905630

research-article2020
EUR0010.1177/0969776420905630European Urban and Regional StudiesVallance et al.

European Urban
and Regional

Article Studies

European Urban and Regional Studies

Building collaborative platforms 2020, Vol. 27(4) 325­–341

© The Author(s) 2020

for urban innovation: Newcastle Article reuse guidelines:

City Futures as a quadruple helix

[Link]/journals-permissions
[Link]
DOI: 10.1177/0969776420905630
[Link]/home/eur
intermediary

Paul Vallance
The University of Sheffield, UK

Mark Tewdwr-Jones
Newcastle University, UK

Louise Kempton
Newcastle University, UK

Abstract
There is a growing academic and policy interest in the notion of using cities as ‘living laboratories’ to develop and
test responses to the social, environmental and economic challenges present in contemporary urbanism. These living
laboratories are often assumed to function through ‘quadruple helix’ relations between varied actors from the public,
private, university and community sectors. However, empirical research that explores the real-world functioning of
these arrangements is comparatively limited. This paper will help address this gap through the case of Newcastle City
Futures (NCF) – a university-anchored platform for collaborative urban foresight research, public engagement and
innovation. In particular, the paper will concentrate on a two-year period when NCF focused on the facilitation of
innovation demonstrator projects guided by the vision of Newcastle upon Tyne developing a postindustrial future as a
‘test-bed city’. Detailed empirical accounts of the development of two demonstrator projects are used to illustrate and
analyse processes of cross-sectoral collaboration and engaging the public in co-design. These are used to support the
conceptual argument that the presence of the quadruple helix as a form of local innovation system should not be taken
as given. Instead, the collaborative relationships required for transformational interventions in the future of cities need
to be actively constructed by diverse actors and supported by intermediary vehicles such as NCF.

Keywords
Innovation test-bed, living laboratories, quadruple helix, smart city, Urban Living Partnership

Introduction
Corresponding author:
A concern with the future of cities in the 21st century
Paul Vallance, Centre for Regional Economic and Enterprise
entails addressing demographic, environmental and Development (CREED), Sheffield University Management
socio-economic challenges that are corollaries of an School, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S10 1FL, UK.
increasingly urbanised world (Nijkamp and Kourtit, Email: [Link]@[Link]
326 European Urban and Regional Studies 27(4)

2013). The limitations of current corporate-driven, the empirical evidence that supports the real-world
technology-centred ‘smart city’ interventions in these presence of fully functioning urban living laboratory
respects mean that a need for more sustainable and and QH arrangements (either separately or in con-
socially inclusive solutions is apparent (Dixon, juncture) does not currently match the theoretical
2018; Trivellato, 2017). One area of exploration into claims and policy rhetoric around these phenomena.
this problem is around the contribution of universities There is therefore a need for in-depth, multifaceted
to cities. This interest extends not just to the growth of academic studies of cases where these concepts have
knowledge-intensive economic activities, but also to been put into practice in specific settings and, cru-
ensuring this is part of a more holistic pattern of cially, the considerable challenges that are inevitably
urban development (Goddard and Vallance, 2013; part of their formation and operation as vehicles for
Harris and Holley, 2016). As many universities are urban innovation in varied local contexts (Bulkeley
themselves located in urban areas, this strand of et al., 2019).
research has dovetailed with the notion of using the This paper will help close this gap in the litera-
city itself as a ‘living laboratory’ – that is, as a site for ture through a study of Newcastle City Futures
experimentation, learning and enacting change (NCF), a university-led initiative in the English city
in the local environment (Bulkeley et al., 2019; of Newcastle upon Tyne. Since its inception in 2014,
Karvonen and Van Heur, 2014; König and Evans, NCF has developed into a collaborative platform for
2013). In this scenario, new scientific knowledge is cross-sectoral demonstrator projects that are helping
seen to be the product of a mode of practice that is to substantiate a future vision of Newcastle – a for-
transdisciplinary, socially reflexive and generated mer industrial city with enduring socio-economic
by heterogeneous actors in contexts of practical challenges – as an urban innovation test-bed
application beyond the academy (Gibbons et al., (Vallance et al., 2019). In NCF’s most recent con-
1994; Nowotny et al., 2001). figuration – as an Urban Living Partnership (ULP)
These perspectives belong to a broader family of pilot project funded by the UK academic research
cross-disciplinary approaches that have rethought councils and national innovation agency – it drew
innovation as an open process requiring universities on relationships established with a range of stake-
to collaborate with varied partners (Van Geenhuizen, holders, as well as academic capabilities across two
2018). A popular framework used to analyse these universities, to help broker a portfolio of these dem-
relations over the past 20 years has been the ‘triple onstrator projects. This paper is focused on the pro-
helix’ (TH) model of industry, government and cess of facilitation and early implementation of
academia (Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, 1996). More these projects as a lens through which to study pro-
recently, attempts have been made to expand this cesses of multi-partner collaboration and public
into a ‘quadruple helix’ (QH) model by adding a engagement in the context of urban innovation.
fourth sphere that more explicitly recognises the co- The empirical sections draw on research material
production role of the public or other civil society collected during the tracking of the projects to help
actors (Carayannis and Campbell, 2009). The empha- analyse the underlying dynamics involved and
sis this carries on citizens as active beneficiaries of reflect on wider lessons that can be derived from
societal innovations clearly resonates with the living these experiences.
laboratory notion (Arnkil et al., 2010; Cossetta and NCF adopted a series of principles to guide pro-
Palumbo, 2014). For instance, members of the ject facilitation activities that, reflecting the cross-
European Union’s (EU’s) Open Innovation Strategy sectoral composition of the project consortia, were
and Policy Group have advanced the QH model as based on the QH model of innovation through inter-
being central to a new innovation paradigm (Open action between public, private, university and com-
Innovation 2.0) based on cross-organisational col- munity or social actors. Accordingly, the paper will
laboration, user/citizen co-created shared value and contribute to the emerging understanding of this
the cultivation of innovation ecosystems (such as framework. In particular, it argues that the presence
Living Labs) (Curley and Salmelin, 2013). However, of the QH as a form of local innovation system is
Vallance et al. 327

