Track conveners – Khalil A. Arbi, University of Management and Technology, Lahore Pakistan, firstname.lastname@example.org
Discussion about the science and art of TH will unleash the communication ways and techniques used by the three actors of the Helix, namely University, Industry and Government (UIG) for coordination and cooperation in their respective agendas. Missing the framework of institutional communication theory (Conrad et al 2001) and just discussing the generic nature of the relationships between the three actors will undermine the inherent benefits of TH suggested by Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff (1995 and 2000). The institutional communication theory focuses on the ways institutions are linked and interact with each other. Communication between the institutions is surely different than the individualistic communication but however this is influenced by a social setting in any society. So why TH actors in a society are more productive than others can however be explained by discussing the social and professional settings and also the communicative objectivist frame prevailing in the three actors of TH in that society. The more we talk on science and art of triple helix more new refined ways and techniques will emerge in this domain which will eventually help in the investigation of the strength of relationships between the three actors.
Relevant Questions to be investigated:
- Diagnosing the communication pattern of triple helix actors AIG
- What is the impact of different communication patterns on the strength of relationship between the three actors?
- Investigating the objectivity of the communication between the three actors and measuring the outcomes
- Power of communication in triple helix at all levels
Conrad, C., & Haynes, J. (2001). Development of key constructs. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 47–77). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Corman, S. R., & Poole, M. S. (Eds.). (2000). Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground. Guilford Press.
Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (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.
Lammers, J. C., & Barbour, J. B. (2006). An institutional theory of organizational communication. Communication Theory, 16(3), 356-377.
Leydesdorff, L. (2009). Luhmann Reconsidered: Steps Towards an Empirical Research Programme in the Sociology of Communication?. arXiv preprint arXiv:0911.1041.
Luhmann, N. (1993). Communication and social order: risk: a sociological theory. Transaction Publishers.