Mode 3 knowledge production: systems and systems theory, clusters and networks

Abstract

With the comprehensive term of "Mode 3," we want to draw a conceptual link between systems and systems theory and want to demonstrate further how this can be applied to knowledge in the next steps. Systems can be understood as being composed of "elements", which are tied together by a "self-rationale". For innovation, often innovation clusters and innovation networks are being regarded as important. By leveraging systems theory for innovation concepts, one can implement references between the elements of a system and clusters (innovation clusters) and the selfrationale of a system and that of networks (innovation networks). One advantage of this approach is that it makes the tools of systems theory effectively available for research on innovation. Based on original research about the European Union, also the concept of a multi-level hierarchy promises conceptual opportunities. Further integrating systems theory, we can speak of multi-level systems of knowledge (following different levels of aggregation) and multi-level systems of innovation (also following different levels of aggregation). The popular and powerful concept of the national innovation system is being chronically challenged by continuous and ongoing processes of supranational and global integration. Conceptually unlocking the national innovation systems in favor of a broader multi-level logic implies furthermore to accept the existence of national innovation systems but, at the same time, also to emphasize their global embeddedness. Our suggested catch-phrase of "Mode 3", therefore, integrates several considerations that want to relate systems theory, knowledge, and innovation more directly to each other, and this should be understood as a contribution to a dynamically evolving general discourse on the topics of knowledge and innovation.

The ecosystem as helix: an exploratory theory‐building study of regional co‐opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models

“…

Functionally, the aggregation may move from R&D to S&T and finally to innovation; and geographically, the aggregation may take the direction from subnational (local) to national and transnational (supranational, global). (Carayannis et al, , p. 11)

…”

“…In the process of a definition of a system, often two aspects are coming together: the elements of a system, and the self‐rational of a system. With the logic of this particular approach, the following definition can be offered for a system (Campbell, , p. 426; Carayannis et al, , p. 4): (1)Elements: systems consist of elements (parts); (2)Self‐rationale: systems have a mode of operation, a self‐rationale (logic, self‐logic), which organizes the self‐organization and reproduction of a system and the relationship between the elements within a system and, furthermore, the relationship between the system and the other systems. …”

“… A formalized definition of systems, knowledge clusters, and innovation networks. Source: Authors’ own conceptualization (adapted Carayannis et al, , p. 9).…”

“… Multi‐level systems of innovation: functional (non‐spatial) and geographical (spatial) aggregation. Source: Adapted from Carayannis et al (, p. 12).…”

Quadruple helix as a network of relationships: creating value within a Swedish regional innovation system

“…The relationship between knowledge production and networks in RISs and the fourth helix is discussed in several papers (see, e.g. Campbell 2009, 2014;Carayannis, Barth, and Campbell 2012;Carayannis, Campbell, and Rehman 2016;Grundel and Dahlstr€ om 2016;Kolehmainen et al 2016;Lew, Khan, and Cozzio 2016). For example, Kolehmainen et al (2016) place the quadruple helix framework at the very heart of knowledge-based regional innovation development.…”