not given, but needs to be to be actively constructed – whether individuals, communities or organisations
by diverse actors and supported by intermediary – as integral to processes of product and service
vehicles. The NCF case also helps to extend exist- innovation (e.g. Grabher et al., 2008; Von Hippel,
ing conceptualisations of possible QH arrangements 2005). For Carayannis and Campbell (2012, 2014),
by providing an example of a local configuration leading proponents of the QH model, this represents
of these sectors that is anchored around the civic a more ‘democratic’ approach to innovation. It also
engagement activities of intermediary actors from more easily allows for the outcomes of these interac-
universities. tions across institutional boundaries to be conceived
The paper has six further sections. Firstly, a lit- as forms of social rather than just technological or
erature review outlines the QH model and related business innovation (Klein et al., 2013; Lehtola and
concepts that underpin the NCF approach to multi- Ståhle, 2014). Although some commentators have
sector collaboration. Secondly, a background sec- questioned the analytical validity of extrapolating
tion gives an overview of the NCF initiative in the from the TH concept in this manner (e.g. Leydesdorff,
context of North East England. Thirdly, a methodol- 2012), the basic idea of the QH clearly has some util-
ogy describes the research techniques used to track ity as a heuristic framework for the study of broader
and reflect on the progress of the demonstrator pro- forms of societal innovation (e.g. Gouvea et al.,
jects. Fourthly, the opening empirical section dis- 2013; Lindberg et al., 2014), and comparable pro-
cusses the NCF approach to project facilitation and cesses of, for instance, participatory urban govern-
barriers encountered in general. Fifthly, two detailed ance and planning (e.g. Chatterton et al., 2018) or
case studies of specific demonstrator projects in the formation of a regional smart specialisation strategy
domains of housing (Future Homes) and public (Aranguren et al., 2019). This reflects the growing
transport systems (Metro Futures) explore the key value of collaboration beyond individual organisa-
QH processes of building cross-sector consortia and tions in response to the uncertainty generated by
engaging the public in co-design. Finally, the con- highly complex societal ‘grand challenges’ at both
clusion summarises the main findings and contribu- global and local scales (Ferraro et al., 2015).
tion of the paper. Within this basic framework, however, it should
not be assumed that each part of the QH has an equal
Conceptual framework: level of influence in shaping innovation dynamics. In
a useful contribution, Arnkil et al. (2010) map four
Quadruple helix innovation
different versions of a QH model based on a review
systems of good practice cases. These range from a limited
The QH framework is an iteration of the more estab- modification of established patterns of organisa-
lished TH theory of innovation through interaction tional collaboration to acknowledge the input of
between different institutional spheres (Etzkowitz customer feedback (TH + users); through configu-
and Leydesdorff, 2000; Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz, rations of the QH dominated by, respectively, firms
1996). This packaged academic thinking about the and public sector organisations (firm-centred living
non-linear and systemic nature of innovation into lab and public-sector-centred living lab); to a model
an easily understood and internationally applicable that is genuinely oriented around the needs of the
conceptual and policy model of network relations public (citizen-centred QH). This highlights that the
between industry, government and university part- category of ‘users’ (that here defines the fourth helix)
ners (Benneworth et al., 2015). In the QH, this is can take different forms relative to other actors and
extended by adding a fourth sphere of the public and in different partnership dynamics – from just a
civil society to the more conventionally recognised source of information on consumption behaviours,
innovation actors of the TH (Arnkil et al., 2010; through having some agency as co-designers with
Carayannis and Campbell, 2009). firms or public sector organisations, to themselves
This reflects a wider tendency in contemporary being the key drivers of social innovation processes
studies to explicitly recognise the role of end-users as engaged citizens.
328 European Urban and Regional Studies 27(4)

Absent from Arnkil et al.’s taxonomy is a version instance, have sought to elaborate on the basic model
of the QH in which universities are positioned as through association with local/regional development
the core partners. This omission perhaps reflects concepts such as clusters, smart specialisation strate-
an implicit acknowledgement of the limitations of gies and regional innovation systems. The cultiva-
approaches to economic development that equate tion of urban living laboratories, often based on a
innovation with a process driven by the kinds of sci- QH partnership template, has also been promoted
entific research carried out in universities (Power within EU networks as a means to build stronger
and Malmberg, 2008). However, the TH literature local innovation systems (e.g. Curley and Salmelin,
has been characterised by a strong emphasis on the 2013; Robles et al., 2015). However, its popularity
role of the university, and in particular, the emer- as a policy buzzword has led to the urban living lab
gence of ‘entrepreneurial universities’ (archetypi- label being applied in a conceptually inconsistent
cally US institutions, such as MIT and Stanford) as a way (Steen and Van Bueren, 2017). Specifically, it
key event in the development of late-20th century has been attached to smart city projects in which citi-
innovation systems (Etzkowitz et al., 2000). In the- zens are little more than passive sources of data to be
ory, therefore, the potential for universities – particu- harvested by municipal authorities or private compa-
larly those that have adopted a strong place- and/or nies (Naafs, 2018). By contrast, definitions informed
citizen-focused civic engagement mission – to act as by open innovation or QH perspectives tend to
the locus of a QH system remains salient (Goddard emphasise the civic function of urban living labs as
et al., 2016). This will, however, require universities user-oriented environments for co-creation/co-pro-
to develop new institutional mechanisms and/or col- duction between various actors, including the public
laborative practices to meaningfully engage with the (Arnkil et al., 2010; Robles et al., 2015).
public as part of this model (Miller et al., 2018). A The growing prevalence of the QH as an aca-
feature of the TH theory is that the interaction of dif- demic and policy model also belies the challenges
ferent institutional spheres will produce hybrid that most cities or regions will experience in effec-
organisational forms, such as university and govern- tively bringing together this combination of actors
ment technology transfer offices or academic spin-off (particularly those representing the public or civil
firms (Ranga and Etzkowitz, 2013). This type of society) to engage in collaborative innovation pro-
intermediary actor, which can operate between sec- cesses. As mentioned above, the QH concept can be
tors to bridge gaps in practice and encourage collabo- traced back, via the TH, to systems of innovation
ration, has also been proposed as a key component approaches (see Edquist, 1997). These include an
of QH arrangements (MacGregor et al., 2010). It fol- explicit sub-national focus through the development
lows that the interaction with non-professional com- of the regional innovation systems concept to cap-
munities as part of a QH should give rise to different ture the importance of geographic proximity and
types of partnership mechanism that are more charac- shared institutional settings between interacting
teristic of a civic (rather than entrepreneurial) univer- agents (Asheim et al., 2011; Cooke et al., 1997).
sity strategy (Goddard and Vallance, 2013). Further However, Metcalfe et al. (2012) question the under-
research is, however, needed to understand what lying assumptions of these approaches by suggest-
form these new structures may take and how they ing that innovation systems – whether national,
can help integrate public engagement concerns into regional or sectoral – should not be seen as pre-
broader innovation processes. given objects of analysis, but only exist when sets of
The QH is not an inherently spatial concept, and systemic connections between actors and other
there is therefore scope for it to be operationalised at components are formed to solve particular innova-
various geographical scales. Like the TH before it, tion problems. For the range of potential innovation
however, the instrumentalisation of the framework actors within a given territory – who collectively are
within the context of regional policy has arguably often assumed to unproblematically constitute a
given it traction at the sub-national level (McAdam national or regional innovation system – they pro-
and Debackere, 2018). Carayannis et al. (2018), for pose the alternative term of innovation ecologies. In
Vallance et al. 329

