**2. Methodology and Case Selection**

A case study stood out as the method of choice for this study [53,54]. Firstly, the selected method enabled the author to understand the complexity of the interlacing of international and national actors with regards to the joint R&D institutes; secondly, it enabled the author to understand the institutional environment and contextual relevance of the joint R&D institutes operating in China's transnational Triple Helix linkages and in China's innovation system.

The case of the Tsinghua-United Technology Corporation Research Institute for Integrated Building Energy, Safety and Control Systems (the Tsinghua-UTC Center) was selected, taking account of the following criteria:


The rationales for selecting the case of the Tsinghua-UTC Center affiliated with Tsinghua University were as follows:

As a flagship Chinese research university, Tsinghua bears the brunt of the responsibility for achieving the objectives of governmental higher education or science and technology programs [58]. On the other hand, it has been given priority to enjoy intensive governmental R&D investment. Geographically, socially, and politically, Tsinghua has the closest connections with the central government, in particular with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) [59].

The abundant financial and human R&D resources possessed by research universities like Tsinghua have been a significant precondition for large international enterprises to co-establish joint R&D institutes with them [60]. Tsinghua has been among the most popularly targeted Chinese research universities when international enterprises consider R&D partnerships in China (Interview THU UA 2).

Moreover, Tsinghua possesses high-quality multi-disciplinary researchers. A majority of them have overseas education or working experience. This has guaranteed the human resources of the international and interdisciplinary joint R&D institutes [61]. The researchers of Tsinghua have always taken the lead in various forms of international R&D cooperation and university–industry partnerships [59].

The case study of the Tsinghua-UTC Center was conducted by the author in 2013–14 on the basis of a literature review and fieldwork. In addition to publicly accessible information, including the official websites of Tsinghua, the Ministry of Education (MOE), the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), and the National Bureau of Statistics of China, and the brochure of the Tsinghua-UTC Center, semi-structured interviews were the major source of evidence in the study.

The participants in the study can be categorized as follows:


(4) Group Four: five external observers, scholars who were specialized in the fields of the internationalization of higher education, university–industry linkage, Chinese higher education transformation, and Chinese higher education policy.

#### **3. Analytical Framework**

The fundamental assumption underlying the analytical framework to be developed in this paper for understanding the influences of mingling institutional logics at the system level for the development of joint R&D institutes is that the joint R&D institutes are in the contexts of mixing institutional logics in both China's innovation system and a global (Western) innovation system (as illustrated in Figure 1). Chinese universities carry the logics from China's innovation systems and the Chinese university's collaborating international enterprises and joint R&D institutes carry institutional logics from Global (Western) innovation systems. When analyzing the contextual influences on the evolution of joint R&D institutes, the following elements are needed: (1) a framework for analyzing institutional logics in innovation systems, (2) differences between disparate institutional logics in Global and China's innovation systems, and (3) a framework for understanding the evolution of joint R&D institutes. The three aspects are introduced in this section and then integrated into the analytical framework.

**Figure 1.** Joint R&D institutes in the context of global and China's innovation systems.

#### *3.1. Institutional Logics in Innovation Systems*

When understanding institutional logics in innovation systems, this study adopts Cai [49,50], who understands innovation systems from the perspective of Triple Helix Model, and identifies seven institutional logics aligned with an ideal Triple Helix model. The "ideal model", together with the "statist model" and the "laissez-fair model" were classified by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff [62] as the three major types of Triple Helix models. In the statist model, the government encompasses university and industry, and decides the relationships between them; it is expected to take the lead in innovation initiatives and provide resources for these new projects. The laissez-faire model defines the three helices as different communication systems with strong borders dividing them and highly circumscribed relations among the spheres [49,63]. In the ideal model, in addition to its traditional

function, each helix undertakes the roles of the others. Government devolves the role of regional and local innovation coordinator to the other two actors: i.e., industry engages in endogenous technological innovation and transfer, or industrial R&D laboratories emerge in universities; in response to the changes, universities not only play an innovative role in traditional basic research, but also in applied research, entrepreneurial training and community building [49,63,64]. This is said to be an ideal model which represents a global tendency in innovation systems [63].

Institutional logics can be generally understood as "the socially constructed, historical pattern of material practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules by which individuals produce and reproduce their material subsistence, organize time and space, and provide meaning to their social reality" [65] (p. 804). The institutional logics in certain contexts will explicitly affect the communication paradigms of different stakeholders, and determine prioritized problems and appropriate solutions [52].

Cai associates the seven institutional logics with four stages of institutionalization of Triple Helix development [49,50,66] (Table 1). This framework can be used for comparing institutional logics differences between Chinese and Western innovation systems.


**Table 1.** Institutional logics in the evolution of the Triple Helix model.

Source: [49,50,66,67].

