On Smart Cities and Triple-Helix Intermediaries: A Critical-Realist Perspective

Highlights:

Despite extensive research on smart cities, a critical-realist perspective is often missing. This paper proposes a Triple-Helix Business Clinic to reinforce local firm innovation and socioeconomic development.

What are the main findings?

• Elite journals largely overlook structural capitalist drivers of triple-helix intermediaries.
• A critical-realist lens clarifies why business innovation is vital for smart-city development.

What is the implication of the main finding?

• Policymakers and scholars should incorporate deeper ontological drivers into smart-city frameworks.
• The Triple-Helix Business Clinic model can help align government, academia, and firms to foster sustainable growth.

Abstract

I conducted an integrative literature review by utilizing theoretical and methodological elements of critical realism (i.e., the distinction between ontology and epistemology) to evaluate the significance of triple-helix intermediaries. This review involved examining all published research on smart cities in “elite” ABS (Chartered Association of Business Schools) journals (4, 4*). My findings indicate that the philosophical foundations of the examined literature are predominantly grounded on “positivism”, “postmodernism”, “interpretivism”, and “pragmatism”, without delving into the ontological reinforcement of capitalist institutions through innovation creation and diffusion—a central concern of critical realism. I argue that this oversight stems from the prevailing “paradigm” within these “elite” journals, which often excludes historical and critical perspectives. In response, I propose a reoriented intermediary, the Triple-Helix Business Clinic, grounded in critical-realist assumptions. This new theoretical framework can guide practical policy development aimed at reinforcing business innovation and driving broader socioeconomic progress.

1. Introduction

Over the past years, an increasing number of studies have examined the critical role of triple-helix intermediary organizations for innovation generation and diffusion [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Most of these studies highlight mechanisms that allow the successful connection between knowledge structures, firms, and governments, that is, institutions that shape the triple helix. The founders of this co-evolutionary approach to institutions that create innovation and knowledge are Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff [7]. The quadruple and quintuple helix are extensions by Carayannis and Campbell [8,9], adding the civic society and the environment dimensions, respectively; some recent contributions (indicatively, [10]) attempt to theoretically integrate these multilevel dimensions.

Rather than engaging with the triple helix per se, “triple-helix intermediaries” are a nascent yet rapidly evolving domain specifically oriented toward bridging urban–regional innovation with concrete applications. The concepts of quadruple and quintuple helices are not heavily employed there since the emphasis remains on understanding how intermediary organizations fortify the triple-helix dynamic within certain local development forms (such as smart cities, as will be explained next). The research by Metcalfe [11], Suvinen et al. [12], and Yuwawutto et al. [13] is fundamental to the triple-helix intermediary organizations, based upon earlier literature that does not explicitly examine triple-helix relationships [14,15,16,17,18]. The reason is that the theoretical foundation of the triple helix occurred over the last years of the 1990s, the conceptual expansion during the 2000s, and the systematic implementation attempts from 2010 onwards, when studies on triple-helix intermediary organizations first appeared [19]. According to Metcalfe [11], intermediary organizations are actors that intentionally lie between higher education, governmental policies, and business entities, functioning as mediators to innovation generation. Intermediaries include all actors that directly or indirectly reinforce entrepreneurship. Such examples are incubators, accelerators, spin-offs, technology or science parks, technology transfer offices, research centers, co-working spaces, chambers of commerce, or observatories [20].

Smart cities constitute a stream that shares common elements with these triple-helix intermediaries. At the highest level of abstraction, the smart city is a socioeconomic system in which digital and other intelligent services are developed, making the lives of citizens easier and better [21,22]. The smart city is a phenomenon studied by the literature, for which precise methodologi-cal and theoretical prerequisites are not usually provided (cf. [23,24]), initiated primarily after the contributions of Giffinger et al. [25] and Hollands [26]. This methodological la-cuna stems from various reasons. The smart city is a multidisciplinary context as it traverses urban planning [27], environmental studies [28], information systems [29], pub-lic policy [30], and business/management [31], each with different epistemic norms. It also involves various stakeholders that each pursue different data and performance metrics, such as government agencies, private tech companies, non-governmental organizations, and citizens.