earlier work, we have argued that this is an espe- urban heritage and future, gathering of baseline evi-
cially useful distinction in relation to understanding dence, stakeholder workshops to identify priority
the QH (Vallance, 2016). It shifts attention from the themes and scenario building for 50 years in the
mere presence of a local ecology of actors from future (Tewdwr-Jones et al., 2015).
each of these sectors to the ongoing processes Newcastle is the largest city in a region (North
through which they construct a system of QH rela- East England) that, in the wake of widespread dein-
tions around shared problems or goals. In particular, dustrialisation during the final decades of the 20th
the ways in which the non-traditional innovation century, continues to face considerable economic
actors of citizen-users are embedded in these emerg- and social development challenges (Hudson, 2005).
ing systems of relations is a key question that QH The 2065 report responded to this priority issue by
frameworks should address. outlining, as one of its future scenarios, a vision of
This argument highlights a need for empirical Newcastle developing an economic niche as a sci-
studies that can elucidate these processes in all their ence and engineering-based ‘test-bed’ city for new
inherent complexity, including the role played by technologies (Tewdwr-Jones et al., 2015). This projec-
intermediary actors. This paper will respond to this tion reflected the current-day importance of the two
research gap through a study of urban innovation universities in the city (Newcastle and Northumbria)
demonstrator projects supported by the NCF collab- as anchor institutions1 (Goddard and Vallance,
orative platform. In these cases, the aim of the dem- 2013) and an already emerging set of living labora-
onstrator project in question represents the problem tory initiatives (Powells and Blake, 2016).
or goal around which a QH consortium was encour- Arising from the 2065 foresight project, a semi-
aged to form. A related aim of these demonstrator formalised committee – the City Futures Develop-
projects was to involve residents of Newcastle in the ment Group (CFDG) – was established in 2015 on
co-design of the solutions to these problems. NCF the instigation of Newcastle City Council. This group
therefore also offers an opportunity to examine this had a brief to promote a long-term vision for the city
citizen engagement aspect of the QH framework. and support a programme of development activities
Before this, the next section will outline the back- drawing on academic research capabilities (from
ground to this wider initiative. both Newcastle and Northumbria universities) and
the resources of other local partner organisations
Background: The Newcastle City (including Gateshead Council). A further barrier to
Futures/Urban Living Partnership development in North East England is the weak and
fragmented nature of local and regional government
programme within the highly centralised UK governance sys-
This section will introduce the empirical part of this tem (Lemprière and Lowndes, 2019). Although the
paper by outlining the NCF programme. The focus is CFDG is a partnership with no executive power, it
on activities during a two-year period (from August has provided a vehicle for the councils, universi-
2016 to July 2018) when NCF was funded by the UK ties and other stakeholders to continue engaging in
academic research councils and national innovation shared, forward-thinking discussions about the
agency as one of five ULP pilot projects (covering future of the city-region during a period in which the
Newcastle upon Tyne and the neighbouring local local authorities, in particular, have been constrained
authority of Gateshead). Amongst these five ULPs, by central government austerity measures (Vallance
the Newcastle/Gateshead pilot was notable in fol- et al., 2019).
lowing directly on from an earlier project. During Building on these earlier activities, the ULP pilot
2014 and 2015 a research team from Newcastle project had two distinct but interrelated sets of
University had undertaken the first local sub-project objectives:
under a national Foresight Programme on the Future
of Cities. NCF 2065 consisted of engagement activi- i) to diagnose the complex and interdependent
ties including a temporary exhibition on the city’s challenges within the urban region;
330 European Urban and Regional Studies 27(4)

ii) to work collaboratively to co-design and duration. This research aimed to track the develop-
implement initiatives and solutions in order ment of unfolding demonstrator projects and help
to contribute to the life and development of reflect on the overall NCF model. It was conducted
the area. by a researcher who was a member of the core NCF
team, but had no direct responsibilities for project
For its ‘diagnostic’ side, the NCF ULP project was facilitation. The resulting ‘insider–outsider’ position
able to update activities from the 2065 foresight pro- (Dwyer and Buckle, 2009) enabled this researcher to
ject by employing novel foresight methods related to, balance, on the one hand, a beneficial level of access
for instance, urban systems mapping, data visualisa- to and understanding of relevant activities and par-
tion and digital engagement (Tewdwr-Jones and ticipants with, on the other hand, a degree of detach-
Goddard, 2014; Wilson and Tewdwr-Jones, 2019). ment that allowed a sufficiently neutral and (where
The consultation activities as part of the 2065 pro- necessary) critical perspective to be taken on the col-
ject, and subsequent establishment of the CFDG, laborative processes under study.
also provided a foundation for the ‘collaborative co- The discussion and case studies below draw on
design’ side of the ULP by beginning to cultivate a three main forms of qualitative material collected by
network of interested organisations and individuals. this researcher. Firstly, notes from meetings, work-
This means that, although the ULP project was shops and other events relating to the projects focused
hosted by Newcastle University, it commenced in on (including Future Homes and Metro Futures), and
summer 2016 with a group of core partners that the ULP more generally (e.g. project ‘mash-ups’,
included local authorities, regional transport bodies, CFDG meetings, team progress reviews). Secondly,
public utility providers, large global technology and correspondence and/or documents relating to the
engineering companies, regional companies and projects (e.g. meeting minutes, design briefs, reports,
business associations and local community and vol- funding applications). Thirdly, 16 semi-structured
untary organisations. The interdisciplinary project interviews (with a total of 19 respondents) carried
also brought together a range of academic actors out at various stages with ULP partners from differ-
with different perspectives on the development ent sectors. The interviewees included five individu-
challenges facing contemporary cities. As well as a als directly involved in the Future Homes project and
core team based in Newcastle University (consist- five directly involved in the Metro Futures project,
ing of director, project manager, policy liaison and along with others who had some knowledge of these
researcher), the ULP had 10 co-investigators across activities.
Newcastle and Northumbria universities from disci- This material allowed in-depth exploration of the
plines including planning, geography, architecture, origins and evolution of these projects, the rela-
engineering, human–computer interaction, digital tionships between partners within the consortium
humanities and social gerontology. and the ways in which engagement and/or the co-
These connections, both inside and outside the design methods employed represented an innovative
academy, allowed the ULP to quickly assume the approach. The data collected across these different
function of a collaborative platform for the facilita- sources was coded together by project (as well as
tion of cross-sectoral demonstrator projects focused by other relevant themes) and ordered chronologi-
on the co-design and testing of innovative solutions cally. This made it possible to reconstruct the pro-
to future challenges and opportunities within the city- gression of these projects whilst incorporating points
region. The next section will explain the research into of reflection from interviews carried out at different
this process that forms the basis for the following times. The ensuing accounts therefore identify and
empirical sections. analyse the dynamics that shaped how each project
unfolded and the challenges encountered. In doing
so they address the central concerns of this paper
Methodology
with the complex processes through which QH
The following sections are based on research that coalitions are formed and mobilised to support the
took place in parallel to the ULP for its full two-year co-design of experimental interventions in the future
Vallance et al. 331

