importance of research in knowledge

2.1 Why is Research Important

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior
Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession (figure below). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

A skull has a large hole bored through the forehead.

Some of our ancestors, across the work and over the centuries, believed that trephination – the practice of making a hole in the skull, as shown here – allowed evil spirits to leave the body, thus curing mental illness and other diseases (credit” “taiproject/Flickr)

The goal of all scientists is to better understand the world around them. Psychologists focus their attention on understanding behavior, as well as the cognitive (mental) and physiological (body) processes that underlie behavior. In contrast to other methods that people use to understand the behavior of others, such as intuition and personal experience, the hallmark of scientific research is that there is evidence to support a claim. Scientific knowledge is empirical : It is grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing.

We can easily observe the behavior of others around us. For example, if someone is crying, we can observe that behavior. However, the reason for the behavior is more difficult to determine. Is the person crying due to being sad, in pain, or happy? Sometimes, asking about the underlying cognitions is as easy as asking the subject directly: “Why are you crying?” However, there are situations in which an individual is either uncomfortable or unwilling to answer the question honestly, or is incapable of answering. For example, infants would not be able to explain why they are crying. In other situations, it may be hard to identify exactly why you feel the way you do. Think about times when you suddenly feel annoyed after a long day. There may be a specific trigger for your annoyance (a loud noise), or you may be tired, hungry, stressed, or all of the above. Human behavior is often a complicated mix of a variety of factors. In such circumstances, the psychologist must be creative in finding ways to better understand behavior. This chapter explores how scientific knowledge is generated, and how important that knowledge is in forming decisions in our personal lives and in the public domain.

USE OF RESEARCH INFORMATION

In the meantime, we should strive to think critically about the information we encounter by exercising a degree of healthy skepticism. When someone makes a claim, we should examine the claim from a number of different perspectives: what is the expertise of the person making the claim, what might they gain if the claim is valid, does the claim seem justified given the evidence, and what do other researchers think of the claim? Science is always changing and new evidence is alwaus coming to light, thus this dash of skepticism should be applied to all research you interact with from now on. Yes, that includes the research presented in this textbook.

Evaluation of research findings can have widespread impact. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program in public schools (figure below). This program typically involves police officers coming into the classroom to educate students about the dangers of becoming involved with alcohol and other drugs. According to the D.A.R.E. website (www.dare.org), this program has been very popular since its inception in 1983, and it is currently operating in 75% of school districts in the United States and in more than 40 countries worldwide. Sounds like an easy decision, right? However, on closer review, you discover that the vast majority of research into this program consistently suggests that participation has little, if any, effect on whether or not someone uses alcohol or other drugs (Clayton, Cattarello, & Johnstone, 1996; Ennett, Tobler, Ringwalt, & Flewelling, 1994; Lynam et al., 1999; Ringwalt, Ennett, & Holt, 1991). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, will you fund this particular program, or will you try to find other programs that research has consistently demonstrated to be effective?

A D.A.R.E. poster reads “D.A.R.E. to resist drugs and violence.”

The D.A.R.E. program continues to be popular in schools around the world despite research suggesting that it is ineffective.

It is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine you just found out that a close friend has breast cancer or that one of your young relatives has recently been diagnosed with autism. In either case, you want to know which treatment options are most successful with the fewest side effects. How would you find that out? You would probably talk with a doctor or psychologist and personally review the research that has been done on various treatment options—always with a critical eye to ensure that you are as informed as possible.

In the end, research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.

THE PROCESS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Two types of reasoning are used to make decisions within this model: Deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning, ideas are tested against the empirical world. Think about a detective looking for clues and evidence to test their “hunch” about whodunit. In contrast, in inductive reasoning, empirical observations lead to new ideas. In other words, inductive reasoning involves gathering facts to create or refine a theory, rather than testing the theory by gathering facts (figure below). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

A diagram has a box at the top labeled “hypothesis or general premise” and a box at the bottom labeled “empirical observations.” On the left, an arrow labeled “inductive reasoning” goes from the bottom to top box. On the right, an arrow labeled “deductive reasoning” goes from the top to the bottom box.

Psychological research relies on both inductive and deductive reasoning.

In the scientific context, deductive reasoning begins with a generalization—one hypothesis—that is then used to reach logical conclusions about the real world. If the hypothesis is correct, then the logical conclusions reached through deductive reasoning should also be correct. A deductive reasoning argument might go something like this: All living things require energy to survive (this would be your hypothesis). Ducks are living things. Therefore, ducks require energy to survive (logical conclusion). In this example, the hypothesis is correct; therefore, the conclusion is correct as well. Sometimes, however, an incorrect hypothesis may lead to a logical but incorrect conclusion. Consider the famous example from Greek philosophy. A philosopher decided that human beings were “featherless bipeds”. Using deductive reasoning, all two-legged creatures without feathers must be human, right? Diogenes the Cynic (named because he was, well, a cynic) burst into the room with a freshly plucked chicken from the market and held it up exclaiming “Behold! I have brought you a man!”

Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction. Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based. For example, you might be a biologist attempting to classify animals into groups. You notice that quite a large portion of animals are furry and produce milk for their young (cats, dogs, squirrels, horses, hippos, etc). Therefore, you might conclude that all mammals (the name you have chosen for this grouping) have hair and produce milk. This seems like a pretty great hypothesis that you could test with deductive reasoning. You go out an look at a whole bunch of things and stumble on an exception: The coconut. Coconuts have hair and produce milk, but they don’t “fit” your idea of what a mammal is. So, using inductive reasoning given the new evidence, you adjust your theory again for an other round of data collection. Inductive and deductive reasoning work in tandem to help build and improve scientific theories over time.

We’ve stated that theories and hypotheses are ideas, but what sort of ideas are they, exactly? A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena. Theories are repeatedly checked against the world, but they tend to be too complex to be tested all at once. Instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory.

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about how the world will behave if our theory is correct, and it is often worded as an if-then statement (e.g., if I study all night, I will get a passing grade on the test). The hypothesis is extremely important because it bridges the gap between the realm of ideas and the real world. As specific hypotheses are tested, theories are modified and refined to reflect and incorporate the result of these tests (figure below).

A diagram has four boxes: the top is labeled “theory,” the right is labeled “hypothesis,” the bottom is labeled “research,” and the left is labeled “observation.” Arrows flow in the direction from top to right to bottom to left and back to the top, clockwise. The top right arrow is labeled “use the hypothesis to form a theory,” the bottom right arrow is labeled “design a study to test the hypothesis,” the bottom left arrow is labeled “perform the research,” and the top left arrow is labeled “create or modify the theory.”

The scientific method of research includes proposing hypotheses, conducting research, and creating or modifying theories based on results.

To see how this process works, let’s consider a specific theory and a hypothesis that might be generated from that theory. As you’ll learn in a later chapter, the James-Lange theory of emotion asserts that emotional experience relies on the physiological arousal associated with the emotional state. If you walked out of your home and discovered a very aggressive snake waiting on your doorstep, your heart would begin to race and your stomach churn. According to the James-Lange theory, these physiological changes would result in your feeling of fear. A hypothesis that could be derived from this theory might be that a person who is unaware of the physiological arousal that the sight of the snake elicits will not feel fear.

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable, or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors (figure below). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable. The essential characteristic of Freud’s building blocks of personality, the id, ego, and superego, is that they are unconscious, and therefore people can’t observe them. Because they cannot be observed or tested in any way, it is impossible to say that they don’t exist, so they cannot be considered scientific theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

(a)A photograph shows Freud holding a cigar. (b) The mind’s conscious and unconscious states are illustrated as an iceberg floating in water. Beneath the water’s surface in the “unconscious” area are the id, ego, and superego. The area just below the water’s surface is labeled “preconscious.” The area above the water’s surface is labeled “conscious.”

Many of the specifics of (a) Freud’s theories, such ad (b) his division on the mind into the id, ego, and superego, have fallen out of favor in recent decades because they are not falsifiable (i.e., cannot be verified through scientific investigation). In broader strokes, his views set the stage for much psychological thinking today, such as the idea that some psychological process occur at the level of the unconscious.

In contrast, the James-Lange theory does generate falsifiable hypotheses, such as the one described above. Some individuals who suffer significant injuries to their spinal columns are unable to feel the bodily changes that often accompany emotional experiences. Therefore, we could test the hypothesis by determining how emotional experiences differ between individuals who have the ability to detect these changes in their physiological arousal and those who do not. In fact, this research has been conducted and while the emotional experiences of people deprived of an awareness of their physiological arousal may be less intense, they still experience emotion (Chwalisz, Diener, & Gallagher, 1988).

Scientific research’s dependence on falsifiability allows for great confidence in the information that it produces. Typically, by the time information is accepted by the scientific community, it has been tested repeatedly.

Scientists are engaged in explaining and understanding how the world around them works, and they are able to do so by coming up with theories that generate hypotheses that are testable and falsifiable. Theories that stand up to their tests are retained and refined, while those that do not are discarded or modified. IHaving good information generated from research aids in making wise decisions both in public policy and in our personal lives.

Review Questions:

1. Scientific hypotheses are ________ and falsifiable.

a. observable

b. original

c. provable

d. testable

2. ________ are defined as observable realities.

a. behaviors

c. opinions

d. theories

3. Scientific knowledge is ________.

a. intuitive

b. empirical

c. permanent

d. subjective

4. A major criticism of Freud’s early theories involves the fact that his theories ________.

a. were too limited in scope

b. were too outrageous

c. were too broad

d. were not testable

Critical Thinking Questions:

1. In this section, the D.A.R.E. program was described as an incredibly popular program in schools across the United States despite the fact that research consistently suggests that this program is largely ineffective. How might one explain this discrepancy?

2. The scientific method is often described as self-correcting and cyclical. Briefly describe your understanding of the scientific method with regard to these concepts.

Personal Application Questions:

1. Healthcare professionals cite an enormous number of health problems related to obesity, and many people have an understandable desire to attain a healthy weight. There are many diet programs, services, and products on the market to aid those who wish to lose weight. If a close friend was considering purchasing or participating in one of these products, programs, or services, how would you make sure your friend was fully aware of the potential consequences of this decision? What sort of information would you want to review before making such an investment or lifestyle change yourself?

deductive reasoning

falsifiable

hypothesis: (plural

inductive reasoning

Answers to Exercises

Review Questions:

1. There is probably tremendous political pressure to appear to be hard on drugs. Therefore, even though D.A.R.E. might be ineffective, it is a well-known program with which voters are familiar.

2. This cyclical, self-correcting process is primarily a function of the empirical nature of science. Theories are generated as explanations of real-world phenomena. From theories, specific hypotheses are developed and tested. As a function of this testing, theories will be revisited and modified or refined to generate new hypotheses that are again tested. This cyclical process ultimately allows for more and more precise (and presumably accurate) information to be collected.

deductive reasoning: results are predicted based on a general premise

empirical: grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing

fact: objective and verifiable observation, established using evidence collected through empirical research

falsifiable: able to be disproven by experimental results

hypothesis: (plural: hypotheses) tentative and testable statement about the relationship between two or more variables

inductive reasoning: conclusions are drawn from observations

opinion: personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate

theory: well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena

Share This Book

Increase Font Size

2.1 Why Is Research Important?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior
Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession ( Figure 2.2 ). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

While behavior is observable, the mind is not. If someone is crying, we can see behavior. However, the reason for the behavior is more difficult to determine. Is the person crying due to being sad, in pain, or happy? Sometimes we can learn the reason for someone’s behavior by simply asking a question, like “Why are you crying?” However, there are situations in which an individual is either uncomfortable or unwilling to answer the question honestly, or is incapable of answering. For example, infants would not be able to explain why they are crying. In such circumstances, the psychologist must be creative in finding ways to better understand behavior. This chapter explores how scientific knowledge is generated, and how important that knowledge is in forming decisions in our personal lives and in the public domain.

Use of Research Information

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the explosion in our use of technology has led researchers to question whether this ultimately helps or hinders us. The use and implementation of technology in educational settings has become widespread over the last few decades. Researchers are coming to different conclusions regarding the use of technology. To illustrate this point, a study investigating a smartphone app targeting surgery residents (graduate students in surgery training) found that the use of this app can increase student engagement and raise test scores (Shaw & Tan, 2015). Conversely, another study found that the use of technology in undergraduate student populations had negative impacts on sleep, communication, and time management skills (Massimini & Peterson, 2009). Until sufficient amounts of research have been conducted, there will be no clear consensus on the effects that technology has on a student's acquisition of knowledge, study skills, and mental health.

In the meantime, we should strive to think critically about the information we encounter by exercising a degree of healthy skepticism. When someone makes a claim, we should examine the claim from a number of different perspectives: what is the expertise of the person making the claim, what might they gain if the claim is valid, does the claim seem justified given the evidence, and what do other researchers think of the claim? This is especially important when we consider how much information in advertising campaigns and on the internet claims to be based on “scientific evidence” when in actuality it is a belief or perspective of just a few individuals trying to sell a product or draw attention to their perspectives.

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding early intervention programs. These programs are designed to help children who come from low-income backgrounds, have special needs, or face other disadvantages. These programs may involve providing a wide variety of services to maximize the children's development and position them for optimal levels of success in school and later in life (Blann, 2005). While such programs sound appealing, you would want to be sure that they also proved effective before investing additional money in these programs. Fortunately, psychologists and other scientists have conducted vast amounts of research on such programs and, in general, the programs are found to be effective (Neil & Christensen, 2009; Peters-Scheffer, Didden, Korzilius, & Sturmey, 2011). While not all programs are equally effective, and the short-term effects of many such programs are more pronounced, there is reason to believe that many of these programs produce long-term benefits for participants (Barnett, 2011). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, you would want to look at research. Which programs are most effective? What characteristics of these programs make them effective? Which programs promote the best outcomes? After examining the research, you would be best equipped to make decisions about which programs to fund.

Link to Learning

Watch this video about early childhood program effectiveness to learn how scientists evaluate effectiveness and how best to invest money into programs that are most effective.

