While the Triple Helix and Quadruple Helix models are popular in innovation studies, the relations between them have not been addressed extensively in the literature. There are diverse interpretations of helix models in empirical studies that apply them, but these sometimes deviate from the original theses of the models. Such a situation can confuse newcomers to the field in terms of which helix model to apply in their empirical research. We discern that the cause of this research challenge is a lack of systematic comparison of the two models. To bridge the research gap, this paper compares the models from the perspectives of how they were introduced and discussed in the literature and improved and how useful they are in addressing the innovation processes in contemporary society. Our major findings are as follows: First, reviewing the extant literature applying the two helix models for identifying research gaps, we discover that these studies were influenced by three views on the relations between the two models that were located on a continuum between two extreme ends—namely, isolation versus integration of the two models. Second, we provide a systematic comparison of both the advantages and weaknesses of the two models, and this may help researchers choose suitable helix models as conceptual/analytical tools in their empirical innovation studies. Third, our comparison of the two models shows that they are largely supplementary to each other when analysing innovation processes in contemporary society, providing a ground for potential synergy building between the two helix models.

Universities are increasingly engaged in marketization and are also expected to transform into more sustainable institutions and be change-agents pushing forward the movement of sustainable development. This article introduces an analytical framework originated by Hahn et al. (2015) for understanding tensions concerning corporate sustainability to the context of the Finnish university system in order to answer the following questions: What are the tensions relating to Finnish universities' social and economic sustainability, and what strategies might universities use to cope with these tensions? Through analyzing interviews with university managers and officials from the Ministry of Education and Culture in Finland, we find that Hahn et al.'s framework is generally applicable in analyzing tensions of sustainability in universities, and we identify six tensions relating to the sustainability of Finnish universities. The tensions are related to (1) academic leadership and management legitimacy, (2) regional political tensions and university profiling, (3) political power over the university system, (4) changing academic work and profession, (5) academic autonomy and the role of the state, and (6) the future role of the university institution. Moreover, the article discusses issues regarding how to adapt the framework of corporate sustainability to the context of higher education.

This is a recommendation for the implementation of an open science approach in research, development and innovation activities (RDI activities) between Finnish research organisations and companies. RDI activities are often carried out through RDI projects. The recommendation describes how research results and data generated in company collaboration can be utilised and/or disseminated safely, efficiently and as openly as possible. The recommendation was written in cooperation by open science coordination, the openness in company collaboration working group and the Finnish scientific community and business community. It is consistent with the Declaration for Open Science and Research 2020-2025, the open operating culture policy currently under preparation and other national recommendations arising from the coordination of open science.

As an emerging agenda in science and public policy discourse, the open science (OS) movement has affected university–industry research collaboration (UIRC) including normative changes concerning actors’ value and belief systems. Thus, the following questions have become pertinent: what are the norms and beliefs of key actors engaged in UIRC regarding OS practices? How have the norms and beliefs led to tensions in UIRC and dynamics facilitating or impeding OS? This study explores these questions through two case studies by applying institutional logics theory as an analytical lens. Through analysing case studies concerning UIRC in Finland, a pioneer in the global OS movement, six institutional logics that are either pro- or contra-OS practices were identified: the state, market, corporation, profession, traditional trust–based community and sustainability-based community logics. The strongest tensions are between the state and market logics and between the profession and market logics. In the end of the study, recommendations are solicited for OS policymakers and practitioners based on the research findings.