development of cities. Before the in-depth explora- influenced by priorities for the future city identified
tion of these cases, the opening empirical section through the earlier 2065 project (Tewdwr-Jones et al.,
provides a broader discussion of NCF demonstrator 2015). These themes were aligned with the strategic
project facilitation activity based on notes and docu- goals of the CFDG’s parent organisations (the two
mentary material collected throughout the ULP. universities, Newcastle and Gateshead councils and
Local Enterprise Partnership). However, the identifi-
Urban Living Partnership cation of potential demonstrator projects was driven
more by a bottom-up approach of responding to
demonstrator projects overview
opportunities to, for instance, embed the testing of
A protocol drawn up by the CFDG, in advance of the innovative ideas into unfolding urban development
ULP, defined demonstrator projects as those that initiatives; generate novel collaborative solutions to
emerge from a. . . specific challenges facing partner organisations; or
help extend existing academic research interests or
. . .collaborative process to illustrate or explain, as a student projects into activities with social or eco-
theory or product, an idea or innovation that warrants nomic impact within the city-region. Consequently,
testing or application by exemplification or practical
many of the projects cut across multiple thematic
application. A demonstrator project can be an object for
further research, policy development, and/or physical areas, reflecting the complex nature of societal chal-
or virtual delivery. lenges and related development opportunities in con-
temporary cities.
For the ULP, the NCF core team adopted an Over the course of the ULP, the NCF team were
additional set of guiding criteria that demonstrator involved in the discussion and/or facilitation of
projects were encouraged to conform to in their upwards of 50 demonstrator project ideas, in doing so
conception and realisation. These included the considerably growing the range of organisations with
following: which it engaged beyond the initially named core
partners (see Oliver, 2018). A selection of these pro-
•• they would be taken forward collaboratively jects involving consortiums are described in Table 1.
through the formation of a consortium of part- The core NCF team would often have a role in help-
ners from different organisations or groups, ing to formulate the project focus and assemble the
so that (if possible) all four elements of the consortium. For example, early on in the ULP it
QH would be represented; hosted a ‘mash-up’ event involving a range of part-
•• they would deploy novel methods relating to ners from which several prospective projects and
public engagement, digital technologies and/ consortia emerged, which in some cases (for instance,
or visualisation to co-produce new knowl- ‘Future High Street’ in Table 1) were subsequently
edge and co-design innovative solutions to taken forward. The NCF team would also in some
the challenge at hand; cases steer the project through early meetings, before
•• they would be based in Newcastle and/or withdrawing when the consortium became self-sus-
Gateshead, but where necessary could encom- taining and allowing leadership responsibilities to be
pass a wider geography (e.g. the Tyne and assumed by an ‘academic champion’ (sometimes one
Wear metropolitan region). of the ULP co-investigators) and/or other members of
the group.
During the ULP, new demonstrator projects would The two projects featured as case studies below
regularly be presented at CFDG meetings for discus- (Future Homes and Metro Futures) both had a clear
sion and endorsement by group members. This step and compelling basis for collaboration that meant that
ensured that the projects would be consistent with the NCF core team took a supporting rather than lead-
one or more of a set of broad themes – for example, ing role (see below). On other projects, however, the
ageing, sustainability, digital, health and wellbeing, core team had to be more active in trying to sustain
culture, young people – used by the CFDG and a QH consortium and guide it towards an appropriate
332 European Urban and Regional Studies 27(4)

Table 1. Examples of Newcastle City Futures demonstrator projects and consortium partners.

Project Aim Key partners

Creating To examine the feasibility of extending a Academic: Newcastle University
Innovation Spaces general practitioner surgery in the West End Public: National Health Service
for Health and of Newcastle into a wellbeing and teaching Community/non-profit: charities in West
Wellbeing hub that supports local employability and End of Newcastle
healthy nutrition
Future High To integrate innovative digital and blue-green Academic: Newcastle University
Street sustainable infrastructure elements into plans Public: Newcastle City Council; Future Cities
for redevelopment around the main shopping Catapult
street in Newcastle city centre Private: NE1 (the Business Improvement
District company for central Newcastle);
various technology and utility companies
Future Homes To build liveable homes for the trial of Academic: Newcastle University
innovations in inter-generational flexible Public: Newcastle City Council
living, energy systems and digital technologies Private: Ryder Architecture; Zero Carbon
Futures; Super Innovation Network; Karbon
Homes
Community/not-for-profit: Quality of
Life Partnership; Elders Council; Sustainable
Communities Initiative
Gateshead To explore new uses for a riverside Academic: Newcastle University
Riverside Park sculpture park that can generate economic Public: Gateshead Council
and health benefits for local communities, Private: Local companies
whilst also helping to preserve its natural, Community/not-for-profit: Local not-for-
artistic and industrial heritage profit organisations
Metro Futures To conduct an in-depth, digitally enabled Academic: Newcastle University (Open Lab)
consultation with public co-researchers into Public: Nexus (Passenger Transport Executive
the design of new Tyne and Wear Metro for Tyne and Wear)
train carriages Community/not-for-profit: co-researcher
group of Metro users

objective. This reflected the often-fragile nature of the to apply for external funding to enable their idea to
partnerships involved and a range of practical issues reach ‘proof of concept’ stage. In one case, a promis-
that delayed the progress of demonstrator projects. ing cross-sector consortium stalled because a suitable
For instance, some well-advanced project ideas were funding opportunity could not be identified that suited
not ultimately taken forward due to the unwillingness the project’s mix of sustainability, health and wellbe-
of stakeholders in control of key regional assets to ing and cultural elements. More prosaically, several
commit to more ambitious, and potentially risky, projects were hindered by the limited availability of
plans for opportunities at hand. This was, in part, due key individuals, reflecting NCF’s status as a voluntary
to organisational cultures in the public sector that partnership.
are not conducive to disruptive innovations (see The following section examines two cases of
Makkonen et al., 2018). In other instances, the cross- demonstrator project development in more depth.
thematic nature of NCF projects also proved to be a These projects were not without challenges, but
challenge for large public sector organisations with were amongst those in the portfolio that advanced
siloed structures. As part of the demonstrator project furthest during the timespan covered here (up to July
development process, the consortia were encouraged 2018) and both are linked to substantial ongoing
Vallance et al. 333

developments in the city and region. They also rep- of the project lead, but a member of the CFDG had
resent valuable opportunities to examine the dual joined following the late 2015 meeting to provide
processes of multi-partner collaboration and innova- expertise in low carbon technologies [Interview 5,
tive public engagement and co-design that are cen- 23 November 2016]. Later in 2017, the NCF team
tral to understanding the workings of the QH model helped recruit a specialist in digital onto the group
in this context. The wider implications of the cases [Interview 15, 24 November 2017]. Those members
for these debates will be discussed in the concluding interviewed for this study (covering different sec-
section. tors), indicated that the very diverse nature of this
group was a novel experience for them and helped
constitute different ways of working. Its composi-
Case studies tion in terms of people with varied backgrounds and
Building cross-sector consortia: Future expertise means the continual exchange and negotia-
tion of community, economic development and tech-
Homes nical perspectives was a central dynamic driving the
The objective of the Future Homes project is to build early development of the project. One member from
houses in Newcastle that can be used to experiment the voluntary sector described this relationship:
with innovations in design, materials, digital tech-
nologies and energy systems. A related aim is to cap- It’s really interesting to see a group of people around
ture the wider learning from this exercise that can the table who are passionate about doing something in
inform solutions to the challenges of future housing this place that will really make a difference. And I feel
in the group, there’s a lot of respect for the different
provision. The project lead is a Professor of Planning
contributions that people can make. . . . The kind of
in Newcastle University, and Co-Investigator on the expertise, and experience, and knowledge that we bring
ULP project, with longstanding research interests in is valued by the people around the table. And that’s
older people’s housing (Gilroy, 2008). This work has hugely important.
involved collaboration across a number of previous
projects with the director of a third-sector organisa- [Interview 4, 11 November 2016]
tion that coordinates a City Council-backed initia-
tive to make Newcastle an ‘age-friendly city’. Future During the first year in which this group met, dis-
Homes grew out of a shared interest in extending the cussions were focused on project objectives and fund-
practical dimensions of this work and finding new ing possibilities. These was in part channelled into an
ways to raise awareness of alternative housing ultimately unsuccessful application to Innovate UK,
options for older people [Interview 4, 11 November the national innovation agency, for a grant to support
2016]. An extra source of impetus to the project was public and business engagement activities around the
given by the vision of Newcastle as a test-bed city design of the homes. However, more significantly, at
promoted through the NCF 2065 project, and the the end of that year substantial funding was secured
early Future Homes concept received support when from the national housing agency (Homes England)
presented at a CFDG meeting in late 2015 [Interview for a build of four pilot housing units originally sched-
1, 15 October 2016]. uled for 2018 and a further 48 units over the next two
From these origins, a wider cross-sectoral group years. The plan was for the initial four demonstrator
formed to take the project forward – including inter- units to be placed on a plot of land made available by
ested people from voluntary organisations (relating Newcastle City Council adjacent to the site of a major
to older people and community energy), a Newcastle- brownfield redevelopment (Newcastle Helix), and the
based architectural practice, a regional registered- 48 units to be on this site itself as part of a larger resi-
housing provider and Newcastle University. This dential quarter. This meant that Future Homes would
group met regularly from early 2016, and as the pro- be closely linked into the ongoing development of
ject progressed into more targeted planning and Newcastle Helix, which is the largest regeneration
delivery stages, it assumed an overall steering role. project in the city and of particular strategic impor-
Members of this consortium were existing contacts tance to its three investing partners – Newcastle City
334 European Urban and Regional Studies 27(4)