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine that your sister, Maria, expresses concern about her two-year-old child, Umberto. Umberto does not speak as much or as clearly as the other children in his daycare or others in the family. Umberto's pediatrician undertakes some screening and recommends an evaluation by a speech pathologist, but does not refer Maria to any other specialists. Maria is concerned that Umberto's speech delays are signs of a developmental disorder, but Umberto's pediatrician does not; she sees indications of differences in Umberto's jaw and facial muscles. Hearing this, you do some internet searches, but you are overwhelmed by the breadth of information and the wide array of sources. You see blog posts, top-ten lists, advertisements from healthcare providers, and recommendations from several advocacy organizations. Why are there so many sites? Which are based in research, and which are not?

NOTABLE RESEARCHERS

Psychological research has a long history involving important figures from diverse backgrounds. While the introductory chapter discussed several researchers who made significant contributions to the discipline, there are many more individuals who deserve attention in considering how psychology has advanced as a science through their work ( Figure 2.3 ). For instance, Margaret Floy Washburn (1871–1939) was the first woman to earn a PhD in psychology. Her research focused on animal behavior and cognition (Margaret Floy Washburn, PhD, n.d.). Mary Whiton Calkins (1863–1930) was a preeminent first-generation American psychologist who opposed the behaviorist movement, conducted significant research into memory, and established one of the earliest experimental psychology labs in the United States (Mary Whiton Calkins, n.d.).

Francis Sumner (1895–1954) was the first African American to receive a PhD in psychology in 1920. His dissertation focused on issues related to psychoanalysis. Sumner also had research interests in racial bias and educational justice. Sumner was one of the founders of Howard University’s department of psychology, and because of his accomplishments, he is sometimes referred to as the “Father of Black Psychology.” Thirteen years later, Inez Beverly Prosser (1895–1934) became the first African American woman to receive a PhD in psychology. Prosser’s research highlighted issues related to education in segregated versus integrated schools, and ultimately, her work was very influential in the hallmark Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional (Ethnicity and Health in America Series: Featured Psychologists, n.d.).

Although the establishment of psychology’s scientific roots occurred first in Europe and the United States, it did not take much time until researchers from around the world began to establish their own laboratories and research programs. For example, some of the first experimental psychology laboratories in South America were founded by Horatio Piñero (1869–1919) at two institutions in Buenos Aires, Argentina (Godoy & Brussino, 2010). In India, Gunamudian David Boaz (1908–1965) and Narendra Nath Sen Gupta (1889–1944) established the first independent departments of psychology at the University of Madras and the University of Calcutta, respectively. These developments provided an opportunity for Indian researchers to make important contributions to the field (Gunamudian David Boaz, n.d.; Narendra Nath Sen Gupta, n.d.).

When the American Psychological Association (APA) was first founded in 1892, all of the members were White males (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.). However, by 1905, Mary Whiton Calkins was elected as the first female president of the APA, and by 1946, nearly one-quarter of American psychologists were female. Psychology became a popular degree option for students enrolled in the nation’s historically Black higher education institutions, increasing the number of Black Americans who went on to become psychologists. Given demographic shifts occurring in the United States and increased access to higher educational opportunities among historically underrepresented populations, there is reason to hope that the diversity of the field will increasingly match the larger population, and that the research contributions made by the psychologists of the future will better serve people of all backgrounds (Women and Minorities in Psychology, n.d.).

The Process of Scientific Research

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning , ideas are tested in the real world; in inductive reasoning , real-world observations lead to new ideas ( Figure 2.4 ). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

In the scientific context, deductive reasoning begins with a generalization—one hypothesis—that is then used to reach logical conclusions about the real world. If the hypothesis is correct, then the logical conclusions reached through deductive reasoning should also be correct. A deductive reasoning argument might go something like this: All living things require energy to survive (this would be your hypothesis). Ducks are living things. Therefore, ducks require energy to survive (logical conclusion). In this example, the hypothesis is correct; therefore, the conclusion is correct as well. Sometimes, however, an incorrect hypothesis may lead to a logical but incorrect conclusion. Consider this argument: all ducks are born with the ability to see. Quackers is a duck. Therefore, Quackers was born with the ability to see. Scientists use deductive reasoning to empirically test their hypotheses. Returning to the example of the ducks, researchers might design a study to test the hypothesis that if all living things require energy to survive, then ducks will be found to require energy to survive.

Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction. Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based. For instance, you may notice that your favorite fruits—apples, bananas, and oranges—all grow on trees; therefore, you assume that all fruit must grow on trees. This would be an example of inductive reasoning, and, clearly, the existence of strawberries, blueberries, and kiwi demonstrate that this generalization is not correct despite it being based on a number of direct observations. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate theories, which in turn generate hypotheses that are tested with deductive reasoning. In the end, science involves both deductive and inductive processes.

For example, case studies, which you will read about in the next section, are heavily weighted on the side of empirical observations. Thus, case studies are closely associated with inductive processes as researchers gather massive amounts of observations and seek interesting patterns (new ideas) in the data. Experimental research, on the other hand, puts great emphasis on deductive reasoning.

We’ve stated that theories and hypotheses are ideas, but what sort of ideas are they, exactly? A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena. Theories are repeatedly checked against the world, but they tend to be too complex to be tested all at once; instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory.

A hypothesis is a testable prediction about how the world will behave if our idea is correct, and it is often worded as an if-then statement (e.g., if I study all night, I will get a passing grade on the test). The hypothesis is extremely important because it bridges the gap between the realm of ideas and the real world. As specific hypotheses are tested, theories are modified and refined to reflect and incorporate the result of these tests Figure 2.5 .

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable , or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors ( Figure 2.6 ). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction

Authors: Rose M. Spielman, William J. Jenkins, Marilyn D. Lovett
Publisher/website: OpenStax
Book title: Psychology 2e
Publication date: Apr 22, 2020
Location: Houston, Texas
Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/1-introduction
Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/2-1-why-is-research-important

© Jan 6, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

10 Reasons Why Research is Important

No matter what career field you’re in or how high up you are, there’s always more to learn . The same applies to your personal life. No matter how many experiences you have or how diverse your social circle, there are things you don’t know. Research unlocks the unknowns, lets you explore the world from different perspectives, and fuels a deeper understanding. In some areas, research is an essential part of success. In others, it may not be absolutely necessary, but it has many benefits. Here are ten reasons why research is important:

#1. Research expands your knowledge base

The most obvious reason to do research is that you’ll learn more. There’s always more to learn about a topic, even if you are already well-versed in it. If you aren’t, research allows you to build on any personal experience you have with the subject. The process of research opens up new opportunities for learning and growth.

#2. Research gives you the latest information

Research encourages you to find the most recent information available . In certain fields, especially scientific ones, there’s always new information and discoveries being made. Staying updated prevents you from falling behind and giving info that’s inaccurate or doesn’t paint the whole picture. With the latest info, you’ll be better equipped to talk about a subject and build on ideas.

#3. Research helps you know what you’re up against

In business, you’ll have competition. Researching your competitors and what they’re up to helps you formulate your plans and strategies. You can figure out what sets you apart. In other types of research, like medicine, your research might identify diseases, classify symptoms, and come up with ways to tackle them. Even if your “enemy” isn’t an actual person or competitor, there’s always some kind of antagonist force or problem that research can help you deal with.

#4. Research builds your credibility

People will take what you have to say more seriously when they can tell you’re informed. Doing research gives you a solid foundation on which you can build your ideas and opinions. You can speak with confidence about what you know is accurate. When you’ve done the research, it’s much harder for someone to poke holes in what you’re saying. Your research should be focused on the best sources. If your “research” consists of opinions from non-experts, you won’t be very credible. When your research is good, though, people are more likely to pay attention.

#5. Research helps you narrow your scope

When you’re circling a topic for the first time, you might not be exactly sure where to start. Most of the time, the amount of work ahead of you is overwhelming. Whether you’re writing a paper or formulating a business plan, it’s important to narrow the scope at some point. Research helps you identify the most unique and/or important themes. You can choose the themes that fit best with the project and its goals.

#6. Research teaches you better discernment

Doing a lot of research helps you sift through low-quality and high-quality information. The more research you do on a topic, the better you’ll get at discerning what’s accurate and what’s not. You’ll also get better at discerning the gray areas where information may be technically correct but used to draw questionable conclusions.

#7. Research introduces you to new ideas

You may already have opinions and ideas about a topic when you start researching. The more you research, the more viewpoints you’ll come across. This encourages you to entertain new ideas and perhaps take a closer look at yours. You might change your mind about something or, at least, figure out how to position your ideas as the best ones.

#8. Research helps with problem-solving

Whether it’s a personal or professional problem, it helps to look outside yourself for help. Depending on what the issue is, your research can focus on what others have done before. You might just need more information, so you can make an informed plan of attack and an informed decision. When you know you’ve collected good information, you’ll feel much more confident in your solution.

#9. Research helps you reach people

Research is used to help raise awareness of issues like climate change , racial discrimination, gender inequality , and more. Without hard facts, it’s very difficult to prove that climate change is getting worse or that gender inequality isn’t progressing as quickly as it should. The public needs to know what the facts are, so they have a clear idea of what “getting worse” or “not progressing” actually means. Research also entails going beyond the raw data and sharing real-life stories that have a more personal impact on people.

#10. Research encourages curiosity

Having curiosity and a love of learning take you far in life. Research opens you up to different opinions and new ideas. It also builds discerning and analytical skills. The research process rewards curiosity. When you’re committed to learning, you’re always in a place of growth. Curiosity is also good for your health. Studies show curiosity is associated with higher levels of positivity, better satisfaction with life, and lower anxiety.

2.8: Why Is Research Important?

Last updated
Save as PDF
Page ID 82831

Learning outcomes

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Explain how scientific research addresses questions about behavior
Discuss how scientific research guides public policy
Appreciate how scientific research can be important in making personal decisions

Scientific research is a critical tool for successfully navigating our complex world. Without it, we would be forced to rely solely on intuition, other people’s authority, and blind luck. While many of us feel confident in our abilities to decipher and interact with the world around us, history is filled with examples of how very wrong we can be when we fail to recognize the need for evidence in supporting claims. At various times in history, we would have been certain that the sun revolved around a flat earth, that the earth’s continents did not move, and that mental illness was caused by possession ( Figure ). It is through systematic scientific research that we divest ourselves of our preconceived notions and superstitions and gain an objective understanding of ourselves and our world.

USE OF RESEARCH INFORMATION

Trying to determine which theories are and are not accepted by the scientific community can be difficult, especially in an area of research as broad as psychology. More than ever before, we have an incredible amount of information at our fingertips, and a simple internet search on any given research topic might result in a number of contradictory studies. In these cases, we are witnessing the scientific community going through the process of reaching a consensus, and it could be quite some time before a consensus emerges. For example, the hypothesized link between exposure to media violence and subsequent aggression has been debated in the scientific community for roughly 60 years. Even today, we will find detractors, but a consensus is building. Several professional organizations view media violence exposure as a risk factor for actual violence, including the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Psychological Association (American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Psychiatric Association, 2000).

In the meantime, we should strive to think critically about the information we encounter by exercising a degree of healthy skepticism. When someone makes a claim, we should examine the claim from a number of different perspectives: what is the expertise of the person making the claim, what might they gain if the claim is valid, does the claim seem justified given the evidence, and what do other researchers think of the claim? This is especially important when we consider how much information in advertising campaigns and on the internet claims to be based on “scientific evidence” when in actuality it is a belief or perspective of just a few individuals trying to sell a product or draw attention to their perspectives.

We should be informed consumers of the information made available to us because decisions based on this information have significant consequences. One such consequence can be seen in politics and public policy. Imagine that you have been elected as the governor of your state. One of your responsibilities is to manage the state budget and determine how to best spend your constituents’ tax dollars. As the new governor, you need to decide whether to continue funding the D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) program in public schools ( Figure ). This program typically involves police officers coming into the classroom to educate students about the dangers of becoming involved with alcohol and other drugs. According to the D.A.R.E. website (www.dare.org), this program has been very popular since its inception in 1983, and it is currently operating in 75% of school districts in the United States and in more than 40 countries worldwide. Sounds like an easy decision, right? However, on closer review, you discover that the vast majority of research into this program consistently suggests that participation has little, if any, effect on whether or not someone uses alcohol or other drugs (Clayton, Cattarello, & Johnstone, 1996; Ennett, Tobler, Ringwalt, & Flewelling, 1994; Lynam et al., 1999; Ringwalt, Ennett, & Holt, 1991). If you are committed to being a good steward of taxpayer money, will you fund this particular program, or will you try to find other programs that research has consistently demonstrated to be effective?

Watch this news report to learn more about some of the controversial issues surrounding the D.A.R.E. program.

Ultimately, it is not just politicians who can benefit from using research in guiding their decisions. We all might look to research from time to time when making decisions in our lives. Imagine you just found out that a close friend has breast cancer or that one of your young relatives has recently been diagnosed with autism. In either case, you want to know which treatment options are most successful with the fewest side effects. How would you find that out? You would probably talk with your doctor and personally review the research that has been done on various treatment options—always with a critical eye to ensure that you are as informed as possible.

THE PROCESS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Scientific knowledge is advanced through a process known as the scientific method . Basically, ideas (in the form of theories and hypotheses) are tested against the real world (in the form of empirical observations), and those empirical observations lead to more ideas that are tested against the real world, and so on. In this sense, the scientific process is circular. The types of reasoning within the circle are called deductive and inductive. In deductive reasoning, ideas are tested against the empirical world; in inductive reasoning, empirical observations lead to new ideas ( Figure ). These processes are inseparable, like inhaling and exhaling, but different research approaches place different emphasis on the deductive and inductive aspects.

In the scientific context, deductive reasoning begins with a generalization—one hypothesis—that is then used to reach logical conclusions about the real world. If the hypothesis is correct, then the logical conclusions reached through deductive reasoning should also be correct. A deductive reasoning argument might go something like this: All living things require energy to survive (this would be your hypothesis). Ducks are living things. Therefore, ducks require energy to survive (logical conclusion). In this example, the hypothesis is correct; therefore, the conclusion is correct as well. Sometimes, however, an incorrect hypothesis may lead to a logical but incorrect conclusion. Consider this argument: all ducks are born with the ability to see. Quackers is a duck. Therefore, Quackers was born with the ability to see. Scientists use deductive reasoning to empirically test their hypotheses. Returning to the example of the ducks, researchers might design a study to test the hypothesis that if all living things require energy to survive, then ducks will be found to require energy to survive.

Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization that is tested against real-world observations; however, inductive reasoning moves in the opposite direction. Inductive reasoning uses empirical observations to construct broad generalizations. Unlike deductive reasoning, conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning may or may not be correct, regardless of the observations on which they are based. For instance, you may notice that your favorite fruits—apples, bananas, and oranges—all grow on trees; therefore, you assume that all fruit must grow on trees. This would be an example of inductive reasoning, and, clearly, the existence of strawberries, blueberries, and kiwi demonstrate that this generalization is not correct despite it being based on a number of direct observations. Scientists use inductive reasoning to formulate theories, which in turn generate hypotheses that are tested with deductive reasoning. In the end, science involves both deductive and inductive processes.

Play this “Deal Me In” interactive card game to practice using inductive reasoning.

We’ve stated that theories and hypotheses are ideas, but what sort of ideas are they, exactly? A theory is a well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena. Theories are repeatedly checked against the world, but they tend to be too complex to be tested all at once; instead, researchers create hypotheses to test specific aspects of a theory.

A scientific hypothesis is also falsifiable, or capable of being shown to be incorrect. Recall from the introductory chapter that Sigmund Freud had lots of interesting ideas to explain various human behaviors ( Figure ). However, a major criticism of Freud’s theories is that many of his ideas are not falsifiable; for example, it is impossible to imagine empirical observations that would disprove the existence of the id, the ego, and the superego—the three elements of personality described in Freud’s theories. Despite this, Freud’s theories are widely taught in introductory psychology texts because of their historical significance for personality psychology and psychotherapy, and these remain the root of all modern forms of therapy.

Visit this website to apply the scientific method and practice its steps by using them to solve a murder mystery, determine why a student is in trouble, and design an experiment to test house paint.

Scientists are engaged in explaining and understanding how the world around them works, and they are able to do so by coming up with theories that generate hypotheses that are testable and falsifiable. Theories that stand up to their tests are retained and refined, while those that do not are discarded or modified. In this way, research enables scientists to separate fact from simple opinion. Having good information generated from research aids in making wise decisions both in public policy and in our personal lives.

Review Questions

Scientific hypotheses are ________ and falsifiable.

________ are defined as observable realities.

Scientific knowledge is ________.

A major criticism of Freud’s early theories involves the fact that his theories ________.

were too limited in scope
were too outrageous
were too broad
were not testable

Critical Thinking Questions

In this section, the D.A.R.E. program was described as an incredibly popular program in schools across the United States despite the fact that research consistently suggests that this program is largely ineffective. How might one explain this discrepancy?

The scientific method is often described as self-correcting and cyclical. Briefly describe your understanding of the scientific method with regard to these concepts.

Personal Application Questions

Healthcare professionals cite an enormous number of health problems related to obesity, and many people have an understandable desire to attain a healthy weight. There are many diet programs, services, and products on the market to aid those who wish to lose weight. If a close friend was considering purchasing or participating in one of these products, programs, or services, how would you make sure your friend was fully aware of the potential consequences of this decision? What sort of information would you want to review before making such an investment or lifestyle change yourself?

[glossary-page] [glossary-term]deductive reasoning:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]results are predicted based on a general premise[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]empirical:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]grounded in objective, tangible evidence that can be observed time and time again, regardless of who is observing[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]fact:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]objective and verifiable observation, established using evidence collected through empirical research[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]falsifiable:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]able to be disproven by experimental results[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]hypothesis:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition](plural: hypotheses) tentative and testable statement about the relationship between two or more variables[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]inductive reasoning:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]conclusions are drawn from observations[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]opinion:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]personal judgements, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate[/glossary-definition]

[glossary-term]theory:[/glossary-term] [glossary-definition]well-developed set of ideas that propose an explanation for observed phenomena[/glossary-definition] [/glossary-page]

Why Is Research Important?. Provided by : OpenStax CNX. Located at : https://cnx.org/contents/[email protected]:Hp5zMFYB@3/Why-Is-Research-Important . License : CC BY-SA: Attribution-ShareAlike

Evidence, research, knowledge: a call for conceptual clarity

Affiliation.

1 Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. [email protected]
PMID: 17129322
DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-6787.2004.04021.x

Objective: To dispel some of the conceptual confusion in the field of evidence-based practice that has resulted from the overlapping use of the terms research, evidence, and knowledge.

Approach: Theoretical discussion.

Findings: Often the terms research and knowledge are used as synonyms for evidence, but the overlap is never complete. The term evidence has long been understood to mean the findings of research.

Discussion: Recent attempts to broaden the definition of evidence to include clinical experience and experiential knowledge have been misguided. Broadening our understanding of the basis for clinical decision making and conceptualizing evidence are quite different tasks. Other factors (not other forms of evidence) do shape the clinical decision-making process, but they are not evidence. We might better term them knowledge. Confusing evidence with these other factors has hindered research and the improvement of clinical decision making in health care. We argue that this confusion results from the use of the term evidence when we really mean either research findings or knowledge.

Conclusions: In this article, we have argued for specificity in the use of the term evidence. We urge the restriction of the term evidence to research findings, and while we acknowledge the importance of other influences on the clinical decision-making process, we insist that they are not evidence. The time has come to value personal experience and experiential knowledge for what they are-we should not have to disguise them as types of evidence for them to be deemed of any value. Being specific to language, the goal is to improve clinical decision making by increasing practitioners' reliance on research findings (evidence) while acknowledging (and valuing) the important part played by other forms of knowledge in the decision-making process. The distinctions are important.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Clinical Competence
Decision Making
Diffusion of Innovation
Dissent and Disputes
Evidence-Based Medicine / education
Evidence-Based Medicine / organization & administration*
Information Dissemination
Nurse's Role
Nursing Process
Nursing Research / education
Nursing Research / organization & administration*
Nursing Theory*
Patient Participation
Philosophy, Nursing

What is the importance of research in everyday life?

Chemotherapy. Browsing the internet. Predicting hurricanes and storms. What do these things have in common? For one, they all exhibit the importance of research in everyday life; we would not be able to do these today without preceding decades of trial and error. Here are three top reasons we recognise the importance of research in everyday life, and why it is such an integral part of higher education today.

Research increases the quality of life

According to Universities Canada , “Basic research has led to some of the most commercially successful and life-saving discoveries of the past century, including the laser, vaccines and drugs, and the development of radio and television.” Canadian universities, for example, are currently studying how technology can help breed healthier livestock, how dance can provide long-term benefits to people living with Parkinson’s, and how to tackle affordable student housing in Toronto.

We know now that modern problems require modern solutions. Research is a catalyst for solving the world’s most pressing issues, the complexity of which evolves over time. The entire wealth of research findings throughout history has led us to this very point in civilisation, which brings us to the next reason why research matters.

What does a university’s research prowess mean for you as a student? Source: Shutterstock

Research empowers us with knowledge

Though scientists carry out research, the rest of the world benefits from their findings. We get to know the way of nature, and how our actions affect it. We gain a deeper understanding of people, and why they do the things they do. Best of all, we get to enrich our lives with the latest knowledge of health, nutrition, technology, and business, among others.

On top of that, reading and keeping up with scientific findings sharpen our own analytical skills and judgment. It compels us to apply critical thinking and exercise objective judgment based on evidence, instead of opinions or rumours. All throughout this process, we are picking up new bits of information and establishing new neural connections, which keeps us alert and up-to-date.

Research drives progress forward

Thanks to scientific research, modern medicine can cure diseases like tuberculosis and malaria. We’ve been able to simplify vaccines, diagnosis, and treatment across the board. Even COVID-19 — a novel disease — could be studied based on what is known about the SARS coronavirus. Now, the vaccine Pfizer and BioNTech have been working on has proven 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infection.

Mankind has charted such progress thanks to the scientific method. Beyond improving healthcare, it is also responsible for the evolution of technology, which in turn guides the development of almost every other industry in the automation age. The world is the way it is today because academics throughout history have relentlessly sought answers in their laboratories and faculties; our future depends on what we do with all this newfound information.

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK

Search Engines List
Suggested Reading Library
Web Directories
Research Papers
Industry News

Become a Member
Associate Membership
Certified Membership
Membership Application
Corporate Application

CIRS Certification Program
CIRS Certification Objectives
CIRS Certification Benefits
CIRS Certification Exam
Maintain Your Certification

Upcoming Events
Live Classes
Classes Schedule
Webinars Schedules

Latest Articles
Internet Research
Search Techniques
Research Methods
Business Research
Search Engines
Research & Tools
Investigative Research
Internet Search
Work from Home
Internet Ethics
Internet Privacy

Six Reasons Why Research is Important

Everyone conducts research in some form or another from a young age, whether news, books, or browsing the Internet. Internet users come across thoughts, ideas, or perspectives - the curiosity that drives the desire to explore. However, when research is essential to make practical decisions, the nature of the study alters - it all depends on its application and purpose. For instance, skilled research offered as a research paper service has a definite objective, and it is focused and organized. Professional research helps derive inferences and conclusions from solving problems. visit the HB tool services for the amazing research tools that will help to solve your problems regarding the research on any project.

What is the Importance of Research?

The primary goal of the research is to guide action, gather evidence for theories, and contribute to the growth of knowledge in data analysis. This article discusses the importance of research and the multiple reasons why it is beneficial to everyone, not just students and scientists.

On the other hand, research is important in business decision-making because it can assist in making better decisions when combined with their experience and intuition.

Reasons for the Importance of Research

Acquire Knowledge Effectively
Research helps in problem-solving
Provides the latest information
Builds credibility
Helps in business success
Discover and Seize opportunities

1- Acquire Knowledge Efficiently through Research

The most apparent reason to conduct research is to understand more. Even if you think you know everything there is to know about a subject, there is always more to learn. Research helps you expand on any prior knowledge you have of the subject. The research process creates new opportunities for learning and progress.

2- Research Helps in Problem-solving

Problem-solving can be divided into several components, which require knowledge and analysis, for example, identification of issues, cause identification, identifying potential solutions, decision to take action, monitoring and evaluation of activity and outcomes.

You may just require additional knowledge to formulate an informed strategy and make an informed decision. When you know you've gathered reliable data, you'll be a lot more confident in your answer.

3- Research Provides the Latest Information

Research enables you to seek out the most up-to-date facts. There is always new knowledge and discoveries in various sectors, particularly scientific ones. Staying updated keeps you from falling behind and providing inaccurate or incomplete information. You'll be better prepared to discuss a topic and build on ideas if you have the most up-to-date information. With the help of tools and certifications such as CIRS , you may learn internet research skills quickly and easily. Internet research can provide instant, global access to information.

4- Research Builds Credibility

Research provides a solid basis for formulating thoughts and views. You can speak confidently about something you know to be true. It's much more difficult for someone to find flaws in your arguments after you've finished your tasks. In your study, you should prioritize the most reputable sources. Your research should focus on the most reliable sources. You won't be credible if your "research" comprises non-experts' opinions. People are more inclined to pay attention if your research is excellent.

5- Research Helps in Business Success

R&D might also help you gain a competitive advantage. Finding ways to make things run more smoothly and differentiate a company's products from those of its competitors can help to increase a company's market worth.

6- Research Discover and Seize Opportunities

People can maximize their potential and achieve their goals through various opportunities provided by research. These include getting jobs, scholarships, educational subsidies, projects, commercial collaboration, and budgeted travel. Research is essential for anyone looking for work or a change of environment. Unemployed people will have a better chance of finding potential employers through job advertisements or agencies.

How to Improve Your Research Skills

Start with the big picture and work your way down.

It might be hard to figure out where to start when you start researching. There's nothing wrong with a simple internet search to get you started. Online resources like Google and Wikipedia are a great way to get a general idea of a subject, even though they aren't always correct. They usually give a basic overview with a short history and any important points.

Identify Reliable Source

Not every source is reliable, so it's critical that you can tell the difference between the good ones and the bad ones. To find a reliable source, use your analytical and critical thinking skills and ask yourself the following questions: Is this source consistent with other sources I've discovered? Is the author a subject matter expert? Is there a conflict of interest in the author's point of view on this topic?

Validate Information from Various Sources

Take in new information.

The purpose of research is to find answers to your questions, not back up what you already assume. Only looking for confirmation is a minimal way to research because it forces you to pick and choose what information you get and stops you from getting the most accurate picture of the subject. When you do research, keep an open mind to learn as much as possible.

Facilitates Learning Process

Learning new things and implementing them in daily life can be frustrating. Finding relevant and credible information requires specialized training and web search skills due to the sheer enormity of the Internet and the rapid growth of indexed web pages. On the other hand, short courses and Certifications like CIRS make the research process more accessible. CIRS Certification offers complete knowledge from beginner to expert level. You can become a Certified Professional Researcher and get a high-paying job, but you'll also be much more efficient and skilled at filtering out reliable data. You can learn more about becoming a Certified Professional Researcher.

Stay Organized

You'll see a lot of different material during the process of gathering data, from web pages to PDFs to videos. You must keep all of this information organized in some way so that you don't lose anything or forget to mention something properly. There are many ways to keep your research project organized, but here are a few of the most common: Learning Management Software , Bookmarks in your browser, index cards, and a bibliography that you can add to as you go are all excellent tools for writing.

Make Use of the library's Resources

If you still have questions about researching, don't worry—even if you're not a student performing academic or course-related research, there are many resources available to assist you. Many high school and university libraries, in reality, provide resources not only for staff and students but also for the general public. Look for research guidelines or access to specific databases on the library's website. Association of Internet Research Specialists enjoys sharing informational content such as research-related articles , research papers , specialized search engines list compiled from various sources, and contributions from our members and in-house experts.

of Conducting Research

Latest from erin r. goodrich.

How to Recruit IT Employees
10 Best People Search Engines and Websites in 2022
Leveraging Local SEO Strategies for Small Business Growth

Live Classes Schedule

World's leading professional association of Internet Research Specialists - We deliver Knowledge, Education, Training, and Certification in the field of Professional Online Research. The AOFIRS is considered a major contributor in improving Web Search Skills and recognizes Online Research work as a full-time occupation for those that use the Internet as their primary source of information.

