In the context of the global knowledge economy, the three major players – university, industry, and government – are becoming increasingly interdependent. As more intensified interactions and relationships of increasing complexity among the institutions evolve, the Triple Helix model attempts to describe not only interactions among university, industry and government, but also the internal metamorphosis of each sector. This study explores the implications of the Triple Helix framework through a qualitative case study analysis of the University of Alabama, a public flagship university without a long history of external grant support located in the southeastern USA.
BaldwinD.GreenJ. (1984–85), ‘University–industry relations: A review of the literature’, Journal of the Society of Research Administrators, Vol 15, No 3, pp 5–17.
2.
BetzF. (1996), ‘Industry/university centres in the USA: Connecting industry to science’, Industry and Higher Education, Vol 10, No 6, pp 349–354.
3.
BHEF (1984), Corporate and Campus Cooperation: An Action Agenda, Business–Higher Education Forum Washington, DC.
4.
BlumenthalD.GluckM. (1986), ‘University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: Implications for the university’, Science, Vol 232, pp 1361–1366.
5.
BogdanR. C.BiklenS. K. (1992), Qualitative Research for Education, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA.
6.
BushV. (1945), Science, the Endless Frontier. A Report to the President, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
7.
CohenW.FloridaR.GoeW. (1994), University-Industry Research Centers in the United States, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
8.
DupreJ.S.LakoffS.A. (1962), Science and the Nation: Policy and Politics, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
9.
EtzkowitzH. (1998), ‘The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university–industry linkages’, Research Policy, Vol 27, pp 823–833.
10.
EtzkowitzH. (2003), ‘Innovation in innovation: The Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations’, Social Science Information, Vol 42, No 3, pp 293–337.
11.
EtzkowitzH. (2004), ‘The evolution of the entrepreneurial university’, International Journal of Technology and Globalization, Vol 1, No 1, pp 64–77.
12.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (1998), ‘The endless transition: A “Triple Helix” of university–industry–government relations’, Minerva, Vol 36, pp 203–208.
13.
EtzkowitzH.LeydesdorffL. (2000), ‘The dynamics of innovation: From national system and “mode2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations’, Research Policy, Vol 29, pp 109–123.
14.
FairweatherJ.S. (1988), Entrepreneurship and Higher Education: Lessons for Colleges, Universities and Industry, Association for the Study of Higher Education, Washington, DC.
15.
FellerI. (1990), ‘Universities as engines of R&D-based economic growth: They think they can’, Research Policy, Vol 19, No 4, pp 335–348.
16.
FusfeldJ. I.HaklischC.S. (1987), ‘Collaborative industrial research in the US’, Technovation, Vol 5, No 4, pp 305–316.
17.
HatakenakaS. (2002), ‘Flux and flexibility: A comparative institutional analysis of evolving university–industry relationships in MIT, Cambridge and Tokyo’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
18.
HirschW.Z.WeberL.E. (2002), ‘As the walls of academia are tumbling down’, Economica, London, Paris and Geneva.
19.
JohnsonL.G. (1984), The High-Technology Connection: Academic/Industrial Cooperation for Economic GrowthASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No 6, Association for the Study of Higher Education, Washington, DC.
20.
KerrClark. (1963), The Uses of the University, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
21.
LeslieS.W. (1993), The Cold War and American Science: The Military–Industrial Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford, Columbia University Press, New York.
22.
LeydesdorffL. (2005), ‘The Triple Helix model and the study of knowledge-based innovation systems’, International Journal of Contemporary Sociology, Vol 42, No 1, pp 12–27.
23.
LincolnY.S.GubaE.G. (1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
24.
MansfieldE. (1991), ‘Academic research and industrial innovation’, Research Policy, Vol 20, pp 1–12.
25.
MoweryD.C. (1998), ‘The changing structure of the US national innovation system: Implications for international conflict and cooperation in R&D’, Research Policy, Vol 27, pp 639–654.
26.
MoweryD.C.RosenbergN. (1999), ‘The effects of the Bayh–Dole Act on US university research and technology transfer’, in BranscombL.M.KodamaF., eds, Industrializing Knowledge: University–Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
27.
NSB (1982), University–Industry Research Relationships: Myths, Realities, and Potentials, Fourteenth Annual Report of the National Science Board, Washington, DC.
28.
NSB (2000), Science and Engineering Indicators, National Science Board, Washington, DC.
29.
NSB (2004), Science and Engineering Indicators, National Science Board, Washington, DC.
30.
NSF (2003), Industry Trends in Research Support and Links to Public Research, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC.
31.
OECD (1996), The Knowledge-Based Economy, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
32.
OECD (2000), Science, Technology, and Industry Outlook, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
33.
OECD (2002), Science, Technology, and Industry Outlook, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
34.
OECD (2003), Promoting Better Public–Private Partnerships: Industry–University Relations, Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
35.
PattonM.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
36.
PavittK.WorboysM. (1977), Science, Technology and the Modern Industrial State, Butterworths, London.
37.
RahmD.KirklandJ.BozemanB. (2000), University–Industry R&D Collaboration in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
38.
RudyW. (1991), Total War and Twentieth-Century Higher Learning: Universities of the Western World in the First and Second World Wars, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Rutherford, NJ.
39.
ThelinJ.R. (2004), A History of American Higher Education, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
40.
TornatskyL.G.WaugamanP.G.GrayD.O. (2002), Innovation U: New University Roles in a Knowledge Economy, Southern Growth Policies Board, Research Triangle Park, NC.
41.
Von KroghG.NonakaI.AbenM. (2001), ‘Making the most of your company's knowledge: A strategic framework’, Long Range Planning, Vol 34, pp 421–439.
42.
WebsterA. (1998), ‘Strategic research alliances: Testing the collaborative limits?’, in EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.HealeyP., eds, Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
43.
WebsterA.EtzkowitzH. (1998), ‘Toward a theoretical analysis of academic–industry collaboration’, in EtzkowitzH.WebsterA.HealeyP., eds, Capitalizing Knowledge: New Intersections of Industry and Academia, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
44.
World Bank (1998–99), Knowledge for Development, World Development Report, World Bank, Washington, DC.
45.
YinR.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