The smart city is also studied in the literature as intelligent, cyber, wired, digital, creative, or sentient, as noticed by Ben Letaifa [32] and Kitchin [33]. In this new smart-city formation, Vanolo [24], in a pivotal contribution, contends that six dimensions are reframed amid the current fourth industrial revolution [34]. First, the economy is based on an innovation and entrepreneurialism spirit, coalesced with the labor market’s flexibilization (the “smart economy”). Second, sophisticated mobility systems are deployed in the new urban environment based on the transport system’s information technology advancements (“smart mobility”). Third, more transparent and efficient governance forms appear, in which citizens participate more actively in decision-making (“smart governance”). Fourth, this new city incorporates integrated solutions for sustainable development, improving the urban climate and environment (the “smart environment”). Fifth, quality of life is improved due to better services in culture, health, tourism, safety, and housing (“smart living”). Sixth, this intelligent urban framework is built upon a spirit of cosmopolitanism and tolerance (“smart people”). Upon these foundations, the study of intelligent cities also entered mainstream forums. A typical example was their inclusion in the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 (see goal [11–29]).

In more recent expansions of Vanolo’s argument, scholars have critiqued the ways that ubiquitous digital infrastructures, datafication, and algorithmic governance reinforce this “smartmentality”. For instance, Datta [35] documents how top-down smart-city initiatives in India often exclude or marginalize less powerful communities, while Sadowski [36] explores how the commodification of urban data through corporate-led smart projects can deepen inequality. Similarly, Cowley and Caprotti [37] observe that “smart city” rhetoric sometimes fosters “anti-planning”, as governmental actors prioritize quick, tech-driven fixes over broader socio-spatial needs. Overall, these more recent studies build on Vanolo’s foundational insight by demonstrating how the discourse and practices of “smartness” tend to steer urban policy in ways that can both enable innovation and tacitly discipline public participation.

In the smart-city intermediaries field, the research by Leydesdorff and Deakin [38] is the theoretical initiation. In the following years, we can discern relevant studies examining the roles these intermediaries play in driving the cities towards smartness. Except for some contributions that more explicitly investigate the phenomenon (such as [39,40,41]), it remains unclear why intermediaries are critical in smart cities. Even the comprehensive research by van Winden and Carvalho [41], while analyzing a case of a mechanism that reinforces startup companies that solve urban-related problems in a European capital, does not clarify why these actors are significant and how they can be enriched. Further, this void in the literature is enhanced because—as analyzed in the following sections of this research—most relevant studies do not examine the intermediaries as structural components for socioeconomic development.

Crucially, the triple-helix concept and the smart-city framework share a core emphasis on collaboration and innovation, as both rely on cross-sector synergies to address complex urban challenges. While the triple helix spotlights co-evolving interactions among universities, governments, and firms to drive technology creation and diffusion, the smart-city approach operationalizes these interactions by focusing on data-driven governance and citizen-centric solutions. As such, triple-helix intermediary structures can serve as a backbone of smart-city initiatives, ensuring that innovation is not only produced but also effectively diffused across local contexts [42].

Therefore, this paper aims to fill the gap in understanding why intermediaries are critical in smart cities, particularly in light of different philosophical approaches. Specifically, I first conduct an integrative, critical-realist review of “elite” journal articles (i.e., Chartered Association of Business Schools journals rated 4 and 4*), mapping the empirical patterns these studies report against their often-implicit philosophical positions. That evidence then anchors a retroductive analysis that reveals the causal mechanisms—rooted in capitalist innovation—through which intermediaries shape urban development. On that analytical basis, I propose the Triple-Helix Business Clinic (THBC) model, a theoretically derived and operationally detailed framework that translates those mechanisms into a meso–micro policy architecture for smart-city ecosystems.

Thus, I argue that the examined literature does not address the field as comprehensively as one might expect. It appears that the philosophies underlying the examined literature are primarily based on positivism, postmodernism, interpretivism, and pragmatism, which limits further exploration of the critical developmental components of these intermediary structures. As mentioned, I will propose a mechanism for reinforcing business development to address this problem, which I label THBC.

The remainder of this study is separated into the ensuing parts. Section 2 presents the methodological principles followed based on critical realism. Section 3 reviews relevant literature through this prism. Section 4 introduces the theoretical counterproposal of “business clinics”. Finally, Section 5 offers final remarks and prospects for further research.

2. Methodological Directions and Critical Realism

2.1. Philosophy, Theoretical Approach, and Development Pyramid

Meta-theoretical frameworks explain why the abductive–retroductive approach always originates from a historical overview of the phenomenon under investigation (see

Table 1. The four fundamental inference paths to theory development (modified from the original of Danermark et al. [43]).

