
Carayannis, E.G. and Alexander, J. (2004). Strategy, Structure and Performance Issues of Precompetitive R&D Consortia: Insights and Lessons
Learned. IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management, 52 (2).
[6]
Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F.J. (2012). Mode 3 Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Systems. 21st-Century Democracy,
Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Development. Springer Briefs in Business, Volume 7. New York, NY: Springer.
[7]
Leydesdorff, L. and Etzkowitz, H. (2001a). The Transformation Of University-industry-government Relations. Electronic Journal of Sociology (2001),
5(4).
[8]
Cooke, P. and Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: the construction of advantages. Journal of Technology
Transfer, 31(1), 5-15.
[9]
OECD. (2000). Knowledge Management in the Learning Society, Paris, OECD.
[10]
OECD. (1996a). The Knowledege-Based Economy. Paris, OECD.
[11]
Leydesdorff, L. (2010). The Knowledge-Based Economy and the Triple Helix Model, (Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 44
(2010)), 367-417.
[12]
Leydesdorff, L. (2012a). The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, , and an N-Tuple of Helices: Explanatory Models for Analyzing the Knowledge-Based
Economy?. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3(1) (forthcoming) (http://www.springerlink.com/content/x543613918677871/). Accessed 10 September 2012.
[13]
Leydesdorff, L. and Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Can the Public Be Considered as a Fourth Helix in University-Industry-Government Relations?. Report of
the Fourth Triple Helix Conference. Science & Public Policy, 30(1), 55-61.
[14]
Sharif, N. and Baark, E. (2006). Mobilizing technology transfer from university to industry: The experience of Hong Kong universities. Journal of
Technology Management in China, 3(1), 47-65.
[15]
Dooley, L. and Kirk, D. (2007). University-industry collaboration: Grafting the entrepreneurial paradigm onto academic structures. European Journal
of Innovation Management, 10(3), 316-332.
[16]
Mowery, D.C. and Sampat, B.N. (2005). Universities in National Innovation systems. In J. Fagenberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson, (Eds.) Oxford
Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press.
[17]
Novotny, . (2008). Academic entrepreneurship in Hungary: Can the Bayh-Dole model of university technology transfer work in an Eastern European
context?. Social and Management Sciences, 16(2), 7180.
[18]
Doutriaux, J. and Sorondo, A. (2005) .University-Industry Cooperation Comparing the Canadian and Uruguayan experiences., Ottawa and
Montevideo, September. http://www.relec.com.ar/arti/industry.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2010.
[19]
Aghajani, H. Samadi-Miarkolaei, H. and Yahyatabar, F. (2010). Seventh Mutual Expectations of University and Industry. Proceeding 1st National
Technology and Research Management Conference, 27-28 December 2010, I.R.Iran, Tehran.
[20]
Aghajani, H. and Samadi-Miarkolaei, H. (2011). Mutual Expectations of University and Industry. Proceeding 1st International Conference of
Management, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship. 15-16 February 2011, I.R.Iran, Shiraz.
[21]
Samadi-Miarkolaei, H. (2011a). Regional Quintuple Helix of University, Industry, Government, Islamic Legislative Council, Society (People and
Environment) Collaborations. Proceeding 1st National Technology and Research Management Conference, 27-28 November 2011, I.R.Iran, Tehran.
[22]
Samadi-Miarkolaei, H. (2011b). Joint Collaborations and Relationships of University and Industry. Proceeding 1 st National Technology and Research
Management Conference, 27-28 November 2011, I.R.Iran, Tehran.
[23]
OECD. (2011). Public sector research - core policy instruments - university-industry linkage schemes. Paris, OECD.
[24]
Park, H.W. and Leydesdorff, L. (2010). Longitudinal Trends in Networks of University-Industry-Government Relations in South Korea: The Role of
Programmatic Incentives. Research Policy, 39(5), 640-649.
[25]
Bercovitz, J. and Feldmann, M. (2006). Entrepreneurial Universities and Technology Transfer: A Conceptual Framework for Understanding
Knowledge-Based Economic Development. Journal of Technology Transfer, 31, 175188.
[26]
Leydesdorff, L. and Etzkowitz, H. (2001b). A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations: Mode 2 and the Globalization of
National Systems of Innovation, in Karen Siune (eds), Science under Pressure Proceedings, pp: 7-34, The Danish Institute for Studies in Research and Research
Policy, 2001/1.
[27]
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The Dynamics of Innovation: From National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of UniversityIndustry-Government Relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.
[28]
Leydesdorff, L. and Deakin, M. (2011). The Triple Helix Model and the Meta-Stabilization of Urban Technologies in Smart Cities. Journal of Urban
Technology, 18(2), 53-63.
[29]
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix---University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge-Based
Economic Development. EASST Review, 14, 14-19.
[30]
Leydesdorff, L. (2012b). The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations (February 2012). In E. G. Carayannis & D. Campbell (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, New York: Springer, 2013 (in preparation); additional note on N-Tuple of Helices, in: ibidem.
http://www.leydesdorff.net/th12/ntuple.pdf. Accessed 10 September 2012.
[31]
Etzkowitz, H. Webster, A. and Healey, P. (1998). Introduction. In H. Etzkowitz, A. Webster, P. Healey, (Ed.) Capitalizing Knowledge: New
Intersections of Industry and Academia, (pp. 1-17). New York: State University of New York Press.
[32]
Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Social Science Information, 42 (3),
293-338.
[33]
Leydesdorff, L. (2012c). Sociological and Communication-Theoretical Perspectives on the Commercialization of the Sciences. Science & Education
(2012; 3 may); doi: 10.1007/s11191-012-9458-4.