Get Exclusive Research Tips in Your Inbox

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Advertising Opportunities
Knowledge Network

Work Abroad

Study abroad.

Citizenship

Celebrating Earth Day with the National Academies

Rohr Named U.S. Winner of Frontiers Planet Prize

NAS Launches Science and Innovation Fund for Ukraine

Review Examines COVID-19 Vaccination and Adverse Events

Load More...

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Race Is Central to Identity for Black Americans and Affects How They Connect With Each Other

Many learn about ancestors, u.s. black history from family, table of contents.

The importance of being Black for connections with other Black people
The importance of Blackness for knowing family history and U.S. Black history
Younger Black people are less likely to speak to relatives about ancestors
Black Americans differ by party on measures of identity and connection
The importance of race, ancestry and place to personal identity
The importance of gender and sexuality to personal identity
Black Americans and connectedness to other Black people
Intra-racial connections locally, nationally and globally
How Black Americans learn about their family history
Most Black adults say their ancestors were enslaved, but some are not sure
Most Black adults are at least somewhat informed about U.S. Black history
For many Black adults, where they live shapes how they think about themselves
Acknowledgments
The American Trends Panel survey methodology

A photo of a Black man in a dark blue suit and blue and white checkered button up underneath looking at reflection of himself on a building. (Photo credit: Getty Images)

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to understand the rich diversity of Black people in the United States and their views of Black identity. This in-depth, robust survey explores differences among Black Americans in views of identity such as between U.S.-born Black people and Black immigrants; Black people living in different regions of the country; and between Black people of different ethnicities, political party affiliations, ages and income levels. The analysis is the latest in the Center’s series of in-depth surveys of public opinion among Black Americans (read the first, “ Faith Among Black Americans ”).

The online survey of 3,912 Black U.S. adults was conducted Oct. 4-17, 2021. The survey includes 1,025 Black adults on Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) and 2,887 Black adults on Ipsos’ KnowledgePanel. Respondents on both panels are recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses.

Recruiting panelists by phone or mail ensures that nearly all U.S. Black adults have a chance of selection. This gives us confidence that any sample can represent the whole population (see our Methods 101 explainer on random sampling). Here are the questions used for the survey of Black adults , along with its responses and methodology .

The terms “Black Americans” , “Black people” and “Black adults” are used interchangeably throughout this report to refer to U.S. adults who self-identify as Black, either alone or in combination with other races or Hispanic identity.

Throughout this report, “Black, non-Hispanic” respondents are those who identify as single-race Black and say they have no Hispanic background. “Black Hispanic” respondents are those who identify as Black and say they have Hispanic background. We use the terms “Black Hispanic” and “Hispanic Black” interchangeably. “Multiracial” respondents are those who indicate two or more racial backgrounds (one of which is Black) and say they are not Hispanic.

Respondents were asked a question about how important being Black was to how they think about themselves. In this report, we use the terms “being Black” and “Blackness” interchangeably when referencing responses to this question.

In this report, “immigrant” refers to people who were not U.S. citizens at birth – in other words, those born outside the U.S., Puerto Rico or other U.S. territories to parents who were not U.S. citizens. We use the terms “immigrant” and “foreign-born” interchangeably.

Throughout this report, “Democrat and Democratic leaners” refers to respondents who say in they identify politically with the Democratic Party or are independent but lean toward the Democratic Party. “ Republican and Republican leaners” refers to respondents who identify politically with the Republican Party or are independent but lean toward the Republican Party.

To create the upper-, middle- and lower-income tiers, respondents’ 2020 family incomes were adjusted for differences in purchasing power by geographic region and household size. Respondents were then placed into income tiers: “Middle income” is defined as two-thirds to double the median annual income for the entire survey sample. “Lower income” falls below that range, and “upper income” lies above it. For more information about how the income tiers were created, read the methodology .

No matter where they are from, who they are, their economic circumstances or educational backgrounds, significant majorities of Black Americans say being Black is extremely or very important to how they think about themselves, with about three-quarters (76%) overall saying so.

Pie chart showing most Black adults say being Black is very important to how they see themselves

A significant share of Black Americans also say that when something happens to Black people in their local communities, across the nation or around the globe, it affects what happens in their own lives, highlighting a sense of connectedness. Black Americans say this even as they have diverse experiences and come from an array of backgrounds.

Even so, Black adults who say being Black is important to their sense of self are more likely than other Black adults to feel connected to other groups of Black people. They are also more likely to feel that what happens to Black people inside and outside the United States affects what happens in their own lives. These findings emerge from an extensive new survey of Black U.S. adults conducted by Pew Research Center.

A majority of non-Hispanic Black Americans (78%) say being Black is very or extremely important to how they think about themselves. This racial group is the largest among Black adults , accounting for 87% of the adult population, according to 2019 Census Bureau estimates. But among other Black Americans, roughly six-in-ten multiracial (57%) and Hispanic (58%) Black adults say this.

Black Americans also differ in key ways in their views about the importance of being Black to personal identity. While majorities of all age groups of Black people say being Black shapes how they think about themselves, younger Black Americans are less likely to say this – Black adults ages 50 and older are more likely than Black adults ages 18 to 29 to say that being Black is very or extremely important to how they think of themselves. Specifically, 76% of Black adults ages 30 to 49, 80% of those 50 to 64 and 83% of those 65 and older hold this view, while only 63% of those under 30 do.

Chart showing non-Hispanic Black adults most likely to say being Black is extremely or very important to how they see themselves

Black adults who identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party are more likely than those who identify with or lean toward the Republican Party to say being Black is important to how they see themselves – 86% vs. 58%. And Black women (80%) are more likely than Black men (72%) to say being Black is important to how they see themselves.

Still, some subgroups of Black Americans are about as likely as others to say that being Black is very or extremely important to how they think about themselves. For example, U.S.-born and immigrant Black adults are about as likely to say being Black is important to how they see their identity. However, not all Black Americans feel the same about the importance of being Black to their identity – 14% say it is only somewhat important to how they see themselves while 9% say it has little or no impact on their personal identity, reflecting the diversity of views about identity among Black Americans.

Bar chart showing that about half of Black adults say their fates are strongly linked with other Black people in the U.S.

Beyond the personal importance of Blackness – that is, the importance of being Black to personal identity – many Black Americans feel connected to each other. About five-in-ten (52%) say everything or most things that happen to Black people in the United States affect what happens in their own lives, with another 30% saying some things that happen nationally to Black people have a personal impact. And 43% say all or most things that happen to Black people in their local community affect what happens in their own lives, while another 35% say only some things in their lives are affected by these events. About four-in-ten Black adults in the U.S. (41%) say they feel their fates are strongly linked to Black people around the world, with 36% indicating that some things that happen to Black people around the world affect what happens in their own lives.

The survey also asked respondents how much they have in common with different groups of Black Americans. Some 17% of Black adults say they have everything or most things in common with Black people who are immigrants. But this sense of commonality differs sharply by nativity: 14% of U.S.-born Black adults say they have everything or most things in common with Black immigrants, while 43% of Black immigrants say the same. Conversely, only about one-in-four Black immigrants (26%) say they have everything or most things in common with U.S.-born Black people, a share that rises to 56% among U.S.-born Black people themselves.

About one-third of Black Americans (34%) say they have everything or most things in common with Black people who are poor, though smaller shares say the same about Black people who are wealthy (12%). Relatively few Black Americans (14%) say they have everything or most things in common with Black people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer (LGBTQ). However, a larger share of Black Americans (25%) say they have at least some things in common with Black people who identify as LGBTQ. All these findings highlight the diversity of the U.S. Black population and how much Black people feel connected to each other.

These are among the key findings from a recent Pew Research Center survey of 3,912 Black Americans conducted online Oct. 4-17, 2021. This report is the latest in a series of Pew Research Center studies focused on describing the rich diversity of Black people in the United States.

The nation’s Black population stood at 47 million in 2020 , making up 14% of the U.S. population – up from 13% in 2000. While the vast majority of Black Americans say their racial background is Black alone (88% in 2020), growing numbers are also multiracial or Hispanic. Most were born in the U.S. and trace their roots back several generations in the country, but a growing share are immigrants (12%) or the U.S.-born children of immigrant parents (9%). Geographically, while 56% of Black Americans live in the nation’s South , the national Black population has also dispersed widely across the country.

It is this diversity – among U.S.-born Black people and Black immigrants; between Black people who live in different regions; and across different ethnicities, party affiliations, ages and income levels – that this report explores. The survey also provides a robust opportunity to examine the importance of race to Black Americans’ sense of self and their connections to other Black people.

Bar chart showing Black Americans who say being Black is important to them are more likely to feel connected to other Black people

The importance of being Black to personal identity is a significant factor in how connected Black Americans feel toward each other. Those who say that being Black is a very or extremely important part of their personal identity are more likely than those for whom Blackness is relatively less important to express a sense of common fate with Black people in their local communities (50% vs. 17%), in the United States overall (62% vs. 21%), and even around the world (48% vs. 18%).

They are also more likely to say that they have everything or most things in common with Black people who are poor (37% vs. 23%) and Black immigrants (19% vs. 9%). Even so, fewer than half of Black Americans, no matter how important Blackness is to their personal identity, say they have everything or most things in common with Black people who are poor, immigrants or LGBTQ.

The new survey also explores Black Americans’ knowledge about their family histories and the history of Black people in the United States, with the importance of Blackness linked to greater knowledge.

Bar chart showing Black adults who say being Black is important to them are more likely to learn about their ancestors from relatives

Nearly six-in-ten Black adults (57%) say their ancestors were enslaved either in the U.S. or another country, with nearly all who say so (52% of the Black adults surveyed) saying it was in the U.S., either in whole or in part. Black adults who say that being Black is a very or extremely important part of how they see themselves (61%) are more likely than those for whom being Black is less important (45%) to say that their ancestors were enslaved. In fact, Black adults for whom Blackness is very or extremely important (31%) are less likely than their counterparts (42%) to say that they are not sure if their ancestors were enslaved at all.

When it comes to learning more about their family histories, Black adults for whom Blackness is very or extremely important (81%) are more likely than those for whom Blackness is less important (59%) to have spoken to their relatives. They are about as likely to have researched their family’s history online (36% and 30%, respectively) and to have used a mail-in DNA service such as AncestryDNA or 23andMe (15% and 16%) to learn more about their ancestry.

The importance of Blackness also figures prominently into how informed Black Americans feel about U.S. Black history. Black adults who say Blackness is a significant part of their personal identity are more likely than those for whom Blackness is less important to say that they feel very or extremely informed about U.S. Black history (57% vs. 29%). Overall, about half of Black Americans say they feel very or extremely informed about the history of Black people in the United States.

Among Black adults who feel at least a little informed about U.S. Black history, the sources of their knowledge also differ by the importance of Blackness to personal identity. Nearly half of Black adults for whom Blackness is very or extremely important (48%) say they learned about Black history from their families and friends, making them more likely to say so than Black adults for whom Blackness is less important (30%). Similarly, those who say being Black is important to their identity are more likely than those who did not say this to have learned about Black history from nearly every source they were asked about, be it media (33% vs. 22%), the internet (30% vs. 18%) or college, if they attended (26% vs. 14%). The only source for which both groups were about equally likely to say they learned about Black history was their K-12 schools (24% and 21%, respectively).

Overall, among Black Americans who feel at least a little informed about U.S. Black history, 43% say they learned about it from their relatives and friends, 30% say they learned about it from the media, 27% from the internet, and 24% from college (if they attended) and 23% from K-12 school.

Black adults under 30 years old differ significantly from older Black adults in their views on the importance of Blackness to their personal identity. However, Black adults also differ by age in how they pursue knowledge of family history, how informed they feel about U.S. Black history, and their sense of connectedness to other Black people.

Chart showing younger Black adults less likely than their elders to feel informed about U.S. Black history

Black adults under 30 (50%) are less likely than those 65 and older (64%) to say their ancestors were enslaved. In fact, 40% of Black adults under 30 say that they are not sure whether their ancestors were enslaved. Black adults in the youngest age group (59%) are less likely than the oldest (87%) to have spoken to their relatives about family history or to have used a mail-in DNA service to learn about their ancestors (11% vs. 21%). They are only slightly less likely to have conducted research on their families online (26% vs. 39%).

Black adults under 30 have the lowest share who say they feel very or extremely informed about the history of Black people in the United States (40%), compared with 60% of Black adults 65 and older and about half each of Black adults 50 to 64 (53%) and 30 to 49 (51%). In fact, Black adults under 30 are more likely than those 50 and older to say they feel a little or not at all informed about Black history. While Black adults are generally most likely to cite family and friends as their source for learning about Black history, the share under 30 (38%) who also cite the internet as a source of information is higher than the shares ages 50 to 64 (22%) and 65 and older (14%) who say this.

These age differences persist in the sense of connectedness that Black Americans have with other Black people. Black adults under 30 are less likely than those 65 and older to say that everything or most things that happen to Black people in the United States will affect their own lives. This youngest group is also less likely than the oldest to have this sense of common fate with Black people in their local community. One exception to this pattern occurs when Black adults were asked how much they had in common with Black people who identify as LGBTQ. Black adults under 30 (21%) were considerably more likely than those 65 and older (10%) to say they have everything or most things in common with Black people who identify as LGBTQ.

Black Democrats and Republicans differ on how important Blackness is to their personal identities. However, there are also partisan gaps when it comes to their connectedness to other Black people. 1

Bar chart showing Black Democrats more likely than Republicans to say what happens to other Black people in the U.S. will affect their own lives

Black Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party are more likely than Black Republicans and Republican leaners to say that everything or most things that happen to Black people in the United States (57% vs. 39%) and their local communities (46% vs. 30%) affect what happens in their own lives. However, Black Republicans (24%) are more likely than Black Democrats (14%) to say that they have everything or most things in common with Black people who are LGBTQ. They are also more likely than Black Democrats to say they have everything or most things in common with Black people who are wealthy (25% vs. 11%).

When it comes to knowledge of family and racial histories, Black Democrats and Republicans do not differ. Democrats (59%) are just as likely as Republicans (54%) to know that their ancestors were enslaved. Nearly 80% of Black adults from both partisan coalitions say they have spoken to their relatives about their family history. Similar shares have also researched their family histories online and used mail-in DNA services.