	Deduction	Induction	Abduction	Retroduction
Inference path	Given premises lead to logically valid conclusions	Observations in specific subjects lead to generalized conclusions about whole populations	Recontextualization and reinterpretation within a new conceptual framework	Restructuration from the primary conditions that formulate the phenomena
Generalizability	General to specific	Specific to general	General-specific and specific-general back-and-forth interactions	General-specific and specific-general back-and-forth interactions
Formal structure	Yes	Yes	Yes and no	No
Limitations	Deduction generates conclusions limited to the premises and does not inform about external realities	Induction generates conclusions not empirically certain (internal limit) and attached to this empirical reality (external limit)	No fixed criteria can definitely validate the abductive conclusions	No fixed criteria can validate the retroducitve conclusions
Example	If the premise dictates that A gives B, then answer A leads invariably to B	From a representative sample of people that love playing golf, research concludes that golf is a popular sport among the elderly	Karl Marx reinterpreted human history from the perspective of historical materialism	A ritual exists only if emotionally loaded symbols are present

). For instance, Danermark et al. [43] illustrate the various inference paths that contribute to theory development.

Retroduction–abduction is largely based on a non-formal structure, relying on back-and-forth interactions between general and specific observations to restructure the primary conditions that give rise to phenomena. As Cassell et al. [44] note, critical realism seeks to transcend the dualism between objectivity and subjectivity by distinguishing between what is real (ontology) and what is known (epistemology). Thus, at a higher level of abstraction, it represents a philosophical stream that integrates historical–structural analysis in the social sciences through a retroductive–abductive approach (

Table 2. Different philosophies in economics and business research (modified from the original of Saunders et al. [45]).

Ontology	Epistemology	Contribution	Axiology	Basic Methods
Positivism
Order; independency; one reality (universalism)	A scientific method; observable and measurable facts; law-like generalizations	Causality and prediction	Value-free; objective stance; neutrality	Deduction; large samples; rigid structure; measurement; quantification
Interpretivism
Complexity; manifoldness in meanings-interpretations; social construction	Theorization of narratives, perceptions, and interpretations	New understanding or new worldview	Value-bound; objective stance; reflexivity	Inductive; small samples; in-depth examination; qualitative methods
Postmodernism
Absence of objective knowledge; complexity; some interpretations-realities dominate others	Relative truth and knowledge are defined by dominant ideologies; oppressed interpretations emerge	Revealing power relations and challenging the prevailing paradigm	Value-constituted; power relations embedment; radical reflexivity	Deconstruction (against the existing reality); profound examination of anomalies; typically, qualitative methods
Pragmatism
The reality is based on the practical consequences of ideas; complexity	Actual knowledge in specific contexts; true theory when enables successful action	Problem-solving and generating future practice directions	Value-driven; research based on particular beliefs; reflexivity	The research problem and question define the method (mixed, multiple, quantitative, action research); emphasis on practical solutions
Critical realism
Stratification (empirical-actual-real); causal mechanisms; non-transiency	Epistemological relativism; knowledge historically shaped and transient; facts as social structures	Historical causality	Value-laden; understanding bias limitations; pursuit of the most objective judgment possible	Retroduction–abduction; in-depth and historical analysis of structures; various methods based on fitting with the subject matter

).

Saunders et al. [45] provide a concise framework for delineating how different research philosophies (positivism, interpretivism, postmodernism, pragmatism, and critical realism) shape the questions asked, the data collected, and the interpretations formed through ontological assumptions, epistemological commitments, typical contributions, core values, and basic methods. Critical realism emerged during the 1970s and 1980s through the works of Bhaskar [46,47,48] and by subsequent scholars [49,50,51,52]. One of the most remarkable contributions of critical realism is that it deviates from positivism and constructivism. It assumes that, in positivism, the reduction in ontology to epistemology is problematic because it reduces “reality” to what is empirically known through scientific experimentation. It also criticizes constructivism as it reduces reality to human knowledge [53]. Interpretivism, postmodernism, and pragmatism can take such forms in related research.

In the ontology of critical realism [47], reality is divided (stratified) into three levels. The first stratum (“empirical”) on the surface includes the facts human interpretation perceives, constituting a transient state. The middle (“actual”) refers to situations that occur regardless of whether we perceive and interpret them. Finally, the most profound (“real”) level is the inherent causal mechanisms and structures that generate events that appear next empirically [53]. The primary goal of critical realism is to expound on the different social events through the causal mechanisms that induce them, attempting to answer why something (and not what) happens [44].

Critical realism seems to be a social science philosophy that concerns all empirical fields and spatiotemporal levels (cf. [54], for a related approach in financial economics). In contrast, for example, the inferences of positivism concern only a specific domain of experience. Thus, critical realism incorporates an ecumenical perspective on data collection, and the methodological choices depend on the nature of the study and the knowledge that the research seeks to acquire [55].