Council, Newcastle University and the UK-based the consortium and aimed at digital technology firms
multinational finance company Legal & General. in the region [Interview 15, 24 November 2017].
Later in 2017, Legal & General became directly The major challenge as the project moved towards
involved in the project when they supplied an extra the construction stage was in effectively bringing
stream of funding to support its planned research and these different engagement strands together and
engagement activities. delivering against attendant time, cost and other
Having this funding in place allowed the project practical constraints. An example of these challenges
to progress into the design stage led by Ryder was encountered in early 2018 when serious struc-
Architecture (a partner in the consortium). Along tural issues underneath the proposed site for the ini-
the lines of a QH model, this followed a collabora- tial four pilot houses forced the consortium to
tive approach organised around a programme of abandon this stage of the project. Instead, the dem-
engagement with various stakeholders and commu- onstrator concepts will now be tested as part of the
nity groups. A dedicated co-design team with mem- larger development of permanent housing units on
bers of Ryder, experts in housing, environment and Newcastle Helix (with 48 planned as of July 2018).
innovation, and representatives of the prospective Future Homes is the NCF project that most clearly
tenants, worked together over the course of four exemplified the protocol outlined in the previous
workshops between June and September 2017 to section, particularly regarding the workings of a QH
refine the project brief and outline a set of core consortium. Amongst members of the steering group
objectives for the homes. Reflecting the origins of interviewed, the early progress of the project was to
the project, parallel engagement workshops were a large degree attributed to the serendipity involved
held with older people groups in the city and com- in assembling the breadth of experienced individuals
munity health professionals with experience of in- from different sectors who were willing and able to
home care. The initial focus on older people had invest the time to take the initial concept forward
however, through discussions within the steering [Interview 1, 15 October 2016; Interview 4, 23
group, evolved into a broader concern with inter- November 2016; Interview 13, 8 September 2017].
generational living and the creation of housing that The ongoing commitment of this group has been
could be adapted to changing resident needs through evidenced by the partners collectively forming a
the life-course [Interview 15, 24 November 2017]. Community Interest Company (the Future Homes
This was reflected in a series of public and commu- Alliance) to function as the holder of any intellectual
nity engagement activities connected to the project property derived from the development. This was
that were aimed at encouraging a wider conversa- with a view that the Future Homes model could be
tion about housing within the city. For instance, exported to places other than Newcastle. As illus-
these became part of the programme for the Great trated by the formation of this social enterprise,
Exhibition of the North hosted by Newcastle and Future Homes is also notable within the NCF project
Gateshead during summer 2018. portfolio for having advanced into areas not envi-
These engagement activities were seen by the sioned in the demonstrator protocol. This meant that
project partners as vital to ensure that the design and Future Homes – with its multiple engagement, design
construction of the houses would be appropriate to and delivery strands across different ‘Task and Finish
user requirements and not just driven by new techno- Groups’ – expanded to (like NCF itself) draw on a
logical possibilities. The consortium sought to avoid much wider ecology of cross-sector partners and
prescribing in advance what the technologies in the experts from local universities.
homes would be, to allow opportunity for experi-
mentation and testing with different potential inno-
Engaging the public in co-design: Metro
vations [Interview 1, 15 October 2016]. In addition
to public engagement, there were therefore also Futures
plans for ongoing private sector input into the plan- The Tyne and Wear Metro (covering a wider city-
ning and design of the homes. This, for instance, region than just Newcastle and Gateshead) is, out-
included proposals for ‘innovation challenges’ set by side the London Underground, the largest public
Vallance et al. 335

transport network of its type in the UK. This system concerning, for instance, representative sampling
is managed by Nexus, the Passenger Transport [Interview 3, 26 October 2016]. However, as these
Executive for Tyne and Wear. At the time of the requirements were to be fulfilled by the other parts of
research, Nexus was an agency of the North East the consultation, and Open Lab would fund this com-
Combined Authority (NECA) that covered seven plementary strand themselves under the MyPlace
local authorities in the region.2 As part of a long- project, Nexus could enter the process with more
term strategic programme of investment in the open expectations of its outcomes [Interview 2, 25
Metro, Nexus planned to replace the ageing fleet of October 2016].
trains (Metrocars) that have been in operation since As a NCF demonstrator project, Metro Futures
the system began running in 1980. Before applying differs from examples like Future Homes in being
to the UK Government to fund this essential renewal founded on a bi-lateral partnership between a public
process, Nexus wanted to undertake consultation sector body and academic research/design group,
with the public on the preferred design for the new rather than the full QH consortium. However, the
carriages [Interview 2, 25 October 2016]. nature of the project necessarily meant that public
Nexus has a relationship with NCF going back to users of the Metro, and (possibly later on) the private
their 2014 participation in the original 2065 project, sector contractors responsible for manufacturing the
which involved a public event on the future of the new trains, would also be engaged at different stages
Metro. From a provisional conversation about the in a less tightly configured, but still collaborative
possible use of digital technologies as part of the innovation process.
consultation on new Metrocars, NCF introduced At the core of the programme of public engage-
Nexus to Open Lab – a multidisciplinary human– ment facilitated by Open Lab were four workshops
computer interaction research group in Newcastle held in consecutive weeks during November 2016 in
University with particular expertise in participatory locations across Tyne and Wear. The participants in
and experience-centred design [Interview 2, 25 these workshops were the same group of around 20
October 2016]. Within the University, Open Lab had volunteer co-researchers recruited (with support from
close links with NCF through its leadership of a pro- Nexus) by Open Lab. In keeping with Open Lab’s
gramme (Digital Civics) that is concerned with using interest in participatory and citizen-led design,
citizen-driven design to develop ‘relational’ rather the starting point for these workshops was the co-
than ‘transactional’ models of local public service researchers’ experiences of Metro journeys [Interview
delivery (Olivier and Wright, 2015). In this vein, 3, 26 October 2016]. These were captured in the form
Open Lab had already been working on digitally of short videos and photographs – where appropriate
enabled methods of public engagement as part of a using mobile phone apps and other digital tools
research project focused on older people’s experi- developed by Open Lab (see Bowen et al., 2020) –
ence of mobility within cities (MyPlace). They and then shared and discussed in subsequent work-
agreed to adopt the Nexus collaboration as a final shops as an exercise in collective sensemaking
case study in this wider project and the opportunity [Interview 11, 29 June 2017]. The group of co-
to test the tools and methods it had fostered researchers was diverse, with a range of ages and,
[Interview 3, 26 October 2016]. for instance, visually impaired and hard-of-hearing
For Nexus, this would run in parallel to two other members. A key objective of this engagement pro-
strands of research: a more extensive questionnaire- cess, therefore, was to encourage participants to
based public consultation by themselves, and market move beyond their individual perspective and con-
research delivered by a specialist agency (Transport sider how fellow passengers use the Metro – or
Focus). Relative to these, this ‘Metro Futures’ project indeed, how they may themselves use the Metro
– organised around a sequence of intensive work- differently in the future as their personal circum-
shops with a group of ‘co-researchers’ – was a less stances change over the projected 30–40-year lifes-
conventional approach to public consultation that pan of the new trains [Interview 2, 26 October 2016].
would not necessarily conform to standard targets As explained by a member of Open Lab:
336 European Urban and Regional Studies 27(4)

