Hélice Tríplice: inovação e empreendedorismo universidade-indústria-governo / Triple Helix: university-industry-government innovation and entrepreneurship

RESUMO A Hélice Tríplice tornou-se um modelo reconhecido internacionalmente, que está no âmago da disciplina emergente de estudos de inovação, e um guia de políticas e práticas nos âmbitos local, regional, nacional e multinacional. As interações universidade-indústria-governo, que formam uma "hélice tríplice" de inovação e empreendedorismo, são a chave para o crescimento econômico e o desenvolvimento social baseados no conhecimento. O artigo apresenta a origem do modelo, seu conceito, dinâmica, fontes e rotas alternativas.

ABSTRACT The Triple Helix has developed into an internationally recognized model that is at the heart of the emerging discipline of innovation studies, and a guide to policy and practice at the local, regional, national and multinational levels. University-industry-government interactions, forming a "triple helix" for innovation and entrepreneurship, are the key to knowledge-based economic growth and social development. The article discusses the model's origin, concept, dynamics, sources, and alternate routes.

Reasons for faculty departures from an academic medical center: a survey and comparison across faculty lines.

BACKGROUND: Faculty departure can present significant intellectual costs to an institution. The authors sought to identify the reasons for clinical and non-clinical faculty departures at one academic medical center (AMC). METHOD: In May and June 2010, the authors surveyed 137 faculty members who left a west coast School of Medicine (SOM) between 1999 and 2009. In May and June 2015, the same survey was sent to 40 faculty members who left the SOM between 2010-2014, for a total sample size of 177 former faculty members. The survey probed work history and experience, reasons for departure, and satisfaction at the SOM versus their current workplace. Statistical analyses included Pearson's chi-square test of independence and independent sample t-tests to understand quantitative differences between clinical and non-clinical respondents, as well as coding of qualitative open-ended responses. RESULTS: Eighty-eight faculty members responded (50%), including three who had since returned to the SOM. Overall, professional and advancement opportunities, salary concerns, and personal/family reasons were the three most cited factors for leaving. The average length of time at this SOM was shorter for faculty in clinical roles, who expressed lower workplace satisfaction and were more likely to perceive incongruence and inaccuracy in institutional expectations for their success than those in non-clinical roles. Clinical faculty respondents noted difficulty in balancing competing demands and navigating institutional expectations for advancement as reasons for leaving. CONCLUSIONS: AMCs may not be meeting faculty needs, especially those in clinical roles who balance multiple missions as clinicians, researchers, and educators. Institutions should address the challenges these faculty face in order to best recruit, retain, and advance faculty.

A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment.

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we - a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe - argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.