Black Democrats are also not significantly more likely than Black Republicans to say they feel very or extremely informed about U.S. Black history (53% vs. 45%). And among those who feel at least a little informed about U.S. Black history, Democrats and Republicans are about equally likely to say they learned it from family and friends (45% vs. 38%).

Place is a key part of Black Americans’ personal identities

The majority of Black adults who live in the United States were born there, but an increasing portion of the population is comprised of immigrants. Of those immigrants, nearly 90% were born in the Caribbean or Africa . Regardless of their region of birth, 58% of Black adults say the country they were born in is very or extremely important to how they think about themselves. A smaller share say the same about the places where they grew up (46%).

Bar chart showing half of Black adults say where they currently live is an important part of their identity

Black adults also feel strongly about their current communities. About half of Black adults (52%) say that where they currently live is very or extremely important to how they think about themselves. And when it comes to the quality of their neighborhoods, 76% of Black adults rate them as at least good places to live, including 41% who say the quality of their community is very good or excellent.

Still, Black adults say there are concerning issues in the communities they live in. When asked in an open-ended question to list the issue that was most important in their neighborhoods, nearly one-in-five Black adults listed issues related to violence or crime (17%). Smaller shares listed other points of concern such as economic issues like poverty and homelessness (11%), housing (7%), COVID-19 and public health (6%), or infrastructure issues such as the availability of public transportation and the conditions of roads (5%).

While nearly one-in-five Black Americans (17%) say that individual people like themselves should be responsible for solving these problems, they are most likely to say that local community leaders should address these issues (48%). Smaller shares say the U.S. Congress (12%), the U.S. president (8%) or civil rights organizations (2%) bear responsibility.

According to the survey, 80% of Black adults say they identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, 10% say the same of the Republican Party and 10% did not answer the question or indicated that they did not affiliate with either party. Among Black registered voters, the survey finds 85% identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party, 10% identify with or lean toward the Republican Party and 5% did not answer the question or indicated that they did not affiliate with either party. ↩

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

Black Americans
Family & Relationships
Gender & LGBTQ
Racial & Ethnic Identity
Rural, Urban and Suburban Communities

A look at Black-owned businesses in the U.S.

8 facts about black americans and the news, black americans’ views on success in the u.s., among black adults, those with higher incomes are most likely to say they are happy, fewer than half of black americans say the news often covers the issues that are important to them, most popular, report materials.

American Trends Panel Wave 97

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Age & Generations
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Economy & Work
Immigration & Migration
International Affairs
Internet & Technology
Methodological Research
News Habits & Media
Non-U.S. Governments
Other Topics
Politics & Policy
Race & Ethnicity
Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Terms & Conditions

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Triple Helix Dynamics and Hybrid Organizations: An Analysis of Value Creation Processes

Open access
Published: 22 April 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Gabriel Linton ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9517-1333 1

49 Accesses

Explore all metrics

The Triple Helix model, focusing on interactions among academia, industry, and government, has been an influential model for promoting innovation and regional development. However, limited research explores the model’s micro-level dynamics, alling for further investigation into its effectiveness. This study seeks to fill this gap by critically examining the micro-level dynamics of the Triple Helix model, with an emphasis on the roles played by a hybrid organization in the value creation process. Utilizing a case study approach, this research examines Robotdalen—a successful Swedish applied research initiative in robotics—to answer the research questions: How do value-creation activities within a Triple Helix model evolve and how do hybrid organizations facilitate and shape value creation throughout the development stages of an organization? The analysis contributes a fine-grained view of value creation and development over time in a large Triple Helix innovation initiative, highlighting the importance of hybrid organizations in facilitating collaboration and coordinating resources among stakeholders. The results identify critical factors such as collaboration, commercialization, innovation, and adaptation. This research contributes new theoretical insights and practical implications for leveraging hybrid organizations within the Triple Helix framework, thereby providing valuable guidance for policymakers, practitioners, and scholars engaged in crafting strategies to stimulate regional growth, innovation, and value creation in today’s dynamic global landscape.

The need for strategic redirection and business model change: The impact of evolving influential forces of change on international entrepreneurship environment

Fundamentals of Innovation

Iterative Transitions Between Exploration and Exploitation: Experiences from the Finnish Manufacturing Industry

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The Triple Helix model, which explores the synergistic relationship between universities, industries, and governments, is a crucial model for understanding innovation and economic development in today’s globalized landscape (Amaral & Cai, 2023 ; Cai & Etzkowitz, 2020 ; Carayannis & Campbell, 2009 ; Etzkowitz & Brisolla, 1999 ; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000 ). As knowledge and innovation have become increasingly critical factors for the sustainable development of any economy, the role of academic entrepreneurship has grown more significant (Cerver Romero et al., 2021 ; Feola et al., 2021 ; Guerrero & Urbano, 2012 ), positioning universities as central players in the economy (Audretsch, 2014 ). The Triple Helix model has been employed to explain innovation policies, knowledge transfer strategies, and addressing sustainable and inclusive growth (Carayannis & Rakhmatullin, 2014 ; de Lima Figueiredo et al., 2022 ; Farinha et al., 2016 ).

The Triple Helix model emphasizes potential synergies among wealth creation, knowledge production, and government regulations (Leydesdorff, 2012 ). According to Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff ( 2000 ) and Leydesdorff ( 2012 ), the university–industry–government interaction model has evolved, and frictions among the three domains (economics, science, and politics) can generate a plethora of opportunities for problem-solving and innovation (Ranga & Etzkowitz, 2013 ). The model also encourages identifying unevenness between institutional dimensions in arrangements and the social functions executed by such arrangements.

Although the Triple Helix model shows promise, previous studies have not effectively captured its full potential (Hasche et al., 2020 ; Miller et al., 2016 ). Researchers have identified several gaps in the literature, such as the insufficient focus on micro-level intricacies (McAdam and Debackere 2018 ), a lack of understanding of dynamic interactions between the three domains (universities, industries, and governments), and inadequate exploration of how value creation and knowledge transfer processes evolve within Triple Helix collaborations. This has prompted calls for research examining the Triple Helix from a micro perspective, concentrating on dynamic relationships, synergies, collaborations, coordinated environments, and value-creating activities (Cunningham et al., 2018 ; Edquist, 2011 ; Höglund & Linton, 2018 ; McAdam et al., 2012 ). Furthermore, existing research has yet to explore the specifics of knowledge transfer in the innovation process (Hakeem et al., 2023 ). Therefore, delving into Triple Helix’s micro aspects is crucial for a better understanding of value creation (Kriz et al. 2018 ) and its development over time (Pique et al. 2018 ), as well as the knowledge transfer process.

To address these gaps and gain a deeper understanding of the Triple Helix model, this study focuses on a micro-level investigation of the dynamics involved in value creation and knowledge transfer. The research questions are: (1) How do value-creation activities within a Triple Helix model evolve? and (2) What role do hybrid organizations play in value creation throughout an organization’s development stages? To address these questions, a case study analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989 ; Yin, 2009 ) of Robotdalen, an applied research initiative for robotics, is conducted. The Robotdalen case was chosen as it provides a unique opportunity to investigate a Triple Helix collaboration that has a long and rich history and has also been seen as a successful collaboration. The case allows analyzing the dynamics of value creation within a Triple Helix configuration, where the university, industry, and government collaborate (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000 ) to create a supportive environment for robotic innovation. This research contributes to the Triple Helix literature by providing a fine-grained view of value creation development over time in a large Triple Helix innovation initiative with a focus on the role of the hybrid organization.

This paper is organized as follows: The introduction sets the context and presents the research question on the role of hybrid organizations in value creation within the Triple Helix model, motivating the case study of Robotdalen. The theoretical background reviews relevant literature on Triple Helix, value creation, and hybrid organizations. The method section details the case study approach and data collection process. The case analysis presents the case of Robotdalen over time. The discussion section focuses on key themes of collaboration, commercialization, innovation, and adaptation. The conclusion section explores the implications of the findings for the Triple Helix literature and the role of hybrid organizations in fostering innovation and value creation and summarizes the main findings, acknowledges limitations, and proposes future research directions.

Theoretical Background

The Triple Helix model has gained considerable traction as a central model for understanding and promoting innovation and regional development in knowledge-based societies. By emphasizing the importance of collaboration and networking among actors from academia, industry, and government, the model has inspired a wide range of applications and research directions. In particular, the development of entrepreneurial ecosystems, knowledge clusters, and regional and national innovation policies have all benefited from the Triple Helix model (Galvao et al., 2019 ).

As scholars have continued to develop the Triple Helix model, several key themes and concepts have emerged to further enrich our understanding of the dynamics and processes involved in collaboration, innovation, and value creation. For example, Carayannis and Campbell ( 2009 , 2010 ) introduced the concept of the Quadruple Helix, which adds a fourth sphere—civil society—into the mix, emphasizing the role of users, consumers, and communities in driving innovation and regional development. This perspective emphasizes how crucial user-driven and demand-oriented innovation is in today’s knowledge-based societies. Recent scholarship proposes that Quadruple and Quintuple Helix dynamics can be understood as interlinked Triple Helix configurations, facilitating a more agile governance approach to innovation (Leydesdorff & Smith, 2022 ; Xue & Gao, 2022 ). The neo-Triple Helix model further integrates societal and environmental dimensions into the innovation ecosystems (Cai, 2022 ).

In the Triple Helix literature, the concept of hybrid organizations refers to entities that combine the characteristics and functions of two or more institutional spheres, such as academia, industry, and government, to advance innovation and economic development. Hybrid organizations have become increasingly important in the Triple Helix literature due to their unique position in facilitating and managing interactions among the different institutional spheres of academia, industry, and government (Champenois & Etzkowitz, 2017 ; Hasche et al., 2020 ). These organizations serve as bridges between the various stakeholders, helping to navigate the complexities and inherent challenges of multi-stakeholder collaborations. Hybrid organizations can take on various forms, such as technology transfer offices, innovation intermediaries, public–private partnerships, and university-industry research centers. These organizations play a crucial role in aligning stakeholder interests, promoting knowledge exchange, and facilitating resource sharing among the different actors involved in Triple Helix collaborations (Howells, 2006 ; Ranga & Etzkowitz, 2013 ). One of the key capabilities of hybrid organizations is their ability to manage the inherent tensions and conflicts that may arise in multi-stakeholder collaborations (Aarikka-Stenroos & Ritala, 2017 ). This often involves finding a balance between competing interests, such as the need for open knowledge sharing and the protection of knowledge, such as intellectual property rights, or the pursuit of fundamental research versus the demands for commercialization and market-driven innovation.

In addition to balancing conflicting interests, hybrid organizations must also manage diverse stakeholder expectations (Mair et al., 2015 ). For example, academic institutions may prioritize knowledge production and the advancement of scientific understanding, while industry partners may be more focused on the development of marketable products and services. Hybrid organizations must effectively communicate and coordinate the needs and expectations of each stakeholder to ensure a mutually beneficial collaboration. Furthermore, hybrid organizations play a critical role in creating an environment conducive to collaboration and trust-building among Triple Helix stakeholders. This involves fostering a culture of openness, transparency, and mutual respect, as well as establishing clear governance structures and processes to guide the collaborative efforts (Hasche et al., 2020 ).

These hybrid organizations take several forms, including Technology Transfer Offices, Innovation Intermediaries, Public–Private Partnerships, and University-Industry Research Centers, each having unique roles and characteristics (see Table 1 ). Technology Transfer Offices, as defined by Siegel et al. ( 2003 ), facilitate the transfer of technology from universities to industry, linking research outputs with industry needs and managing intellectual property. Innovation Intermediaries, according to Howells ( 2006 ), act as brokers within the innovation system, facilitating collaborations, and connecting various actors while providing innovation support services. Hodge and Greve ( 2007 ) describe Public–Private Partnerships as cooperative initiatives between government and private entities for the joint development and management of projects. Lastly, University-Industry Research Centers, as defined by Perkmann et al. ( 2013 ), are collaborative research units involving universities and industry for joint research initiatives, knowledge exchange, and student training.

Among these categories, Robotdalen best aligns with the definition of an Innovation Intermediary. It serves as a catalyst in the Swedish robotics innovation ecosystem, facilitating partnerships and collaborations among various actors such as universities, large corporations, SMEs, and different levels of government. By navigating these complex multi-stakeholder collaborations, Robotdalen fosters knowledge exchange, manages diverse stakeholder interests, and plays an instrumental role in supporting the commercialization of innovative robotic solutions with a particular emphasis on health, field, and industry applications. Additionally, it provides a range of support services, including market analysis, product development, and project management, further substantiating its role as an Innovation Intermediary within the Triple Helix model.

Micro-level and Value Creation in the Triple Helix

The perspective taken in this research is that of the Triple Helix as a network of relationships, where public and private organizations interact in value-creating processes to transform various inputs into valuable outputs for themselves and others. As shown in Table 2 , these interactions can manifest in a variety of value outcomes, ranging from job creation to interdisciplinary collaboration. In this setting, the hybrid organizations act as the glue connecting the various actors within the network and as a catalyst between them. Based on the social exchange theory (Cook and Emerson 1978 ), the relationships discussed are not viewed as created and developed in isolation. Instead, relationships are regarded as part of a broader context, that is, a network of interdependent relationships. In a Triple Helix setting, the actors, resources, and actions are seen as the context that supports value creation. According to Payne et al. ( 2008 ), value is created when various players combine their efforts and resources in order to achieve a specific goal. Before beginning the process, these actors must have standards for the collaboration and its outcomes. For each actor engaged, the expectations and goals may be the same or distinct. For instance, actors can create something through the combination of resources and actions that cannot be accomplished alone (Hasche 2013 ). Value can be difficult to define, in this research the value is seen as something that relies on the viewpoints of the specific actor (van der Haar et al. 2001 ). The interaction between actors will influence how the value-creating process develops over time. During the interaction, the actors relate the present problems and challenges to how they perceive earlier interactions. The interacting parties’ decisions, attitudes, and conduct are also influenced by prior connections and their encounters with those relationships. The current interaction is also affected by the hopes that the actors have for their interactions in the future (Hasche and Linton 2018 ).