People will always reflect from the perspective of their national government to fund the new generation of
own experience. But then actually you always share a Metrocars. As an additional output of the project, a
[Metro] carriage with a lot of other people who have short film summarising the engagement process was
very different experiences. And [Nexus] wanted to get produced by Open Lab and presented to the co-
at that.
researchers at a June 2018 event hosted by NCF and
Nexus. The continuing relationship between Open
[Interview 3, 26 October 2016]
Lab and the co-researcher group was therefore
The co-researcher workshops resulted in a range another positive outcome of the project [Interview
of ideas and priorities for the internal design of the 11, 29 June 2017]. For Nexus, this also created the
carriages. To open this engagement up to more peo- possibility of further engagement as they moved
ple, this material was made available on the project into the procurement stage of producing a design
website for the public to vote and comment on. In specification and contracting private sector suppli-
parallel to the four workshops, Open Lab also held a ers to manufacture the Metrocars [Interview 12, 1
number of ‘pop-up labs’ – drop-in sessions in public September 2017].
places where passersby could contribute their own
experiences, and respond to co-researcher issues and Discussion and conclusion
ideas (Bowen et al., 2020).
The consolidated results from these engagement This paper has used the case of NCF to help address
activities were reported to Nexus in 2017 and fed into a shortage of empirical studies of the real-world
the business case submission to the Department of manifestation of living laboratory and QH concepts
Transport. An end-of-project interview with repre- in the context of urban test-bed innovation. In doing
sentatives of Nexus indicated that the design ideas so, it contributes to a growing concern of urban and
from the Open Lab work largely reinforced prefer- regional development scholars with ways in which
ences from the other two strands of the consultation. innovation can be harnessed to address social, envi-
However, the novelty of the material from Open Lab’s ronmental and economic challenges as an alternative
more intensive approach was still highly valued for to corporate-driven, technologically deterministic
the richness it added to the findings [Interview 12, 1 smart city narratives. NCF represents a potential uni-
September 2017]. In particular, Nexus recognised versity-anchored QH model for achieving these more
that, where conventional consultation methods such holistic and participatory interventions in the future
as focus groups often necessarily reach an aggregate development of cities. By combining dispersed aca-
consensus position, the collective exploration of pas- demic, municipal, community and business resources,
senger experiences by Open Lab helped preserve dif- it also provides an in-depth illustration of the work-
ferent perspectives while revealing the areas of design ings of urban living laboratories that take the form of
around which most people would be flexible: what Bulkeley et al. (2019) refer to as a civic-based
platform.
The benefit of the Open Lab process was that it The preceding empirical section provided two
challenged people to think about other passengers. . . . detailed examples of the unfolding development of
Because then you discover how people change their NCF demonstrator projects aimed at novel responses
views, and then you really discover priorities. . . . In to challenges and opportunities in the urban innova-
the Open Lab process, we learnt where passengers
tion domains of future housing and public transport
were prepared to compromise. . . . And a compromise
is invaluable to us in terms of going forward with a (Metro) systems. These case studies illustrated key
design. features of the QH framework that support processes
of interactive knowledge co-production and sys-
[Interview 12, 1 September 2017] temic innovation (Carayannis and Campbell, 2012).
They have particularly affirmed the value of insights
In November 2017, NECA was successful in generated by the sharing of situated expertise across
securing a commitment of £337 million from the organisational or disciplinary boundaries. In both
Vallance et al. 337

examples the lines of this collaboration have realised innovation systems along QH lines should not be
the basic model of an inclusive QH set of relations taken as given. Instead, they need to be actively and
between (as well as within) public, private, academic continually constructed through network building
and community or voluntary sectors. The non-linear that engages a wider range of stakeholders. The NCF
patterns of interaction through which these arrange- vehicle has acted as a platform to enable this in two
ments have been (re)produced have, however, varied main ways. Firstly, by cultivating a wider ecology
– between a regularly convened group (Future of interested individuals, groups and organisations
Homes) and a more loosely configured series of within the region (and beyond) who can be brought
encounters (Metro Futures) – suggesting that the together in different combinations as consortium
relational dynamics underpinning the QH can take partners for individual projects.3 This extended net-
different forms. work of relations has been built up over time (since
A related feature of the QH model is that the per- the original 2065 project) through various engage-
spectives of individual citizens and communities, as ment and ‘mash-up’ events that have helped raise
well as those in a professional capacity, are recog- awareness and consolidate the community forming
nised. Accordingly, NCF demonstrator projects have around NCF. The origins of, for instance, the Metro
utilised innovative methods and tools to engage vari- Futures and Future High Street projects can be traced
ous stakeholders, including members of the public, to these brokerage activities.
in the co-design and testing of demonstrator con- Secondly, by performing early facilitation and
cepts. The participatory nature of this element in the steering of project consortia. In terms of the QH
two featured projects, perhaps even more than the model, NCF can be understood in these instances to
novelty of the design ideas arising, added value to have moved out of its home academic quadrant and
the innovation process by ensuring the outcomes into a position in the middle of cross-sectoral col-
were meaningfully shaped by prospective users. For laboration. This demonstrates the importance of
Future Homes this was achieved through ongoing actors that can play a boundary-spanning intermedi-
dialogues between group members representing the ary role in enabling effective QH relationships
community sector and professionals with exper- (MacGregor et al., 2010). The ability of NCF to
tise in different fields. For Metro Futures this was occupy this space was, according to a number of
achieved by documenting the diverse experiences interviewees, aided by its perceived neutrality in
and needs of different passengers in a way that relation to authorities such as Newcastle City
allowed common ground to be identified. Both pro- Council (Vallance et al., 2019). Having developed
jects also incorporated pubic engagement activities from bottom-up engagement and foresight research
that aimed at reaching a larger sample of local resi- activities, this autonomy also extended to NCF’s
dents. In these ways, the demonstrator projects pro- relationship with the management of its host institu-
vide clear examples of what Arnkil et al. (2010) tion (Newcastle University).
would classify as a QH model in which users have a In addition to the activities of its core team, an
greater level of agency as citizens collaborating with important feature of the NCF model during the ULP
other partners, rather than as just consumers of prod- was its role as an interface connecting to academics
uct or service innovations. In both cases, however, from varied disciplinary perspectives. Accordingly,
this contribution was again structured by the rela- other members of Newcastle and Northumbria uni-
tional dynamics of the terms on which the members versities assumed the main facilitating roles on spe-
of the public participated in the demonstrator pro- cific projects – such as the lead for Future Homes
jects. This shows that the opportunity and scope for and researchers/designers from Open Lab for Metro
users to exercise their agency within these innova- Futures. This supports the argument that universities
tion processes will be mediated by partners from can become the central intermediary actors around
other segments of the QH. which a QH arrangement may form (c.f. Arnkil
As we argued in the literature review section (fol- et al., 2010), but this may result from relatively
lowing Metcalfe et al., 2012), the presence of local decentralised civic engagement activities rather than
338 European Urban and Regional Studies 27(4)