It can be argued that the pursuit of entrepreneurial profit is the causal mechanism in the “development pyramid” of capitalism (Figure 1). What happens and is not always observable is innovation, while the improvement of living standards is observed empirically.

Capitalism, already from Schumpeter’s era, is recognized as a socioeconomic system in constant motion, continually redefined by the dynamics of innovation [56]. Through the “gales of innovative change” in this process of “creative destruction”, capitalism drives older industries into a gradual decline, giving way to new ones. Historically, considering the last forty years of globalization (circa 1980–2020), this process has led to a rapid improvement in living standards [57]. Nowadays, the academic community explores the new phase of globalization, which could lead to a new era of development, also halting the natural environment’s disintegration [58]. In addition, it can be argued that the methodological principles of evolutionary economics are directly intertwined with the philosophical position of critical realism, leading to an integrated perspective ([59,60], and for critical realism in economics, see also the work by Hodgson [61]). Based on this integrated perspective, I introduce the “critical-realism evolutionary economics” (cf. [62], for ontological issues in evolutionary economics), structured under the premises of the development pyramid (see Figure 1). With this schematic representation, the philosophical basis of ontology, epistemology, and the fundamental methods of each relevant socioeconomic approach can be pointed out. Development emerges ontologically (“real level”) from capitalist institutions and the pursuit of entrepreneurial profit that is epistemologically transformed into new knowledge and innovation (actual level), leading to improved social well-being (“empirical level”). In the last act, the methods used by each researcher in socioeconomics can be observed. In this way, the forces of “de-pyramidization” of capitalism also appear (postmodernist deconstruction), disrupting the existing edifice (this is why Figure 1 depicts the right inverted pyramid with a sketched outline). In this second condition, three opposite steps can be distinguished: the forces of disintegration of capitalism (reality), which work deconstructively towards innovation (facts), worsening the standard of living of people (experience).

Therefore, rather than merely identifying what happens in smart-city transformation (for instance, new data-driven processes or policy changes), critical realism insists on examining why certain patterns prevail—namely, how underlying capitalist structures, entrepreneurial logics, and institutional contexts interact to produce or constrain innovation. This perspective also invites “critical” views that question mainstream assumptions [63]. For instance, postmodernist lenses reveal how dominant discourses can privilege corporate actors or exclude marginalized communities. By contrasting the “development pyramid” (which emphasizes capitalist innovation as a generative force) with potential destabilizing forces (which may undermine or reshape this system), this perspective illustrates that both creation and deconstruction are part of the ongoing social reality of smart cities. Hence, this discussion extends beyond a superficial listing of philosophies: it shows why each approach frames intermediaries in a distinct way and why critical realism’s deeper ontological emphasis can reveal the causal processes behind intermediaries’ significance in urban innovation.

2.2. Methodological Choice

Although a few publications implement literature review approaches based on the lens of critical realism (cf. [64]), it remains uncommon to see research explicitly embracing and applying this philosophical stance in smart-city scholarship (e.g., [65,66]) or research policy (e.g., [67]). To address this gap, I employed the principles of an integrative literature review as outlined by Snyder [68] to critique the “elite” smart-city research on triple-helix intermediaries. According to Snyder, an integrative review typically aims to critique and synthesize a field; its research questions may be broad or narrow; its search strategy is often non-systematic; its sample usually consists of research articles, books, and other published texts; its analysis and evaluation are qualitative; and its contributions frequently take the form of taxonomies, classifications, theoretical models, or frameworks. Building on the insights gained through this qualitative process, I propose in Section 4 a new theoretical framework—as dictated by the integrative review method (see [69,70,71,72] for related approaches)—that responds directly to the gaps identified.

I attempted to determine the criticality of triple-helix intermediaries by considering all published research on smart cities in the “elite” ABS journals (4, 4*). I chose these journals because they allegedly publish groundbreaking research in their field, as reported by the latest Academic Journal Guide [73]. Therefore, I aimed to discern significant state-of-the-art trends in this particular research area. It should be noted that this method might overlook relevant directions that could potentially broaden this paper’s scope since this approach is subject to the limitation of elitism, as Hussain [74] and Tourish and Willmott [75] would argue.

The Scopus search for the keywords “smart cit*” and “intelligent cit*” returned, in April 2022, 41 scientific articles that I studied based on whether they examine—in any form—triple-helix intermediaries (Appendix A). Their initial perusal led to discarding those that did not add anything new. I then noted specific points in the articles referring to intermediary organizations. After meticulously studying approximately half of them and obtaining an elliptical image of the rest (both the discarded and the upheld), theoretical saturation occurred when a new understanding emerged: most of them come from different philosophical positions from critical realism. I inferred that policy proposals for intermediaries capable of reinforcing entrepreneurial innovation are not elaborated as extensively in the literature. In the next section, I analyze these findings, which result from this qualitative research.