Value creation in the Triple Helix framework is a critical area of investigation, as it helps explain how the interactions between university, industry, and government actors can lead to the generation of economic, social, and environmental benefits. Researchers have sought to explore the mechanisms and processes through which value is created and how it evolves over time in complex innovation projects involving the Triple Helix actors. Kriz et al. ( 2018 ) conducted a comprehensive study on value creation in the Triple Helix framework, examining the role of collaboration, coordination, and resource exchange in generating value. They found that the interplay of these factors can lead to value co-creation, where multiple actors work together to generate novel solutions, products, or services that benefit all parties involved. This study also highlighted the importance of understanding the dynamic nature of value creation, as it evolves over time in response to changing market conditions, technological advancements, and policy shifts. Pique et al. ( 2018 ) emphasized the need to examine value creation in the Triple Helix framework from a knowledge transfer perspective. They argued that understanding the processes and mechanisms through which knowledge is transferred between the university, industry, and government actors is essential for fostering innovation and value creation. This focus on knowledge transfer processes can provide insights into how the Triple Helix framework can enhance the effectiveness of innovation projects and drive economic and social benefits. The micro-level perspective on the Triple Helix framework and value creation research has emerged as important areas of investigation in the literature. These perspectives help show the complex interactions, collaborations, and processes that drive innovation and value creation in the university-industry-government nexus.

The micro-level perspective on the Triple Helix framework has gained attention from scholars who believe that understanding the intricacies and interactions among the university, industry, and government actors is vital for fostering innovation and value creation. A key focus of this perspective is on dynamic relationships and collaborations between these actors, as well as the institutional arrangements that enable or hinder innovation and value creation. For instance, McAdam and Debackere ( 2018 ) explored the role of boundary-spanning individuals in university-industry-government collaborations, emphasizing the importance of personal relationships and informal networks in the Triple Helix framework. Their study demonstrated that boundary-spanning individuals play a crucial role in facilitating the flow of knowledge and resources between the helices, thus enhancing innovation potential. Another example is the work of Cunningham et al. ( 2018 ), which highlighted the importance of studying the Triple Helix framework at the micro-level to uncover the processes and mechanisms that drive innovation and value creation. They argued that examining individual actors, their interactions, and the institutional context in which they operate can provide valuable insights into the functioning of the Triple Helix framework and its effectiveness in promoting innovation. Höglund and Linton ( 2018 ) focused on the role of intermediaries in the Triple Helix, demonstrating their importance in facilitating collaborations, knowledge transfer, and resource mobilization between the university, industry, and government actors. The study showed that intermediaries can help bridge gaps and overcome barriers to cooperation, ultimately contributing to value creation in the Triple Helix.

The case study approach was chosen for this research because it allows for an in-depth analysis of the dynamic relationships among the various actors in a Triple Helix model, which is an area in need of further exploration. As Miller et al. ( 2016 ) argue a more comprehensive understanding of the complex activities and interactions in a Triple Helix environment can only be achieved through a detailed, micro-level case-based research. Case studies have the potential to generate rich, context-specific insights that can help refine and advance existing scholarly understanding (Eisenhardt, 2021 ; Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007 ; Siggelkow, 2007 ). Furthermore, a unique case study that is firmly grounded in prior research can contribute valuable conceptual and theoretical insights with broader implications beyond the specific case itself. Case-based research is particularly well-suited for examining the intricate relationships, processes, and dynamics within a Triple Helix collaboration, as it allows for a deeper understanding of the contextual factors, stakeholder perspectives, and evolving interactions that shape the collaboration’s outcomes. By adopting a qualitative case study approach, researchers can explore the interpretative aspects of the case, capturing the nuances, contingencies, and complexities that underlie Triple Helix collaborations, and addressing gaps in the existing literature (Siggelkow, 2007 ). Moreover, the case study method enables researchers to triangulate data from various sources, such as interviews, documents, and observations, providing a more robust and comprehensive understanding of the phenomena under investigation (Abdalla et al., 2018 ; Eisenhardt, 1989 ). This multi-faceted approach to data collection allows researchers to capture different stakeholder perspectives and experiences, offering a more holistic understanding of the Triple Helix collaboration in question. While the qualitative case study approach offers in-depth insights, its limitations include potential biases and a lower degree of generalizability. However, our rigorous process of data triangulation and engagement with multiple stakeholders helps to mitigate these concerns and enhances the validity of our findings.

Robotdalen in Sweden was examined, an initiative in the Mälardalen region that encompasses the three counties of Västmanland, Sörmland, and Örebro. Robotdalen was selected as a case because it could offer additional information and deepen our understanding of how a Triple Helix initiative can collaborate with stakeholders in the Triple Helix. Robotdalen represents a rather unique and successful partnership among various organizations, including universities, large corporations, SMEs, national government, and regional and local governments. Robotdalen was established in 2003 in an area where large companies have long utilized robots, such as the industrial robot manufacturer ABB.

To develop an understanding of how Robotdalen interacts with Triple Helix stakeholders, a qualitative research method was employed, adopting a case study approach that focuses on the interpretative aspects of the case and addresses gaps in the literature (cf. Siggelkow, 2007 ). The top management team members, including the general manager and deputy general manager, were interviewed annually between 2015 and 2019 to collect empirical data. In addition to formal interviews, several meetings were also held over the years with various Robotdalen employees, board members, funding organizations, and business partners.

The researcher conducted the interviews and participated solely as a researcher. A total of 46 interviews were conducted with various stakeholders involved with Robotdalen. This included the management team of Robotdalen, board members, funding bodies, top-level regional representatives, high-ranking local politicians, university representatives like vice-chancellors and heads of departments, as well as industry representatives such as top-level managers and owners/CEOs of startups. Each interview session lasted between 45 to 90 min, with all interactions being recorded and subsequently transcribed for in-depth analysis.

Instead of a strict set of questions, our interviews revolved around central themes, largely inspired by an interview guide. For instance, participants were prompted with overarching queries such as “Describe your engagement with Robotdalen,” “How crucial is the collaboration with Robotdalen for your organization?” and “In the absence of Robotdalen, how would that impact your operations?” These themes helped delve deep into the dynamics of their collaboration with Robotdalen, capturing both the essence and nuances of value creation within the Triple Helix collaborations. Such open-ended, thematic questions allowed the participants to provide detailed insights, recount experiences, and offer their perspectives on the evolving nature of their relationship with Robotdalen. This approach, we believe, garnered richer and more nuanced data, capturing the essence of value creation in the context of Triple Helix collaborations.

In addition to these interviews, our research was further supplemented with a range of secondary data sources. This included previous research reports on Robotdalen, evaluations of the initiative, annual reports, PowerPoint presentations from board meetings and other various meetings and interactions, meeting agendas, and publicly available resources like websites and press releases. The integration of both primary and secondary data sources ensured a holistic understanding of Robotdalen’s value creation dynamics within the Triple Helix model.

Analytical Process

The analytical process started with sorting interviews and documents and constructing a timeline of Robotdalen. After an overall timeline was constructed some more specific time periods could be identified in the data where the data showed specific focus or themes. Therefore, four time periods were defined. Thereafter each time period was separately analyzed and the most important events for each time period were highlighted and written up. Here empirical labels were found such as “international evaluation,” “shift towards commercialization,” and “change of core areas.” Once these first-order concepts were in place and the timeline seemed complete, the timeline was discussed with the management of Robotdalen. They gave some minor feedback and minor revisions were made to the timeline. Thereafter, the timeline was also sent and discussed with the major funder to get another perspective on the timeline. At this stage, there were no suggestions for revisions. The next step in the analytical process was to go back and forth between the theoretical framework and the written-up case, even in more detail than previously (Eisenhardt, 2021 ). This shifted the focus to include more about the hybrid organization of Robotdalen than was thought of beforehand, as it became apparent how important this hybrid organization was for the development of Robotdalen as an initiative. Second-order constructs were starting to form as the research continued the process of back and forth between theory and empirical case. In addition to the hybrid organization, collaboration, commercialization, innovation, and adaptation were second-order constructs that were found to be important. The iterative process and the ability to go back and forth to, for example, the management of Robotdalen helped validate and triangulate data from different sources. Key informants were also used to ensure the accuracy and credibility of the results.

Case Description: Robotdalen

Robotdalen stands as a symbol of structured collaboration, drawing inspiration from the Triple Helix model. Established in 2003 in Sweden’s Mälardalen region, this initiative converges academic, industry, and governmental entities, all striving for cutting-edge robotic advancements. Two regional universities, Mälardalen and Örebro, offer academic expertise. Global entities, like ABB and Volvo CE, alongside numerous SMEs, drive the industrial components. Governance is shaped by regional and local governments, complemented by multiple municipalities and hospitals that channel healthcare-oriented innovation.

Housed within Mälardalen University, Robotdalen spans three counties and numerous municipalities. It is financially sustained by the VINNVÄXT initiative by Vinnova which is Sweden’s innovation agency, receiving an annual allocation of approximately 1 million euros over a 10-year period which has to be matched with funding from local and regional governments, alongside firms operating within the region. Thus, it is about 2 million euros in total financing over a 10-year period. European alignments, notably with the European Union’s smart specialization strategy and the European Regional Development Fund, amplify Robotdalen’s reach. International affiliations with initiatives like euRobotics and SPARC further its global footprint.

Robotdalen operates as a non-profit initiative, not a traditional company, with a CEO and deputy CEO overseeing daily operations. Governance resides with a board comprising representatives from key stakeholders such as local government, academia, and industry partners. This board determines strategic direction and investment priorities, reflecting the collaborative nature of the initiative. Ownership, in traditional terms, does not apply; rather, it is a collaboration of various actors, each contributing resources and expertise. By 2017’s close, Robotdalen had fostered the creation of 45 products and 28 firms, much based on its collaborations.

Case Analysis

Starting up and finding a structure — 2003–2007, starting up.

Robotdalen started its operations in 2003 with a vision of regional growth in Mälardalen and world-class research. The aim was first and foremost to bring out new products, start new companies, and work for world-class research. The first years dealt a lot with building up the organization and partners. A hybrid organization was formed. The intent was to have a free-standing organization but, in the end, it became an entity under Mälardalen University. Robotdalen selected four core focus areas which were industrial robotics, field robotics, robotics for health and care as well as technology and knowledge dissemination. In the beginning, Robotdalen also searched for how an organization like Robotdalen could function effectively. The management and organization of Robotdalen initially had difficulty finding the right structures and people, which led to some turnover in the management in the first few years.

The Robots to a Thousand Project

In 2004, Robotdalen started a project called Robot to a Thousand, which is about seeing what can be automated and robotized for small and medium-sized companies. Small and medium-sized companies often have a lack of knowledge about automation through robotics, but through the project, studies are carried out at companies about the possibility of automation with investment costs taken into account. The studies result in concrete proposals on how the company can invest and have had an implementation rate of around 50%. The project delivered around 300 studies since 2004 and continued as part of Robotdalen, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale and under the name PILAR (pilot project Automation Challenge in the Robotliftet). Robot till tusen and now PILAR has not only benefited companies and the business world in general through robot solutions and investments but has also been an important way for Robotdalen to collaborate with, among others, MDH and Örebro University. Through this project, students have had the opportunity to practice converting theoretical knowledge into practical and important studies in specific courses in the education program. Since 2004, the project has thus been an important means of creating collaboration in Mälardalen between higher education and business, where Robotdalen had a central and coordinating role with direct positive effects for business and a useful experience for the many students who got to work with the pre-studies.

Focus on Research

In 2007, the Robotdalen Scientific Award was introduced, which is an award that can be applied for by young researchers or doctoral students from all over the world. The winning young researchers must have ground-breaking ideas and exceptional talents. The winner in 2007 received a winning sum of 20,000 Euro, financed by Robotdalen. This initiative can be seen as a clear reflection of the focus on research that Robotdalen has during the first period, from the start until about 2010. During this period, research and collaboration with the universities is an important and prioritized activity. A large part of Robotdalen’s resources goes to collaborating around research at MDH and Örebro University. One example of a research project is the Friction project Stir Robot Welding (FSW) which was carried out in collaboration with AASS at Örebro University, Esab, ABB, and Specma. The project intended to robotize friction welding where copper and aluminum can be joined together. Another research-based project during the years 2005–2007 was Navigation Systems for Automated Loaders (NSAL), which aimed to get mine loaders to drive completely autonomously. The project was a collaboration between Atlas Copco, Robotdalen, AASS (Örebro University), and the KK Foundation. It can therefore be stated that for this period initiatives such as the Robotdalen Scientific Award and several major research projects were a distinct focus for Robotdalen.

The Triple Helix Time Period (Approx. 2007–2011)

The Triple Helix time period is distinguished by focusing on Triple Helix collaboration, especially involving public sector collaboration more clearly.

Change of the Core Areas

Relatively early on, Robotdalen realized that the four core areas of industrial robotics, field robotics, robotics for health and care as well as technology and knowledge dissemination were too broad and that it was too difficult to manage all four in a good way. In particular, it was Technology and Knowledge Dissemination, which was about engaging children and young people in robotics, which was comparatively far from the other core areas. Technology and the spread of knowledge is one area that required completely different skills, for example, pedagogy, which is very different compared to the other three core areas where technology and development skills were important. In order to be able to work more focused, Robotdalen, therefore, decided to end this core area and focus more on competencies within technology, research, and development.

Development of Cooperation

Although there was a lot of focus on research (mainly applicable research) during the time period approx. 2007–2010, the Triple Helix idea was also an important focus area in which resources were invested. Robotdalen worked to develop the Triple Helix collaboration in different ways. Collaboration between industry and academia is fulfilled through research projects and projects such as Robot to a Thousand. However, it was not as easy to get concrete cooperation with municipalities and regions/county councils. But they tried in different ways. One example that shows that they worked to start cooperation with public actors was when Robotdalen took part in the technical convention (Teknikmässan) 2008. Then, it was not only Robots and projects that were displayed but also the municipalities that were active in Robotdalen that also came along and showcased the project together with Robotdalen.