a top-down corporate strategy. What is important, ORCID iD

however, is that individual academics or teams who Paul Vallance [Link]
are personally motivated to perform this kind of
extra engagement role in the wider region are granted Notes
the time and incentive to do so within their universi-
1. Newcastle University (the lead partner in NCF) is a
ties (see Kroll et al., 2016).
research-intensive ‘pre-1992’ institution. Northumbria
This is especially important in the territorial con- University is a former polytechnic ‘post-1992’ insti-
text of North East England, where low private sec- tution that is more teaching-oriented, but with some
tor capabilities in knowledge-intensive sectors areas of research strength.
mean that universities are disproportionately promi- 2. In November 2018, three of these local authorities
nent within the regional innovation ecology. In left NECA to form a new ‘North of Tyne’ combined
addition, the oversized role traditionally played by authority. As transport functions (including the Tyne
the public sector in the region has, over the past dec- and Wear Metro) operate across the boundary created
ade, been diminished by national government aus- as a result, Nexus now sits under a joint transport
terity measures. Most notably, this has affected the committee of these two combined authorities.
strategic and delivery capacity of local authorities, 3. This process is analogous to a key organising dynamic
identified in recent research on creative industries.
creating an institutional vacuum that NCF found
Here projects – by definition temporary forms of
itself working to help fill (Vallance et al., 2019). organisation – are made possible by a more enduring
These place-contingent factors suggest that varying context of firms, networks and professional or epis-
levels of power respectively exercised by economic, temic communities. These ‘project ecologies’ provide
government or other institutional actors within any a repository of resources needed for a diverse team to
city or region will affect how QH arrangements are be assembled with the expertise to complete the spe-
configured locally. The NCF case, therefore, shows cific project task at hand (see Grabher, 2004; Vinodrai
the value of this kind of future-oriented facilitation and Keddy, 2015).
vehicle within urban and regional development, but
with the caveat that the current situation in Newcastle References
and the North East has enhanced its impact. If the Aranguren MJ, Magro E, Navarro M and Wilson JR
model outlined in this paper, which has evolved over (2019) Governance of the entrepreneurial discovery
a number of years, is to be reproduced in other process: looking under the bonnet of RIS3. Regional
places, it will need to be adapted to local contexts. Studies 53(4): 451–461.
Arnkil R, Järvensivu A, Koski P and Piirainen T (2010)
Acknowledgements Exploring quadruple helix: outlining user-oriented
We would like to thank the editor and two anonymous innovation models. Final report on Quadruple Helix
reviewers for their constructive comments that helped Research for the CLIQ project, Työraportteja 85/2010
improve the paper considerably. Rose Gilroy and Simon Working Papers. Tampere: University of Tampere
Bowen also gave valuable feedback on earlier versions of Work Research Centre
the paper. Any remaining errors are our own. Asheim B, Lawton Smith H and Oughton C (2011)
Regional innovation systems: theory, empirics and
Declaration of conflicting interests policy. Regional Studies 45(7): 875–891.
Benneworth P, Lawton Smith H and Bagchi-Sen S
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest (2015) Building inter-organizational synergies in the
with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication regional Triple Helix. Industry & Higher Education
of this article. 29(1): 5–10.
Bowen SJ, Wright PC, Wilson A, Dow A, Bartindale T and
Funding Anderson R (2020) Metro Futures: Experience-Centred
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial Co-Design at Scale. In: Proceedings of the Annual
support for the research, authorship and/or publication of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing
this article: This work was supported by Research Councils Systems - CHI ’20. New York, New York, USA: ACM
UK and Innovate UK (grant number EP/P00203X/1). Press. [Link]
Vallance et al. 339

Bulkeley H, Marvin S, Voytenko Palgan Y, McCormick Triple Helix of university-industry-government rela-

K, Breitfuss-Loidl M, Mai L, von Wirth T and tions. Research Policy 29(2): 109–123.
Frantzeskaki N (2019) Urban living laboratories: Etzkowitz H, Webster A, Gebhardt C and Terra BRC
conducting the experimental city. European Urban (2000) The future of the university and the university
and Regional Studies 26(4): 317–335. of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepre-
Carayannis EG and Campbell DFJ (2009) ‘Mode 3’ neurial paradigm. Research Policy 29(2): 313–330.
and ‘Quadruple Helix’: toward a 21st century frac- Ferraro F, Etzion D and Gehman J (2015) Tackling grand
tal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of challenges pragmatically: robust action revisited.
Technology Management 46(3–4): 201–234. Organization Studies 36(3): 363–390.
Carayannis EG and Campbell DFJ (2012) Mode 3 Goddard J, Hazelkorn E, Kempton L and Vallance P (2016)
Knowledge Production in Quadruple Helix Innovation Introduction: why the civic university? In: Goddard
Systems. New York: Springer. J, Hazelkorn E, Kempton L and Vallance P (eds)
Carayannis EG and Campbell DFJ (2014) Developed The Civic University: The Leadership and Policy
democracies versus emerging autocracies: arts, Challenges. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp.3–15.
democracy, and innovation in Quadruple Helix Goddard J and Vallance P (2013) The University and the
innovation systems. Journal of Innovation and City. Abingdon: Routledge.
Entrepreneurship 3(1): 1–23. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S,
Carayannis EG, Grigoroudis E, Campbell DFJ, Meissner Scott P and Trow M (1994) The New Production of
D and Stamati D (2018) The ecosystem as helix: Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research
an exploratory theory-building study of regional co- in Contemporary Societies. London: SAGE.
opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple/ Gilroy R (2008) Places that support human flourishing:
Quintuple Helix Innovation Models. R&D Manage- lessons from later life. Planning Theory & Practice
ment 48(1): 148–162. 9(2): 145–163.
Chatterton P, Owen A, Cutter J, Dymski G and Unsworth R Gouvea R, Kassicieh S and Montoya MJR (2013) Using
(2018) Recasting urban governance through Leeds City the quadruple helix to design strategies for the green
Lab: developing alternatives to neoliberal urban auster- economy. Technological Forecasting and Social
ity in co-production laboratories. International Journal Change 80(2): 221–230.
of Urban and Regional Research 42(2): 226–243. Grabher G (2004) Learning in projects, remembering in
Cooke P, Uranga MG and Etxebarria G (1997) Regional networks? Communality, sociality, and connectivity
innovation systems: institutional and organisational in project ecologies. European Urban and Regional
dimensions. Research Policy 26(4–5): 475–491. Studies 11(2): 103–123.
Cossetta A and Palumbo M (2014) The co-production of Grabher G, Ibert O and Flohr S (2008) The neglected king:
social innovation: the case of Living Lab. In: Dameri the customer in the new knowledge ecology of inno-
R and Rosenthal-Sabroux C (eds) Smart City. Cham: vation. Economic Geography 84(3): 253–280.
Springer, 221–235. Harris M and Holley K (2016) Universities as anchor
Curley M and Salmelin B (2013) Open Innovation 2.0: institutions: economic and social potential for urban
a new paradigm. OISPG White Paper. Brussels: development. In: Paulsen MB (ed.) Higher Education:
European Commission. Handbook of Theory and Research. London: Springer,
Dixon T (2018) Smart and sustainable? The future of 393–439.
‘Future Cities’. In: Dixon T, Connaughton J and Green Hudson R (2005) Rethinking change in old industrial
S (eds) Sustainable Futures in the Built Environment regions: reflecting on the experiences of North
to 2050: A Foresight Approach to Construction and East England. Environment and Planning A 37(4):
Development. Chichester: Wiley, 94–116. 581–596.
Dwyer SC and Buckle JL (2009) The space between: Karvonen A and Van Heur B (2014) Urban laborato-
on being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. ries: experiments in reworking cities. International
International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8(1): Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(2):
54–63. 379–392.
Edquist C (ed.) (1997) Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Klein J-L, Fontan J-M and Harrisson D (2013) The
Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter. Québec Model: a social innovation system founded
Etzkowitz H and Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of on cooperation and consensus building. In: Moulaert
innovation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a F, MacCallum D, Mehmodd A and Hamdouch
340 European Urban and Regional Studies 27(4)