3. Results

3.1. Intermediaries Are a Variable in the Smart-City System (Positivism)

Examining the works of Adler and Florida [39], Caragliu and Del Bo [76], and Jeong and Shin [77], and considering the guiding principles of positivism, I find an expected lack of policy proposals. If the initial premises can validate the system in this perspective, this is enough to suggest the existence of causality and predict its future course according to the influencing variables. For example, Jeong and Shin [77] found through the study of a large representative sample that personalization, informativeness, and interactivity are the three variables that affect the tourist experience. These findings suggest that tourist organizations must become more interactive and integrate these technological features into their multifactorial digital platforms. Also, Caragliu and Del Bo [76] discern employment in intermediating financial activities as one of the variables (they measure more than fifteen of those) to calculate the inequality in the smart-city system.

This relative lack of policy recommendations does not nullify the methodological consistency and clarity of similar paradigmatic dictations. I merely find that they carry over the Newtonian tradition in the social sciences, as also noted by one of the founders of modern evolutionary economics [78]: p. 1692: “For centuries Newtonian (and later post-Newtonian) physics has been regarded by both scholars who analyze science and laypersons impressed with the accomplishments of the scientific enterprise as the model of what a science should be. … But this is an illusion”. In this scientific paradigm, which I do not consider to remain unchanged ([63], cf. [79,80]), policies are variables and are reduced to dichotomous internal or external forces affecting the investigated system. Thus, many times, these analyses forget the “Mecca of Marshall”, viz., the need of the social scientist to return to biology to understand the ontology of phenomena.

However, in this well-known passage (“the Mecca of the economist lies in economic biology rather than in economic dynamics”, [81]), the author and founder of neoclassical economics contended that mechanical analogies are inevitable based on this reasoning [82]: pp. 406–407: “But biological conceptions are more complex than those of mechanics; a volume on Foundations must therefore give a relatively large place to mechanical analogies; and frequent use is made of the term ‘equilibrium’ which suggests something of a statical analogy”. This limitation becomes apparent when positivism generates policy proposals, as it does not distinguish between economic growth and development. In this worldview, the policy is simply about quantitative measures that lead correlatively to achieving narrow objectives. Thus, the capitalist institutional foundations incubating profound qualitative transformations that manifest as quantitative measures remain obscure [83,84]. Therefore, the triple-helix intermediaries are somehow in place “in advance”, and the researcher attempts to identify the variable relationship they have with growth or recession conditions.

3.2. Intermediaries Are Complex Entities That Involve Smart-City Interdependent Actors (Interpretivism)

By gaining increasing prominence over the last fifty years due to the diffusion of grounded theory methods, interpretivism generates forms of qualitative analyses that explore the innermost experiences of the participating research subjects [85]. Thus, it formulates theory based on how specific meanings are structured, identifying variables from the observed phenomena that can later be quantified.

For example, Zuzul [86] contributes to understanding the problems originating in collaborative relationships between stakeholders in smart-city development projects with significant impact. Although the analysis is assiduous and comprehensive, informing how leaders of these projects can reduce inherent weaknesses from the outset of these projects, grounding universal policy proposals is infeasible because the theory emerges ontologically through the study of specific complex (socioeconomic) actors.

With similar subcutaneous limitations deriving from the abiding paradigm, Velsberg et al. [30] find that specific state-of-the-art technologies facilitate the prerequisite interconnection between actors of public sector organizations. This framework leads to public sector innovation in smart cities. Also, Corbett and Mellouli [29] conclude through a grounded theory that water quality and green space management in smart cities are implemented around the engagement of related actors in administrative, political, and sustainability dimensions. Following a broad perspective, the authors deduce that this “engagement” scheme they have identified is, in the background, a biologically inspired form of organization of the integrated information ecosystems in which co-opeting actors participate (cf. [87,88]). They thus justify how this integrated information ecosystem can contribute to achieving the smart-city-related UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Therefore, interpretivism is a fruitful philosophical nursery in understanding the complexity governing the ecosystems built around triple-helix intermediaries. This finding is based on the multifariousness of the qualitative approach, which manifests in critical considerations to interpret the phenomena holistically (and sometimes inter-disciplinarily). Also, it is confirmed that this theory is erected ontologically from a context subject to bias on the part of the examined cases.