Strong Brand

At this time, the Robotdalen brand began to grow strongly and now the brand gained traction in Mälardalen but also outside this region. One reason why Robotdalen’s brand began to gain traction was that the organization began to gain real momentum in its operations, and Robotdalen was now considered a well-functioning Triple Helix that made a difference in Mälardalen. The vision for Robotdalen during this time is still regional growth, which indicates a continued regional focus.

During this time, the goals for Robotdalen were broadened to not only focus on new products, companies, and world-class research, but a new goal is also to create and save jobs. This can be a result of several different reasons. Robotdalen is going well, which makes you feel that you can take on more. At the same time, they want to work closely with public actors, who are interested in job creation. Another factor is the financial crisis where many jobs were lost. In addition, a further goal is to create an innovation system within robotics. At the same time, the core areas that were previously restricted are being increased to now also include innovation support and logistics automation, which means that they now have five different core areas.

Regional Competence and Job Ventures

In line with the Triple Helix model and to strengthen cooperation with regions/county councils/municipalities, a new goal was to create and save jobs. In 2009, a venture was created together with ABB, VINNOVA, and the city of Västerås, which was called Växthuset. There, 12 people with important robotics competence could be retained when ABB had to lay off employees due to the financial crisis. It was important for ABB and the region not to lose this competence and they had to work with development projects that would otherwise not have been possible, which resulted in three new products and scientific articles. At the same time, Robotdalen was involved and contributed to the start of a new automation profile at Mälardalen University College and a doctoral program in robotics was also created.

Innovation System for Robotics

Creating a separate innovation system for robotics sounds like a very vast task. But in fact, the “innovation system” was more about Robotdalen becoming a center in a robotics innovation system where Robotdalen created the “Robotdalen innovation process,” partial innovation support, and a strong network of partners that collaborated with the already existing innovation system with incubators for example.

Several startups were established during this time period. For example, Robcab, a logistics robot that was intended to be used in healthcare, was getting a pilot installation. Another establishment is that of entrepreneur Steven Von Rump, who chooses to establish his new company within Robotdalen’s network. This was the first international establishment. Giraffe is a robot that makes it possible to see and talk to, for example, the elderly, but also to control the robot around the home.

Extended Operation

The time period shows expansion and broadening of targets and core areas which may be a result of things going relatively well for Robotdalen. There was room to continue the expansion by broadening the business in terms of targets and operational areas. The investment in research continues to distinguish this time period as well. Robotdalen has many collaborative projects with AASS at Örebro University. AASS and Robotdalen have several areas of focus that coincide with each other, probably a result of the fact that they have enriched each other through the many joint projects that have been carried out.

The Time Period Internationalization 2011–2014

The years 2011–2014 can be characterized by a major focus on internationalization, which largely has its background in the international evaluation that was carried out in 2010, but there where changes in the business that began first and foremost in 2011 and later. This period is also marked by the renewed financial trust that Robotdalen receives from Vinnova and the regional and local partners.

The International Evaluation

In 2010, Robotdalen was evaluated by a group of international experts in the area (Cooke et al., 2010 ). Overall, Robotdalen receives a good review from the evaluators, but they also find that Robotdalen has diversified operations and needs to focus more on niche technologies and markets. The evaluation also suggests that Robotdalen needs collaborations outside the region and that Robotdalen should also work towards becoming an internationally recognized environment.

Changes After the Evaluation

In retrospect, it can be seen that the international evaluation had a relatively large impact on how Robotdalen continued to conduct its business. The focus areas were reduced and became more focused while investing more in national and international collaborations to also achieve high international status. After this evaluation, it is also possible to discern a strategy that the evaluators did not directly present in their reports, but which was possibly a result of analytical strategy work in connection with the change work. Robotdalen changes its vision to “enable commercial success.” Robotdalen changes and chooses to focus more on products and succeeds in commercializing various projects.

In line with the evaluation that recommended focusing on fewer areas and also more niche areas, the core areas for Robotdalen are now changing once again. The focus will now be on the three core areas of industrial robotics, field robotics, and health robotics.

Shift Toward Commercialization

The research that has been an important part of Robotdalen is beginning to fall back and no longer has such a central role. Robotdalen wants to see more concrete results in the form of products on the market and new companies. Research has not delivered enough products and companies to the market. Robotdalen, therefore, chooses to instead focus more directly on the commercialization of products and the creation of new companies. A clear reflection of this time period is how the Robotdalen Scientific Award, which has been awarded to young researchers, changes its name to the Robotdalen Innovation Award. Instead of a prize for researchers, there will now be a prize awarded to entrepreneurs, innovators, and startups or people with solutions that can be commercialized. Broadly speaking, resources are being shifted from research to commercialization.

Internationalization of Robotdalen

In order to increase internationalization, Robotdalen works in different ways to gain international impact as well. Among other things, they create the Robotdalen innovation challenge—an international event to discuss challenges and opportunities in the commercialization of robotics to show that Robotdalen is a meeting place for robotics. Robotdalen is now also starting to become more active in EU projects and is more actively looking for international business partners, including Japan and the USA. One example is the Japanese company Cyberdune, which moved to Västerås in 2012 to establish itself within Robotdalen.

The previous idea of creating a separate innovation system has now been reformulated, and it is now emphasized that it is in collaboration with other actors that Robotdalen is an important part of the innovation system. Instead, Robotdalen’s role is to develop a well-functioning idea development and commercialization process. In-depth cooperation with regions, county councils, and municipalities leads to several physical locations. One example is the Ängen testbed in Örebro through Örebro Science Park, the Robot Application Center (RAC) in Munktell Science Park in Eskilstuna, and the Automation Center in Västerås. All these physical locations are the results of collaboration in the regional innovation system. In addition, they also managed to get funding for Technology for Independent Life (T4IL) to invest even more in health robotics.

The Time Period Commercialization 2014–2020

Although commercialization was focused on in the previous period, commercialization becomes even more emphasized in this time period. There is also a change in the commercialization aspect by not only focusing on commercializing products but also commercializing Robotdalen as an organization. This time period is also marked by the fact that the VINNVÄXT program will be phased out and end in 2019, which will lead to several major changes to the organization.

New Board and the New Robotdalen

Robotdalen needs to renew the board and bring in other skills. The management of Robotdalen argues for a renewal of the board which is based on getting the right competence into the board. In the past, the board has primarily had representatives from the major actors and financiers of Robotdalen. In the later part of the time period, the direction of strategy/focus changes to applying existing and new robotics to new areas of application. One project that reflects this focus is Våroffer, which is a very different project for Robotdalen. It is a performance where the dancer and choreographer Fredrik “Benke” Rydman dances with an industrial robot at the Kulturhuset in Stockholm. Robotdalen’s task is to program a large industrial robot from ABB to dance.

A few years into this period, it is clear that Vinnova, which has already extended Robotdalen’s VINNVÄXT investment, will not extend the funding, but will instead step down the funding with an end in June 2019. This message was clearly not what Robotdalen’s management wanted, and it meant great demands on changing an organization that has been built up around generous funding over many years. This became a big challenge for the management to come up with a plan for how Robotdalen could continue. Robotdalen’s strategy to survive is to change the business to become more commercial. By becoming more commercial, Robotdalen can continue to use the resources, networks, and especially the knowledge that has been created. The management succeeded in reorganizing the business to survive without the base funding from Vinnova. The management also expressed the change that the lost funding has contributed to in a cautiously positive spirit, and there is a strong belief that Robotdalen will be able to continue to live on in a good but a different way in the future.

Research and Development

Robotdalen sees increased interest from external stakeholders to buy research and development assignments from Robotdalen. It is Robotdalen’s unique domain expertise that is sought after. Robotdalen is starting several large collaborative projects with major industrial partners, such as Skanska and Volvo. These companies do not themselves have sufficient competence in robotics but make use of the knowledge available within Robotdalen and its network.

From Internationalization Back to Regionalization

If the previous time period involved a great focus on internationalization, then during the last time period you can see that internationalization is something that has become less interesting in recent years. Robotdalen continued with internationalization, but it was no longer the same priority, even if, for example, they started cooperation with investors in China. The fact that the international initiatives within Robotdalen are reduced can be attributed to the fact that the local and regional actors were not as interested in seeing Robotdalen invest in international projects and initiatives. These actors are more interested in that funding, and especially the funding that they themselves contribute stays within the region. During this time, the local and regional financiers become even more important than they were before since Robotdalen will in the future get its basic funding from the local and regional ones when the VINNVÄXT investment ends. Another factor that came into play at the same time is that it was not easy to switch from a regional and national center to becoming a European and international center. One example of the regional focus is establishing the Collaborative Robot Test Center (CRTC) in Västerås to find new processes and applications with new technology within the Swedish manufacturing industry. The operation is partly financed by Vinnova and ABB.

Örebro Going in its Own Direction

Örebro municipality, region Örebro, and Örebro University choose to end their collaboration with Robotdalen. The obvious reaction and conclusion can easily be taken to mean that Robotdalen failed with Örebro. But this defection can be interpreted in several ways. Robotdalen’s focus in Örebro has primarily been linked to Örebro University and the research group AASS. This research group was growing stronger and stronger. In 2019, AASS consists of over 60 employees (professors, lecturers, doctoral students, and postdoctoral fellows), which means that the research group will be very large and can act more independently. It may be that AASS is no longer interested in being “under” Robotdalen but instead wants to become more independent, especially since Robotdalen does not invest as much in research at the academies. This in turn can be interpreted as Robotdalen having played out its role, but it can also be argued that Robotdalen has succeeded in being involved and creating, or at least contributed to AASS which can now continue to live independently. Furthermore, it was also known that the larger funding from Vinnova would not be available anymore for Robotdalen when the decision was made to go our separate ways. In the local and regional innovation systems, there is always fierce competition for funding between actors in the local innovation system. Reducing the number of actors, especially when Robotdalen will no longer contribute as generously, makes it easier for the local and regional funders to focus their funding efforts.

The analysis of Robotdalen’s value creation, organized around key themes, and the examination of its hybrid organization provides a comprehensive understanding of the dynamic nature of the Triple Helix model and the importance of collaboration, commercialization, innovation, and adaptation in fostering regional growth and value creation (Table 3 ). The case of Robotdalen extends the Triple Helix model by illustrating how hybrid organizations can act as central nodes in the innovation networks. This case highlights that a single entity can streamline collaboration, knowledge exchange, and commercialization processes among the three helices, thus acting as both a participant and a facilitator within the innovation ecosystem.

Throughout the various periods, the collaboration between academia, industry, and the government played a crucial role in Robotdalen’s success. This collaboration was facilitated by the hybrid organization, which served as a boundary-spanning entity, connecting the various actors and enabling the flow of knowledge and resources among them. Collaborative initiatives like the creation and saving of jobs, the establishment of new companies, and partnerships with academic institutions like AASS at Örebro University exemplify the power of collaboration in driving value creation. By leveraging the strengths of each sector and the coordination provided by the hybrid organization, Robotdalen was able to create a synergistic environment conducive to innovation and growth. This finding illustrates the evolution of value-creation activities within the Triple Helix model, showing how a strong collaboration between academia, industry, and government contributes to the development of a hybrid organization like Robotdalen.

The focus on commercialization proved to be vital in ensuring the practical application of research and development efforts. The hybrid organization’s role as an intermediary allowed Robotdalen to effectively connect research with industry partners, resulting in the successful translation of research into tangible products and services. By bringing new products and services to market, Robotdalen generated economic value for the region and contributed to its reputation as a leader in robotics and automation. Startups like Robcab and Giraff demonstrate the successful combination of research, collaboration and the facilitative role of the hybrid organization in commercialization efforts. The successful commercialization efforts of Robotdalen, facilitated by the hybrid organization, demonstrate how value creation within the Triple Helix model evolves over time, with the hybrid organization playing a critical role in connecting research and industry partners.

Central to Robotdalen’s value creation was the fostering of an innovation system for robotics, leveraging the Triple Helix model to drive advancements in research, products, and services. The hybrid organization played a critical role in coordinating the efforts of academia, industry, and government, creating a collaborative ecosystem that promoted the exchange of ideas, resources, and expertise. This ecosystem, combined with initiatives like the Robotdalen Scientific Award and various collaborative research projects, allowed Robotdalen to consistently produce world-class research and innovations.

Robotdalen’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances and recommendations throughout different time periods played a significant role in its sustained value creation. The hybrid organization’s adaptability and resilience enabled it to respond effectively to shifts in stakeholder expectations and the availability of funding. By focusing on specific market segments, increasing internationalization, and forging new partnerships outside Sweden, Robotdalen was able to maintain its competitive edge and continually deliver value despite shifting conditions. Similarly, in the 2014–2019 period, when national funding was ending, Robotdalen shifted its focus towards commercialization and consulting-based operations to finance its operations, further highlighting the importance of adaptability in the Triple Helix model. Robotdalen’s adaptability to changing circumstances highlights the significance of the hybrid organization’s role in value creation at different stages of development within the Triple Helix model.

By examining the key themes of collaboration, commercialization, innovation, and adaptation, and analyzing the role of the hybrid organization in facilitating and managing the Triple Helix collaboration, we gain a deeper understanding of the factors contributing to Robotdalen’s successful value creation within the Triple Helix model. This integrated approach underscores the importance of fostering strong relationships among the three sectors, driving innovation, and adapting to changing conditions to ensure long-term growth and success, with the hybrid organization playing an important role in this process.

The study contributes to the Triple Helix literature by providing a fine-grained analysis of the dynamics of value creation in a large Triple Helix innovation project, which was previously underexplored. The key themes of collaboration, commercialization, innovation, and adaptation that emerged from the Robotdalen case expand our understanding of how these factors interplay within the Triple Helix model. The emphasis on collaboration in the Robotdalen case supports the existing notion that synergistic interactions between academia, industry, and government are crucial for fostering innovation (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000 ). Moreover, the findings on the role of the hybrid organization in facilitating collaboration and resource exchange provide empirical evidence that supports the theoretical proposition of boundary-spanning entities being essential for effective Triple Helix interactions (Carayannis & Campbell, 2009 ). The Robotdalen case sheds light on the importance of adaptation in sustaining value creation within the Triple Helix model, which has not been extensively discussed in previous studies. Our findings suggest that the ability of hybrid organizations to adapt to changing circumstances and recommendations is a crucial factor in ensuring their long-term success and relevance within the Triple Helix context.