A (eds) The International Handbook of Social Miller K, McAdam R and McAdam M (2018) A systemic
Innovation: Collective Action, Social Learning and literature review of university technology transfer
Transdisciplinary Research. Cheltenham: Edward from a quadruple helix perspective: toward a research
Elgar, 371–383. agenda. R&D Management 48(1): 7–24.
König A and Evans J (2013) Experimenting for sus- Naafs S (2018) ‘Living laboratories’: the Dutch cities
tainable development? Living laboratories, social amassing data on oblivious residents. The Guardian,
learning, and the role of the university. In: König 1 March. [Link]
A (ed.) Regenerative Sustainable Development of mar/01/smart-cities-data-privacy-eindhoven-utrecht
Universities and Cities. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, Nijkamp P and Kourtit K (2013) The ‘New Urban Europe’:
1–24. global challenges and local responses in the urban
Kroll H, Dornbusch F and Schnabl E (2016) Universities’ century. European Planning Studies 21(3): 291–315.
regional involvement in Germany: how academics Nowotny H, Scott P and Gibbons M (2001) Re-thinking
objectives and opportunity shape choices of activity. Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of
Regional Studies 50(9): 1595–1610. Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Lehtola VV and Ståhle P (2014) Societal innovation at the Oliver J (2018) The Urban Living Partnership. Swindon:
interface of the state and civil society. Innovation: Natural Environment Research Council.
The European Journal of Social Science Research Olivier P and Wright P (2015) Digital Civics: taking a
27(2): 152–174. local turn. Interactions 22(4): 61–63.
Lemprière M and Lowndes V (2019) Why did the North Powells G and Blake L (2016) Urban science networks
East Combined Authority fail to achieve a devolution and local economy: the case of Newcastle upon
deal with the UK government? Local Economy 34(2): Tyne. In: Evans J, Karvonen A and Raven R (eds)
149–166. The Experimental City. Abingdon: Routledge,
Leydesdorff L (2012) The Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix, 137–149.
. . ., and an N-tuple of helices: explanatory mod- Power D and Malmberg A (2008) The contribution of uni-
els for analyzing the knowledge-based economy? versities to innovation and economic development: in
Journal of the Knowledge Economy 3(1): 25–35. what sense a regional problem? Cambridge Journal
Leydesdorff L and Etzkowitz H (1996) Emergence of a of Regions, Economy, and Society 1(2): 233–245.
Triple Helix of university-industry-government rela- Ranga M and Etzkowitz H (2013) Triple helix systems; an
tions. Science and Public Policy 5(1): 279–286. analytical framework for innovation policy and prac-
Lindberg M, Lindgren M and Packendorff J (2014) tice in the Knowledge Society. Industry & Higher
Quadruple Helix as a way to bridge the gender gap Education 27(3): 237–262.
in entrepreneurship: the case of an innovation sys- Robles AG, Hirvikoski T, Schuurman D and Stokes L
tem project in the Baltic Sea region. Journal of the (eds) (2015) Introducing ENoLL and Its Living Lab
Knowledge Economy 80(2): 221–230. Community. Brussels: ENoLL.
McAdam M and Debackere K (2018) Beyond ‘triple Steen K and van Bueren E (2017) The defining charac-
helix’ toward ‘quadruple helix’ models in regional teristics of urban living labs. Technology Innovation
innovation systems: implications for theory and prac- Management Review 7(7): 21–33.
tice. R&D Management 48(1): 3–6. Tewdwr-Jones M and Goddard J (2014) A future for
MacGregor SP, Marques-Gou P and Simon-Villar A cities? Building new methodologies and systems
(2010) Gauging readiness for the quadruple helix: a for urban foresight? Town Planning Review 85(6):
study of 16 European organizations. Journal of the 773-794.
Knowledge Economy 1(3): 173–190. Tewdwr-Jones M, Goddard J and Cowie P (2015)
Makkonen T, Merisalo M and Inkinen T (2018) Containers, Newcastle City Futures 2065: Anchoring Universities
facilitators, innovators? The role of cities and city in Urban Regions through City Foresight. Newcastle
employees in innovation activities. European Urban upon Tyne: Newcastle Institute for Social Renewal.
and Regional Studies 25(1): 106–118. Trivellato B (2017) How can ‘smart’ also be socially sus-
Metcalfe JS, Gagliardi D, De Liso N and Ramlogan R tainable? Insights from the case of Milan. European
(2012) Innovation systems and innovation ecologies: Urban and Regional Studies 24(4): 337–351.
innovation policy and restless capitalism. Working Vallance P (2016) The co-evolution of regional innova-
Paper No. 3/2012, Trento: Openloc, University of tion domains and institutional arrangements: smart
Trento. specialisation through quadruple helix relations? In:
Vallance et al. 341

McCann P, Van Oort F and Goddard J (eds), The Vinodrai T and Keddy S (2015) Projects and project ecolo-
Empirical and Institutional Dimensions of Smart gies in creative industries. In: Jones C, Lorenzen M
Specialisation. London: Routledge, pp.149–166. and Sapsed J (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Creative
Vallance P, Tewdwr-Jones M and Kempton L (2019) Industries. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 251–267.
Facilitating spaces for place-based leadership Von Hippel E (2005) Democratizing Innovation.
in centralized governance systems: the case of Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Newcastle City Futures. Regional Studies 53(12): Wilson A and Tewdwr-Jones M (2019) Let’s draw and
1723–1733. talk about urban change: deploying digital technol-
Van Geenhuizen M (2018) A framework for the evalua- ogy to encourage citizen participation in urban plan-
tion of living labs as boundary spanners in innova- ning. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics
tion. Environment and Planning C: Politics and and City Science. Epub ahead of print 25 February
Space 36(7): 1280–1298. 2019. DOI: 10.1177/2399808319831290