In Stage 1 of the "ideal" model, the belief that the logic of technology advancement/innovation is the key to economic growth is shared by government, industry and university. In Stage 2, the logics of market orientation and process management will facilitate intra-organizational transformation in the process of 'taking the role of the other'. In Stage 3, The logics of IPR protection affect the efficiency of technology transfer from university to industry. In countries lacking a civil society, there often exists the statist model of Triple Helix, in which the state takes overall coordination responsibility and thus provides only a limited source of ideas and initiatives [68] (p. 62). In Stage 4 of the "ideal" Western model, the logics of competitive market and democratic policymaking can realize the best choices to engage in tripartite interactions, and eventually institutionalize the optimum model in the Western context [50] (p. 18).

#### *3.2. Chinese Triple Helix System*

The Triple Helix model in China was interpreted by Zhou [69] as a "government-pulled Triple Helix model": the state plays a central role in the innovation processes; the R&D resources are mostly derived from the government; universities and industries may lose initiative and flexibility in innovation; university–industry joint R&D projects tend to be "shows" for the government. Given such a context, China's Triple Helix model had long been categorized in the statist group [63,64,70]. Despite this

common belief, a statist model is not the only one pertinent to China's national innovation system, given China's immensity and diversity [67]. The situation has been changing over the past two decades, and a transitional tendency from a statist to an ideal model has been acknowledged in the Chinese case.

Recent studies by Cai and Liu [71,72] challenge the conventional view of seeing China as a statist Triple Helix model. They found a variety of Triple Helix models in Chinese regional innovation systems by taking into account of multiple layers of government, e.g., central government, municipal government and district government, in a Triple Helix analysis. In the case of Tongji University Creative Cluster, they found an effective Triple Helix model, combining both bottom-up initiatives in the initial stage and top-down coordination in later developments [71].

The transition of China's Triple Helix model was demonstrated by an OECD study completed in 2008 [73]. The core ideas of this transition are: the governmental batons have started to become invisible; the spiral of academia works more closely with industries; in particular, the government has become increasingly supportive of the enhanced role of universities in assuming a "third mission" in addition to their traditional functions of teaching and research [29,67,73].

Overlapping institutional spheres, the main element of the ideal model, have emerged, which have gradually become the core of various innovation systems due to the advantages of their networked infrastructures in terms of social benefits, economic efficiencies, and sustainability [26,51,64,74]. They have been expected to create knowledge spillover and to contribute to the capacity of innovation systems [26,51,75].

Joint R&D institutes, as hybrid organizations, are incubated in the knowledge infrastructure of these overlapping institutional spheres. Their flourishing in Chinese research universities, from this angle, can certify the transition of China's Triple Helix model.

#### *3.3. The Collision of Western and Chinese Institutional Logics*

It has been understood that the ideal Triple Helix model has been advanced from the Western experience of economics, and it is called "ideal" as it has been proven by a number of empirical cases in Western societies that the overlapping and interdependency between the three sectors provides favorable conditions for innovation. The ideal model was initially developed and has been institutionalized in Western societies, thus the institutional logics that facilitate the institutionalization process are Western-oriented [49,76–78]. When the ideal Western Triple Helix model is applied in China's innovation system, a non-Western context, the logics associated with the ideal model are likely to be imported as well [50].

However, there is a lack of theoretical consideration and empirical evidence on whether the ideal Triple Helix model is ideal for China, as the local institutional logics of the Triple Helix model in China are different from those in the West [49]. Moreover, the institutional logics of non-Western Triple Helix models, such as the China-specific one, may result in more obstacles to a favorable innovation environment compared to the institutional logics of the ideal model in Western countries [67]. The establishment and evolution of joint R&D institutes by Chinese research universities and their "Western industrial partners" may result in collisions between Chinese and Western institutional logics. Taking account of the China-specific social relevance and settings, the collisions have the potential to interpret the challenges and dynamics of developing different models of Triple Helix linkages in the context of China's innovation system.

#### *3.4. Institutionalization of Joint R&D Institutes*

Although in Cai's [49,50] analytical framework the institutional Triple Helix model is on the innovation system level, the evolution of an innovative organizational model of joint R&D institutes can also be understood as a process of institutionalization [79]. When identifying the four stages of Triple Helix development, Cai [50] is based on the common notions of the stages of the institutionalization process, basically including three stages: "first, organizational actors realize there is a need for change; then they initiate organizational changes; and finally the changes either become institutionalized or

are terminated" [50] (p. 306). The broader social and cultural norms of innovation systems that make changes to organizational patterns of joint R&D institutes and persist in time belong in the institutional order [80]. This study attempts to probe the outcome of an evolutionary process which is subject to the broader conditions of certain contexts rather than focusing exclusively on organizational features of joint R&D institutes. It is thus justified to choose the institutional perspective for this study.