3.3. Intermediaries Are a Mechanism for Maintaining the Status Quo (Postmodernism)

A significant number of studies in smart cities examine the reality through different prisms of postmodernism. The scope of the “Environment and Planning D: Society and Space”, a community that has published various impactful papers, explicitly states that it is about power relations (https://journals.sagepub.com/aims-scope/EPD, accessed on 4 May 2022): “EPD: Society and Space is an international, interdisciplinary scholarly and political project. … we publish articles … that examine social struggles over access to and control of space, place, territory, region, and resources”. This stream criticizes the foundations of scientific rigor, and it is driven by inherent skepticism concerning the rationalism of the Enlightenment, revealing the relative truth shaped by ideology. The frequent citation of Foucault’s ideas and works (e.g., [89]) is a shared attribute of these explorations.

Specifically, Gabrys [28] criticizes the projects aiming to develop these smart cities, as their digital governance (databases, algorithms, sensors, and mobile platforms) is a problematic form of neoliberalism. Gabrys [28] acknowledges (and criticizes) that, in smart cities, collaboration occurs between public and private actors (governments, universities, and firms), in which large multinational corporations play a crucial role, leading to a form of “computerization” that ultimately harms civil society. Another related research denounces the anomalies caused by the “datafication and algorithmic rationalization of urban space” [90]: p. 307. Also, Attoh et al. [91] conclude that the smart city is not just a corporate, post-political, or panoptic city [26,33]: it is also a framework built on the dynamics of competition, alienation, and privatized isolation. I find similar (in the ontology) approaches in Luque-Ayala and Marvin [92], Klauser et al. [93], and Mouton and Burns [94], who perceive these procured urban systems as technologically mediated between different actors. According to Mouton and Burns [94], this digital neo-colonialism is the latest phase of capitalism, which can be combated by communities of resistance.

Therefore, and quite remarkably, in such philosophical inquiry, politics and ideology are considered a conditio sine qua non for understanding and establishing any socioeconomic reality. The distinguishing feature is the inner need (ontology) to reveal power relations formed due to the lack of objectivity. Thus, triple-helix intermediaries (in the urban context) are primarily mechanisms of the predominant development paradigm, and their deconstruction seems desirable because they indirectly support smart-city alienation, idiocy, and neo-colonialism.

3.4. Intermediaries Are Critical Because They Solve Specific Pressing Problems in Smart Cities (Pragmatism)

In this theoretical stream, the authors evaluate theories focusing on practical problems whose treatment can lead to remedying similar issues in the future. Studies that implicitly follow the principles of pragmatism, such as those of Bartelt et al. [95], Kitchin and Moore-Cherry [40], and van Winden and Carvalho [41], examine problems related to smart cities, but without basing their premises on a distinction between ontology and epistemology. This finding confirms that pragmatism builds its assumptions on the practical application of specific ideas [96].

For van Winden and Carvalho [41], innovation intermediaries comprise business consultants, technology brokers, and public sector actors. Based on this lens, they investigate the practical implications of a mediation initiative between startup companies and the local government in a European capital, detecting that this policy is adequate for a limited range of urban and socioeconomic issues but not for more complex ones. The authors infer that more and better coordination between public and private actors is needed to address other pressing situations in smart cities (e.g., traffic congestion, urban pollution, social cohesion). A similar problem of local intermediation for an urban data ecosystem in a metropolitan US (United States) city is considered by Kitchin and Moore-Cherry [40], who discover that mediation is fragmented due to local and territorial discrepancies. Also, Bartelt et al. [95] study a practical application of a “living lab” in a large US city (see [97] for literature and definitions of living labs), acknowledging that this intermediary has fostered a collaborative culture between different smart-city actors. For relevant scrutinizing analyses of public administration problems focusing on smart cities, see also: Borrás and Edler [98], Drapalova and Wegrich [99], Karppi and Vakkuri [100], Nesti and Graziano [101], and Sancino and Hudson [102].

Therefore, pragmatism, which is thought to have emerged from some thinkers in the US in the late 19th century [96], lies at the ontological root of theories that evaluate the practical implications of smart-city intermediaries. The study of pragmatism-related approaches confirms that this philosophy is hesitant to invoke structural dimensions to explain social processes (in contrast, critical realism encourages them [103]). As in related hermeneutic analyses, there is a tendency to propose further investigation of the collaboration prospects of these formations. By principle, as a pragmatic instrument, intermediaries lead to specific frameworks that enable knowledge creation. However, in the next section, I argue that capitalist institutions are the causal mechanisms underlying these innovation generation structures, creating the need to focus on the internal business environment.