333

Review the Industry-University Interactional Models in Knowledge-based Economy

International Journal of Economy, Management and Social Sciences Vol(3), No (6), June, 2014.

[34]
Campbell, D.F.J. (2006). The University/Business Research Networks in Science and Technology: Knowledge Production Trends in the United States,
European Union and Japan. In E.G. Carayannis, & D.F.J. Campbell (Ed.): Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use in Innovation Networks and Knowledge
Clusters. A Comparative Systems Approach across the United States, Europe and Asia (pp. 67100). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
[35]
Antonelli, C. (1999). The evolution of the industrial organization of the production of knowledge. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 8, 823833.
[36]
Dzisah, J. and Etzkowitz, H. (2001). The Renewal of the African University: Towards a Triple Helix Development Model. Ethiopia Triple Helix
Conference, 2008, pp: 180-193.
[37]
Leydesdorff, L. (2001a). Knowledge-Based Innovation Systems and the Model of a Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations. Paper
presented at the Conference. New Economic Windows: New Paradigms for the New Millennium. Salerno, Italy, September 2001.
[38]
Leydesdorff, L. (2012d). N-Tuple of Helices, The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations (February 2012). In E. G. Carayannis &
D. Campbell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Creativity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship, New York: Springer, 2013 (in preparation).
[39]
Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F.J. (2009). Mode 3 and Quadruple Helix: toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International
Journal of Technology Management, 46(3), 201-234.
[40]
Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F.J. (November 2010a). Creativity, Arts and the Knowledge Economy. Call for Papers: Journal of the Knowledge
Economy (JKEC), Special Issue.
[41]
Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F.J. (2010b). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and How Do Knowledge, Innovation, and
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.
[42]
Afonso, O. Monteiro, S. and Thompson, M. (2010). A Growth Model for the Quadruple Helix Innovation Theory, NIPE Working Paper 12, University
of Minho, http://www3.eeg.uminho.pt/economia/nipe/docs/2010/NIPE_WP_12_2010.pdf
[43]
Samadi-Miarkolaei, H. and Samadi-Miarkolaei, H. (2013). Theories and Models of Relationship Between Industry and University in Knowledge-based
Economy. Journal of Science & Technology Parks & Incubators, Vol. 9, No. 35, Jul-Sep 2013, 59-70.