Conclusions

This study examined the evolution of Robotdalen over 16 years, with a particular focus on the dynamics of value creation within a Triple Helix model, encompassing academia, industry, and government. The research identified how value-creation activities shifted and adapted over time, and how different types of capabilities were essential for the creation of expected value at different stages of the organization’s development. This study answers the research question by demonstrating the evolution of value-creation activities within the Triple Helix model and the role hybrid organizations, such as Robotdalen, play in value creation at various stages of an organization's development.

The study revealed that collaboration among academia, industry, and the government is essential for driving value creation and regional growth. The hybrid organization, Robotdalen, played a crucial role in facilitating these collaborations and enabling the flow of knowledge and resources among the different actors. By leveraging the strengths of each sector and the coordination provided by the hybrid organization, Robotdalen created a synergistic environment conducive to innovation and growth. Furthermore, the focus on commercialization, supported by the hybrid organization’s role as an intermediary, allowed for the successful translation of research and development efforts into tangible products and services, generating economic value for the region. The ability to adapt to changing circumstances and recommendations emerged as another critical factor in Robotdalen’s sustained value creation.

Despite the insights gained from this research, there are some limitations to consider. The study focused primarily on a single case, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the retrospective nature of the analysis might introduce potential biases in the interpretation of the data. Future research directions could include comparative studies of multiple hybrid organizations operating within the Triple Helix model to further explain the factors contributing to successful value creation. Moreover, future research could also explore the influence of cultural, political, and economic contexts on the functioning of the Triple Helix model and the effectiveness of hybrid organizations in different regions.

This research has contributed valuable insights into the role of the Triple Helix model and hybrid organizations in fostering innovation and value creation. By examining the key themes of collaboration, commercialization, innovation, and adaptation, and analyzing the role of the hybrid organization, Robotdalen, the study offers a deeper understanding of the factors contributing to successful value creation within the Triple Helix model. The findings of this research provide valuable insights for policymakers and managers seeking to enhance innovation and value creation by applying the Triple Helix model. For policymakers, the results emphasize the need to establish and support boundary-spanning hybrid organizations that can facilitate collaboration among academia, industry, and government, and effectively coordinate resources and knowledge flow between them. Policymakers should prioritize the development of policies and funding mechanisms that enable these hybrid organizations to thrive and adapt to changing circumstances.

Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Ritala, P. (2017). Network management in the era of ecosystems: Systematic review and management framework. Industrial Marketing Management, 67 , 23–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2017.08.010

Article Google Scholar

Abdalla, M. M., Oliveira, L. G. L., Azevedo, C. E. F., & Gonzalez, R. K. (2018). Quality in qualitative organizational research: Types of triangulation as a methodological alternative. Administração: ensino e pesquisa , 19 (1). https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5335/533556821002/533556821002.pdf . Accessed 15 December 2023.

Afonso, O., Monteiro, S., & Thompson, M. (2012). A growth model for the quadruple helix. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 13 (5), 849–865.

Amaral, M., & Cai, Y. (2023). A decade of Triple Helix journal – Achievements and challenges. Triple Helix, 9 (3), 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-12340008

Audretsch, D. B. (2014). From the entrepreneurial university to the university for the entrepreneurial society. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39 (3), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9288-1

Bøllingtoft, A. (2012). The bottom-up business incubator: Leverage to networking and cooperation practices in a self-generated, entrepreneurial-enabled environment. Technovation, 32 (5), 304–315.

Bolzani, D., Munari, F., Rasmussen, E., & Toschi, L. (2021). Technology transfer offices as providers of science and technology entrepreneurship education. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46 , 335–365. Chicago

Cai, Y. (2022). Neo-Triple Helix model of innovation ecosystems: Integrating triple, quadruple and quintuple helix models. Triple Helix, 9 (1), 76–106. https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10029

Cai, Y., & Etzkowitz, H. (2020). Theorizing the Triple Helix model: Past, present, and future. Triple Helix, 7 (2–3), 189–226. https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10003

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46 (3–4), 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2009.023374

Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? : A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD), 1 (1), 41–69. https://doi.org/10.4018/jsesd.2010010105

Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The quadruple/quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5 (2), 212–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0185-8

Cerver Romero, E., Ferreira, J. J. M., & Fernandes, C. I. (2021). The multiple faces of the entrepreneurial university: A review of the prevailing theoretical approaches. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46 (4), 1173–1195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09815-4

Champenois, C., & Etzkowitz, H. (2017). From boundary line to boundary space: The creation of hybrid organizations as a Triple Helix micro-foundation. Technovation . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.11.002

Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43 (5), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094546

Cooke, P., Eickelpasch, A., & Ffowcs-Williams, I. (2010). From low hanging fruit to strategic growth: International evaluation of robotdalen, skåne food innovation network and Uppsala BIO. VINNOVA report VR 2010:16 (p. 44). VINNOVA.

Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & O’Kane, C. (2018). Value creation in the quadruple helix: A micro level conceptual model of principal investigators as value creators. R&D Management, 48 (1), 136–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12310

de Lima Figueiredo, N., Fernandes, C. I., & Abrantes, J. L. (2022). Triple Helix Model: Cooperation in knowledge creation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy . https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00930-1

Dolan, B., Cunningham, J. A., Menter, M., & McGregor, C. (2019). The role and function of cooperative research centers in entrepreneurial universities: A micro level perspective. Management Decision, 57 (12), 3406–3425.

Edquist, C. (2011). Design of innovation policy through diagnostic analysis: Identification of systemic problems (or failures). Industrial and Corporate Change, 20 (6), 1725–1753. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtr060

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4), 532–550.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (2021). What is the Eisenhardt Method, really? Strategic Organization, 19 (1), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127020982866

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 25–32.

Etzkowitz, H., & Brisolla, S. N. (1999). Failure and success: The fate of industrial policy in Latin America and South East Asia. Research Policy, 28 (4), 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00077-8

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

Farinha, L., Ferreira, J., & Gouveia, B. (2016). Networks of innovation and competitiveness: A Triple Helix case study. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 7 (1), 259–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-014-0218-3

Feola, R., Parente, R., & Cucino, V. (2021). The Entrepreneurial University: How to develop the entrepreneurial orientation of academia. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 12 (4), 1787–1808. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-020-00675-9

Galvao, A., Mascarenhas, C., Marques, C., Ferreira, J., & Ratten, V. (2019). Triple helix and its evolution: A systematic literature review. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 10 (3), 812–833. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-10-2018-0103

Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37 (1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9171-x

Hackett, S. M., & Dilts, D. M. (2004). A systematic review of business incubation research. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29 (1), 55–82.

Hakeem, M. M., Goi, H. C., Frendy, & Ito, H. (2023). Regional sustainable development using a Quadruple Helix approach in Japan. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 10 (1), 119–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2023.2171313

Hasche, N. (2013). Value co-creating processes in international business relationships: Three empirical studies of cooperation between Chinese customers and Swedish suppliers. Örebro Universitet.

Hasche, N., & Linton, G. (2018). The value of failed relationships for the development of a Medtech start-up. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 30 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2017.1388953

Hasche, N., Höglund, L., & Linton, G. (2020). Quadruple helix as a network of relationships: Creating value within a Swedish regional innovation system. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 32 (6), 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2019.1643134

Hausberg, J. P., & Korreck, S. (2021). Business incubators and accelerators: A co-citation analysis-based, systematic literature review (pp. 39–63). Edward Elgar Publishing.

Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2007). Public–private partnerships: An international performance review. Public Administration Review, 67 (3), 545–558.

Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2017). On public–private partnership performance: A contemporary review. Public Works Management & Policy, 22 (1), 55–78.

Höglund, L., & Linton, G. (2018). Smart specialization in regional innovation systems: A quadruple helix perspective. R&D Management, 48 (1), 60–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12306

Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35 (5), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005

Hearn, G., & Pace, C. (2006). Value‐creating ecologies: Understanding next generation business systems. Foresight, 8 (1), 55–65.

Johannisson, B., & Nilsson, A. (1989). Community entrepreneurs: Networking for local development. Entrepreneurship & regional development, 1 (1), 3–19.

Kriz, A., Bankins, S., & Molloy, C. (2018). Readying a region: Temporally exploring the development of an Australian regional quadruple helix. R&D Management, 48 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12294

Lecluyse, L., Knockaert, M., & Spithoven, A. (2019). The contribution of science parks: A literature review and future research agenda. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 44 , 559–595.

Leydesdorff, L. (2012). The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, …, and an N-Tuple of helices: Explanatory models for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3 (1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-011-0049-4

Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2006). Triple helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, 35 (10), 1441–1449.

Leydesdorff, L., & Smith, H. L. (2022). Triple, quadruple, and higher-order helices: Historical phenomena and (neo-)evolutionary models. Triple Helix, 9 (1), 6–31. https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10022

Lin, M. W., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Researchers’ industry experience and productivity in university–industry research centers: A “scientific and technical human capital” explanation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31 , 269–290.

Mair, J., Mayer, J., & Lutz, E. (2015). Navigating institutional plurality: Organizational governance in hybrid organizations. Organization Studies, 36 (6), 713–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615580007

McAdam, M., & Debackere, K. (2018). Beyond ‘triple helix’ toward ‘quadruple helix’ models in regional innovation systems: Implications for theory and practice. R &D Management, 48 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12309

McAdam, R., Miller, K., McAdam, M., & Teague, S. (2012). The development of university technology transfer stakeholder relationships at a regional level: Lessons for the future. Technovation, 32 (1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2011.08.001

Meyer, M., Kuusisto, J., Grant, K., De Silva, M., Flowers, S., & Choksy, U. (2019). Towards new triple helix organisations? A comparative study of competence centres as knowledge, consensus and innovation spaces. R&D Management, 49 (4), 555–573.

Miller, K., McAdam, R., Moffett, S., Alexander, A., & Puthusserry, P. (2016). Knowledge transfer in university quadruple helix ecosystems: An absorptive capacity perspective. R&D Management, 46 (2), 383–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12182

Ranga, M., & Etzkowitz, H. (2013). Triple Helix Systems: An analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Industry and Higher Education, 27 (4), 237–262.

Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0070-0

Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’este, P., ... & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy, 42 (2), 423–442.

Pique, J. M., Berbegal-Mirabent, J., & Etzkowitz, H. (2018). Triple helix and the evolution of ecosystems of innovation: The case of silicon valley. Triple Helix, 5 (1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-018-0060-x

Siegel, D. S., Waldman, D. A., Atwater, L. E., & Link, A. N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: Improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14 (1), 111–133.

Siggelkow, N. (2007). Persuasion with case studies. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1), 20–24.

van der Haar, J. W., Kemp, R. G. M., & Omta, O. (2001). Creating value that cannot be copied. Industrial Marketing Management, 30 (8), Article 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-8501(99)00128-5

Xue, L., & Gao, Y. (2022). From modeling the interactions among Institutions to modeling the evolution of an ecosystem: A Reflection on the Triple Helix Model and Beyond. Triple Helix, 9 (1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1163/21971927-bja10027

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2008). Building an innovation hub: A case study of the transformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development. Research policy, 37 (8), 1188–1204.

Download references

Open access funding provided by Inland Norway University Of Applied Sciences

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

CREDS - Center for Research on Digitalization and Sustainability, Inland Norway University of Applied Sciences, Innlandet, Norway

Gabriel Linton

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel Linton .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Linton, G. Triple Helix Dynamics and Hybrid Organizations: An Analysis of Value Creation Processes. J Knowl Econ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01911-2

Download citation

Received : 29 March 2023

Accepted : 14 March 2024

Published : 22 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-024-01911-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Triple Helix Model
Hybrid Organizations
Value Creation
Innovation Ecosystems
Academic Entrepreneurship
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

2.1 Why is Research Important

USE OF RESEARCH INFORMATION

THE PROCESS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Answers to Exercises

Share This Book

2.1 Why Is Research Important?

Use of Research Information

Link to Learning

NOTABLE RESEARCHERS

The Process of Scientific Research

10 Reasons Why Research is Important

#1. Research expands your knowledge base

#2. Research gives you the latest information

#3. Research helps you know what you’re up against

#4. Research builds your credibility

#5. Research helps you narrow your scope

#6. Research teaches you better discernment

#7. Research introduces you to new ideas

#8. Research helps with problem-solving

#9. Research helps you reach people

#10. Research encourages curiosity

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

2.8: Why Is Research Important?

Learning outcomes

USE OF RESEARCH INFORMATION

THE PROCESS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

Review Questions

Critical Thinking Questions

Personal Application Questions

Evidence, research, knowledge: a call for conceptual clarity

Publication types

What is the importance of research in everyday life?

Research increases the quality of life

Research empowers us with knowledge

Research drives progress forward

Popular stories

KNOWLEDGE NETWORK

Six Reasons Why Research is Important

What is the Importance of Research?

Reasons for the Importance of Research

1- Acquire Knowledge Efficiently through Research

2- Research Helps in Problem-solving

3- Research Provides the Latest Information

4- Research Builds Credibility

5- Research Helps in Business Success

6- Research Discover and Seize Opportunities

How to Improve Your Research Skills

Identify Reliable Source

Validate Information from Various Sources

Facilitates Learning Process

Stay Organized

Make Use of the library's Resources

of Conducting Research

Live Classes Schedule

Get Exclusive Research Tips in Your Inbox

Work Abroad

Regions & Countries

Race Is Central to Identity for Black Americans and Affects How They Connect With Each Other

Place is a key part of Black Americans’ personal identities

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Sign up for The Briefing

A look at Black-owned businesses in the U.S.

Research Topics

Triple Helix Dynamics and Hybrid Organizations: An Analysis of Value Creation Processes

Cite this article

Similar content being viewed by others

The need for strategic redirection and business model change: The impact of evolving influential forces of change on international entrepreneurship environment

Fundamentals of Innovation

Iterative Transitions Between Exploration and Exploitation: Experiences from the Finnish Manufacturing Industry

Introduction

Theoretical Background

Micro-level and Value Creation in the Triple Helix

Analytical Process

Case Description: Robotdalen

Case Analysis

The Robots to a Thousand Project

Focus on Research

The Triple Helix Time Period (Approx. 2007–2011)

Change of the Core Areas

Development of Cooperation