4. The Triple-Helix Business Clinic (THBC) as a Critical-Realist Counterproposal

This paper has examined thus far the virtues and relative shortcomings that arise from different philosophies and their methodologies in smart cities and their intermediaries, taking as a case study the current digital transformation of cities. As I postulated in the methodological prerequisites of this study (Figure 1), postmodernism is the other thought direction that scrutinizes, albeit deconstructively, the structures of capitalism. However, it is mainly critical realism that incorporates elements of theory that analyze the ontological causality mechanisms of capitalism via a restructuration prism, focusing on the firm’s innovative adaptation.

Ben Letaifa [32] rightly points out that the structuration of new city forms also involves an inevitable strategic question, which is multilevel (macro, meso, and micro) and initiates at the firm’s strategic level. Nevertheless, most of the relevant policy proposals (as well as implemented policies) that I find in the “elite” literature refer to an abstract goal of triple-helix (or quadruple and quintuple) networking or collaboration where the examination of business innovation is perceived in at least four different ways. (I) Innovation is a variable in the smart-city system (positivism). (II) Innovation is the thread of the successful smart-city helix—triple–quadruple–quintuple—networking (interpretivism). (III) Innovation is about conserving the status quo through the neo-interventionist role of multinational corporations in these new digital cities (postmodernism). (IV) Innovation is the development outcome that must be studied in the practice of specific spatiotemporal environments (pragmatism).

I advance the analysis toward a fifth perspective, based on the premise that the capitalist enterprise is the primary engine of innovation. I attempt to bridge this gap in understanding by proposing a meso–micro policy mechanism called THBC (Figure 2).

Building on critical realism’s commitment to uncovering deep-lying causal mechanisms, the THBC model emerges from recognizing that capitalist institutions—via the pursuit of entrepreneurial profit—constitute an ontologically “real” driver of socioeconomic change. Whereas other philosophical traditions often situate intermediaries as mere variables, interpretive processes, pragmatic solutions, or instruments of hegemonic control, critical realism directs attention toward how structural forces (e.g., market competition and innovation dynamics) shape innovation pathways beneath observable events. By distinguishing the empirical (what we experience), the actual (what transpires regardless of our perception), and the real (the underlying causal structures), we see that triple-helix intermediary organizations need to focus explicitly on business innovation as the engine of urban development. This recognition motivates a “business clinic” approach: supporting firms’ capacities while orchestrating engagement with governmental and academic actors. Thus, the THBC is not presented as just another intermediary blueprint but as a deliberate response to the deeper institutional mechanisms that critical realism highlights—ensuring that local business ecosystems translate structural innovation potentials into tangible, inclusive socioeconomic benefits for smart cities.

Crucially, however, the effectiveness of any intermediary architecture—including the THBC—depends on how it is woven into the governance fabric of the city. Smart-city research consistently highlights “governance” as a core dimension alongside economy, mobility, environment, people, and living, whether one employs Cohen’s smart city “wheel” [104], other composite schemes synthesized by Albino et al. [105], or more recent assessments that refine these taxonomies through case-based metrics and sensor-rich diagnostics (for example, [106,107,108,109]). In practice, this means that the relational circuits linking universities, firms, and public agencies must themselves be the object of deliberate steering, accountability, and inclusive decision-making. When a municipality positions triple-helix intermediaries as formal nodes inside its smart-city governance portfolio—assigning clear mandates, funding streams, and co-evaluation routines—it transforms them from ad-hoc facilitators into institutional levers that can align entrepreneurial discovery with citizen-centric priorities (cf. [42,104]). In other words, the THBC should be conceived not merely as a service outlet for firms but as an explicitly governed platform, anchored in the city’s smart-strategy architecture, through which the co-creation of digital and socio-technical solutions is orchestrated, monitored, and scaled. The THBC is thus constructive because it furnishes a concrete institutional design distilled from the observed governance gaps [110] and normative because it openly prescribes what a “good way” of mediating innovation ought to look like [111]—namely, an inclusive mobilization of entrepreneurial discovery for collective urban flourishing in line with critical-realist tenets.

Therefore, this policy proposal is not yet another local networking perspective. More profoundly, it aims to reinforce the firm’s “physiology”, viz., the organic core and “DNA” (see [112] for the innovative strategy–technology–management synthesis, or Stra.Tech.Man). This support should be provided through the provision of free (publicly provided) consulting services, operating as a “clinic” (the triple-helix intermediary) that can be visited by “patients” (the firms).

