**2. Why Should TIC and TUC Be Looked at as Synergetic Entities?**

The synergy building between TIC and TUC in the context of EU–China STI cooperation, which takes place when innovation ecosystems of both the EU and China come across (as illustrated in Figure 3). Despite our focus on the sectors of university and industry, it should be noted that the EU–China transnational innovation ecosystem consists not only of enterprises and universities but also governmental agencies and various intermediary organizations. When building the TIC and TUC co-innovation networks in the EU–China context, it is essential to discover the hidden links and bridge the missing links as show in Figure 3.

**Figure 3.** EU–China university cooperation and EU–China industry cooperation in the context of the EU–China transnational innovation ecosystem.

The insights of the following three research areas may provide hints on why TIC and TUC synergy building (in the EU–China context) is necessary, namely (1) the conceptualization of transnational innovation ecosystems, (2) research on universities' third mission and (3) studies on EU–China STI cooperation.

#### *2.1. Transnational Innovation Ecosystems*

Due to the increasing importance of international linkages in the knowledge-based society and a growing public awareness of the need for environmentally sustainable economic development, the term "transnational or global innovation ecosystem" has gradually become popular in both scholarly literature and policy rhetoric. While the concept of the transnational ecosystem has been applied on both the system level [36] and the sector and company levels [25], what is most relevant to the present research is the system-level literature. A transnational innovation ecosystem generally refers to the integration process between two or more innovation ecosystems across national borders with different levels of transnational integration [37,38].

To further understand the transnational innovation ecosystem, one must understand what an innovation ecosystem is. In a commonly cited definition, innovation ecosystems are regarded as "complex relationships that are formed between actors or entities whose functional goal is to enable technology development and innovation" [39] (p. 2). The innovation ecosystem shares most of its features with the innovation system, which consists of complex functions and interactions amongst various organizations and institutions [40,41]. What is new in the innovation ecosystem is its ecological aspect, characterized by the interdependency among different collaborative actors and the co-evolution/co-creation that binds them together over time, along with the sustainable development dimension [42–44].

The literature on transnational innovation ecosystem has indicated, though implicitly, that TIC and TUC could be looked at as synergetic entities. Based on analyzing several definitions of "ecosystem", Sotarauta, Heinonen, Sorvisto, and Kolehmainen [38] suggested several key features of the innovation ecosystem, including "interconnectedness" (everything is connected to everything), "organic nature" (the system evolves through its components' continuous adaptation to changing situations) and being "multi-locational" (knowledge flows and innovation processes take place in multiple geographical locations) (pp. 31–32). All these infer that complex interactions amongst a variety of (transnational and cross-sectoral) actors shape adaptation processes in an innovation ecosystem. Such generic inferences may imply that TIC and TUC could form symbiotic relations to better adapt to increasingly complex and fast-changing environments.

Some other studies draw specific attention to the role of universities in the transnational innovation ecosystem. In a report on case studies of transnational innovation systems, Chaminade and Nielsen [36] addressed the importance of identifying already existing transnational initiatives (i.e., university and industry sectors) in forming transnational innovation systems. They suggested that available resources should support existing bottom-up transnational initiatives rather than start new ones from scratch in a top-down matter. Raunio, et al. [45] noted that "the transnational innovation infrastructures could be based more on the activities of universities or regional actors" (p. 2). They further suggested that the global university campuses could potentially help bridge the gap between the national innovation system and relevant innovation systems abroad.

#### *2.2. Universities' Third Mission*

One may intuitively assume that transnational university cooperation in the transnational innovation ecosystem is a well-studied topic. This is because of a widely shared understanding regarding the prominent role of universities in national or regional innovation systems, reflected in studies dealing with the third mission of universities [46], both in higher education research (inside-out view) e.g., [18,47–49] and innovation system studies literature (outside-in view) e.g., [8,40,41,50]. As recently stated by UNESCO's Chief of Higher Education, Peter J. Wells, "Perhaps never before in recent history has the role of higher education been so intricately tied to the economic, social, and environmental fabric of the modern world" [51] (p. 31). Since the knowledge-based society is becoming more globally interconnected, universities' societal engagement should also be conducted on a global scale.

However, most studies on transnational university cooperation are in the field of internationalization of higher education, which is primarily concerned with the teaching and research missions of universities [52,53] or with the mobility of knowledge from the perspective of human geography [54]. The studies on international graduate employability e.g., [55,56] are closest to addressing the relevance of international higher education to industry in a global context.

Nevertheless, some rare studies e.g., [23,28,29] do shed light on how transnational university cooperation could be aligned with and supportive of broader societal priorities and development goals in transnational contexts. Heide, Sijde, and Terlouw [28] explicitly explored transnational university cooperation in knowledge transfer. However, the authors solely focused on transnational research cooperation in the EU context mainly concerning types of cooperation and universities' motivations for the cooperation, and did not extend their discussion to the links of transnational university cooperation to industry sectors. Cai [30] clearly stated that China-EU higher education cooperation should be planned and developed in the broader context of Sino-EU strategic partnership building, as a call for further research.

#### *2.3. EU–China Transnational STI Cooperation*

The booming practices of EU–China STI cooperation have rarely been explored scientifically, remaining marginal in EU–China studies. The existing literature on the EU–China relationship e.g., [57–59] deals with three main pillars of cooperation between the EU and China, namely the strategic dialogue initiated in 2005, the economic and trade dialogue commenced in 2008 and the "People-to-People Dialogue" launched in 2012 to improve cooperation in education, culture, youth and research.

