The Triple Helix relationship among government, industry, and universities is regarded as a crucial source of technological innovation and sustainable economic development. However, little is known in existing research about how the Triple Helix achieves collaborative innovation within hybrid organisations. Drawing on institutional logics theory, this study addresses this gap from the perspective of entrepreneurship. We propose a new concept, the ‘Triple Helix entrepreneurship’, and regard it as the core mechanism that drives Triple Helix within hybrid organisations to achieve collaborative innovation. Based on a case study of the International Institute of Acoustic Technology (IAT) in ‘Suzhou•China Acoustic Valley’, we identify the specific connotations of Triple Helix entrepreneurship along four dimensions: logic configuration, role positioning, mission pursuit, and value evaluation. We further explain how this entrepreneurship drives the process of collaborative innovation among the Triple Helix within hybrid organisations, and how it differs from other types of entrepreneurship. Our case study not only provides new insights into the microfoundations of the Triple Helix theory, but also expands, at the cognitive level, the strategies by which hybrid organisations cope with institutional complexity, while further enriching the typology of entrepreneurship.
AertsK., MatthyssensP., & VandenbemptK. (2007). Critical role and screening practices of European business incubators. Technovation, 27(5), 254–267.
2.
BesharovM. L., & SmithW. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.
3.
CaiY. (2014). Implementing the Triple Helix model in a non-Western context: An institutional logics perspective. Triple Helix, 1(1), 1–20.
4.
CaiY. (2015). What contextual factors shape ‘innovation in innovation’? Integration of insights from the Triple Helix and the institutional logics perspective. Social Science Information, 54(3), 299–326.
5.
CaiY., & EtzkowitzH. (2021). Theorizing the Triple Helix model: Past, present, and future. Triple Helix, 7(2–3), 189–226.
6.
ChampenoisC., & EtzkowitzH. (2018). From boundary line to boundary space: The creation of hybrid organizations as a Triple Helix micro-foundation. Technovation, 76–77, 28–39.
7.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
8.
EtzkowitzH. (2002). Incubation of incubators: Innovation as a Triple Helix of university–industry–government networks. Science and Public Policy, 29(2), 115–128.
9.
EtzkowitzH. (2003). Innovation in innovation: The Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293–337.
10.
EtzkowitzH. (2008). The Triple Helix: University–industry–government innovation in action. Routledge.
11.
EtzkowitzH., de MelloJ. M. C., & AlmeidaM. (2005). Towards ‘meta-innovation’ in Brazil: The evolution of the incubator and the emergence of a Triple Helix. Research Policy, 34(4), 411–424.
12.
EtzkowitzH., & LeydesdorffL. (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.
13.
GreenwoodR., RaynardM., KodeihF., MicelottaE. R., & LounsburyM. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
14.
HuY., AhmadA. J., & LuD. (2023). Performance management challenges at Chinese business incubators: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 190, 122414.
15.
IngstrupM. B., Aarikka-StenroosL., & AdlinN. (2021). When institutional logics meet: Alignment and misalignment in collaboration between academia and practitioners. Industrial Marketing Management, 92, 267–276.
16.
IvanovaI. A., & LeydesdorffL. (2014). Rotational symmetry and the transformation of innovation systems in a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 86, 143–156.
17.
JiangC., GaoY., LiS., LuoL., & ZhuL. (2023). Characteristics and factors for the innovation performance of new R&D institutes at start-up stages: An exploratory study from China. R&D Management, 53(3), 408–433.
18.
LiM., HeL., & ZhaoY. (2020). The Triple Helix system and regional entrepreneurship in China. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 32(7–8), 508–530.
19.
LiuY., & HuangQ. (2018). University capability as a micro-foundation for the Triple Helix model: The case of China. Technovation, 76–77, 40–50.
20.
OcasioW., ThorntonP. H., & LounsburyM. (2017). Advances to the institutional logics perspective. InThe Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (2nd ed., pp. 509–531). Sage Publications.
21.
PacheA.-C., & SantosF. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.
22.
PengF., ZhangQ., HanZ., DingY., & FuN. (2019). Evolution characteristics of government–industry–university cooperative innovation network of electronic information industry in Liaoning Province, China. Chinese Geographical Science, 29(3), 528–540.
23.
PerkmannM., McKelveyM., & PhillipsN. (2019). Protecting scientists from Gordon Gekko: How organizations use hybrid spaces to engage with multiple institutional logics. Organization Science, 30(2), 298–318.
24.
RangaM., & EtzkowitzH. (2013). Triple Helix systems: An analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Industry and Higher Education, 27(4), 237–262.
25.
ReayT., & HiningsC. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.
26.
SarpongD., AbdRazakA., AlexanderE., & MeissnerD. (2017). Organizing practices of university, industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a hybrid Triple Helix model of innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 123, 142–152.
27.
SauermannH., & StephanP. (2013). Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science, 24(3), 889–909.
28.
ScillitoeJ. L., & ChakrabartiA. K. (2010). The role of incubator interactions in assisting new ventures. Technovation, 30(3), 155–167.
29.
ShuiY., MaoY., ZhangZ., & HuY. (2024). New R&D institution certification policy and urban innovation: Evidence from China. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(12), 4761–4775.
30.
SongY., SahutJ.-M., ZhangZ., TianY., & HikkerovaL. (2022). The effects of government subsidies on the sustainable innovation of university–industry collaboration. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121233.
31.
ThorntonP. H., & OcasioW. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.
32.
ThorntonP. H., OcasioW., & LounsburyM. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
33.
VialeR., & PozzaliA. (2010). Complex adaptive systems and the evolutionary Triple Helix. Critical Sociology, 36(4), 575–594.
34.
WangL., NiY., ZhaoY., & ChenY. (2024). The Triple Helix collaboration: Lessons from a Chinese provincial innovation ecosystem. Chinese Management Studies, 18(4), 1276–1289.
35.
WonglimpiyaratJ. (2016). The innovation incubator, university business incubator and technology transfer strategy: The case of Thailand. Technology in Society, 46, 18–27.
36.
WrightM., LockettA., ClarysseB., & BinksM. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.
37.
YangY., & LiuL. (2021). The politics of academic innovation: A cross-national study of the effects of regime type on knowledge production. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 29(3), 389–413.
38.
YinR. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
39.
ZhouJ., & WangM. (2023). The role of government–industry–academia partnership in business incubation: Evidence from new R&D institutions in China. Technology in Society, 72, 102194.