A plethora of intermediaries that reinforce local firms have already been acknowledged in the examined literature. However, these structures are often uncoordinated with other triple-helix institutions, such as firms and funding agencies. Perhaps this relative shortcoming is due to the examined literature (“elite” ABS journals), as the authors come mainly from developed economies (for problems of elitism in these sources, see [74]). In less developed socioeconomic systems, the inadequacy of micro-firms (strategic, technological, and managerial [113]) is usually identified as the primary development objective (concerning innovation in less developed regions, see [114,115]). However, this explanation also is insufficient since the Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) were first established in the United Kingdom.

Specifically, the TECs were launched during the 1980s–1990s as an organic continuation of the national workforce organization, aiming at administering training and empowering the small firm’s competitiveness (see [116]). These structures received considerable criticism, primarily from postmodernist perspectives, as they were considered an expression of the neoliberal Schumpeterian state [117]. The TECs were locally established private entities contracted with the central government to provide training and other business services to enhance the employability of the local system. In several cases, the TECs provided free funding to small and medium-sized enterprises for diagnostic counseling (business “health checks”) through the employment of business consultants. The ultimate goal was for these local firms to improve their strategic planning [118]. However, the TECs faced a lack of support that led to their gradual deconstruction. As it seems, a postmodernist criticism against the inner incentives for establishing such structures contributed to their decomposition [117].

Therefore, the lack of mechanisms to offer support services to firms is not due either to the origin of the authors or to a nation’s development prospects. Instead, a relative lack of critical realism philosophy can be observed, which is perceived with the following question (reductio ad absurdum). Can the different socioeconomic systems develop nowadays without their capitalist firms’ improvement? The vision of THBCs fills this gap by suggesting specific forms of triple-helix institutions that can be deployed in different national–regional systems (developed or not) through national government initiatives and public–private partnerships. In reality, these proposed mechanisms are a rediscovery of TECs for balanced smart-city development, as innovation has been shown to improve socioeconomic prosperity and, therefore, these new urban forms.

The THBCs can support innovation through five ongoing goals. (1) They function as a development observatory that constantly monitors the sectoral–local environment and advises on development prospects. (2) They take cooperation and initiative–coordination decisions between the triple-helix institutions, evaluating investment opportunities. (3) They are oriented towards the local diffusion of expertise by creating business forums and updating a relevant digital platform. (4) They offer free consulting to local firms, which they fund to employ consultants (similar to TECs). (5) They monitor the development results and publish a quarterly report on these five objectives.

Political will is clearly needed to implement such nation- or region-wide interventions. A different philosophical stance is required, one that refocuses the worldview to incorporate a macro–meso–micro synthesis supported by civil society [119,120]. This framework can enable intelligent cities to become effective engines of development. However, I contend that embracing a vision of critical realism is a prerequisite for this progress.

5. Final Remarks

This paper set out to explore why triple-helix intermediaries matter in smart cities. This integrative review, underpinned by a critical-realist perspective, revealed that the “elite” ABS journals (rated 4 and 4*)—often assumed to be leading the discourse—have not addressed these intermediary structures as comprehensively as one might expect. Despite their reputational standing, many of these journals predominantly reflect positivist, interpretivist, pragmatist, and postmodernist positions. As a result, deeper questions concerning ontological drivers—such as how capitalist institutions reinforce innovation and development—are sidelined. This relative “elitism” may exclude more holistic or historically grounded contributions and risks overlooking structural solutions that foreground local firm support.

5.1. Why Intermediaries Matter—And How

Across the philosophical streams examined, a recurring limitation was the lack of explicit mechanisms to strengthen firms’ innovative capacity. While studies often acknowledge collaboration between government, universities, and businesses, they do not sufficiently probe why some intermediaries function more effectively or how they can be expanded. In response, this paper introduced the THBC model, a critical-realist proposal that sees local firm development—not just top-down collaboration—as pivotal to sustaining long-term socioeconomic gains. By concentrating on “free consulting” and capacity building at the micro-level, THBCs can enhance overall innovation performance and thereby promote inclusive smart-city transformation.

5.2. Limitations and Future Directions

Two main limitations shape these insights. First, the exclusive focus on “elite” journals means certain perspectives—particularly those rooted in critical or evolutionary economics—may be underrepresented. This selectivity could, to some extent, reinforce the elitism scholars have criticized in the fields of management and policy research. Second, critical realism itself is still evolving as a methodological paradigm, with no single “best-practice” blueprint. Future studies could expand this analysis beyond 4/4* ABS publications, incorporate mixed or more experimental methods, and investigate how local contextual factors could affect the success of THBCs in different regions.