However, the necessity of TIC and TUC synergy building can be foreseen in the burgeoning interests of the EU and China in STI cooperation, which has been expedited by the signing of the "EU–China Innovation Cooperation Dialogue" in 2012. The Dialogue complements and ensures synergy with the "Agreement on Science and Technology Cooperation between the EU and China" in 1998. The innovation cooperation involves both industrial organizations and universities (as well as research institutes) [60]. The progress of EU–China STI cooperation in both higher education and industry is not merely a matter of quantity; its very nature is undergoing a transformation.

The nature of the EU industry's cooperation with China is changing from a conception of China as an important market and trade partner to that of an innovation partner [61,62], because China is not only the second largest economy in the world but also a powerful STI player [63]. China has overtaken the United States in terms of total number of science publications [64] and dominates a global ranking of the most-cited research papers published in the 30 most popular technology fields [65]. In such a context, EU–China industry cooperation is not confined to the business domain but expanded to the sector of knowledge generation.

In the field of higher education, EU–China university cooperation is facing increasing demands from society and stakeholders calling for universities to adapt their internationalization strategy from an emphasis on international scholarship exchange to being more responsible regarding the broader needs to develop the EU–China partnership [30]. This echoes the general trend in the internationalization of higher education in the EU, which has been increasingly influenced by the globalization of economics and societies, as well as the importance of knowledge in economic development and competition [66].

#### *2.4. Limitations of Existing Literature*

The literature on both transnational innovation ecosystems and universities' third mission has implied why synergy building between TIC and TUC is important in transnational innovation ecosystems, but the inferences are implicit and hypothetical. Both theoretical and empirical efforts on the topic are lacking. Recent studies and reports on EU–China relations indicate that the changing nature of EU–China cooperation requires synergy building between cooperation in both the university and industry sectors. However, it is surprising how little interaction exists between the two areas of cooperation on both the levels of policy-making and organizational practice. Neither has synergy been addressed in research on EU–China STI cooperation, which tends to report on cooperation separately in the university sector e.g., [67] and the industry sector e.g., [68].

#### **3. How Can the TIC and TUC Synergy Building Be Theoretically Elucidated?**

Although state-of-the-art research reflects fast-growing attention to TIC and TUC synergy building, there are no theoretical frameworks that elucidate relations amongst diverse actors in transnational innovation ecosystems. Even the concept of the innovation ecosystem exists on a high level of abstraction and is used loosely. It is often understood as a metaphor rather than as a theory or framework [42]. Oh, Phillips, Park, and Lee [42] noted that the mimetic quality of the term "innovation ecosystem" mainly appeals to the news media, demonstrating the public relations value of the term, but not its value in research. They found "few academic articles using 'innovation ecosystem' in a manner that would distinguish an innovation ecosystem from an innovation system" [42]. Along the same lines, Ritala and Almpanopoulou [69] called for future research to improve the conceptual, theoretical and empirical rigor regarding the notion of the innovation ecosystem. Nevertheless, some other social science theories may provide useful, theoretical accounts of the mechanisms underlying the interactions between TIC and TUC, though in a direct manner, such as the Helix models of innovation, institutional theory and social network theory.

### *3.1. Helix Models of Innovation*

Helix models of innovation, discussed here, include three concepts, namely Triple Helix Model [8], Quadruple Helix Model [9], and Triple Helix of sustainability [70]. The three concepts with different emphasis on the key dimensions innovation and societal development can supplement one another for a comprehensive understanding of the nature of contemporary society with respect to innovation.

Although the thesis of the Triple Helix Model [71] was originally developed based on empirical observations of successful regional innovation systems, its core theoretical assumptions can be applied to transnational or global contexts. Following this perspective, a transnational innovation ecosystem consists of the triple helix interactions of three functional spaces, namely transnational knowledge space, transnational innovation space and transnational consensus space [8,72]. The three spaces are respectively related to three functions, namely novelty production, normative control and wealth generation [73]. In each space, there are three overlapping spheres of transnational cooperation evolving in the respective sectors of university, industry and government, but one kind of sphere may outweigh the others. Such a Triple Helix Model of transnational innovation ecosystem is illustrated in Figure 4.

**Figure 4.** Triple Helix Model of the transnational innovation ecosystem.

Carayannis and Campbell [9] developed the Quadruple Helix model from the basis of the Triple Helix in order to address the "media-based and "culture-based public", "arts, artistic research and arts-based innovation" (p. 218), by adding the 'fourth helix' also called as the "civil society" [74] (p. 5). The core rationale of Quadruple Helix centers on Mode 3 knowledge production, which is developed on the basis of Mode I and Mode 2 types of knowledge production by Gibbons et al. [75], who predicted a shift in knowledge production from Mode 1 to Mode 2. Mode 1 refers to basic university research on

disciplinary basis. The Mode 2 in turn, emphasizes knowledge application, interdisciplinary research and problem solving. Mode 3 type of knowledge production is an extension for Mode 1 and 2 type of knowledge production [75]. It "allows and emphasizes the co-existence and co-evolution of different knowledge and innovation paradigms" [9] (p. 201). Mode 3 is the nexus of the emerging 21st century innovation ecosystem, where people, culture and technology meet and interact to catalyze creativity, trigger invention, and accelerate innovation across scientific and technological disciplines, public and private sectors, in a top-down, policy-driven as well as bottom-up, entrepreneurship-empowered fashion [9,76].There is a seemingly shared view about the possible extension from Triple Helix to Quadruple Helix (adding civil society as the fourth helix) [76,77]. However, we take the position that civil society is considered too important to be merely treated as an additional helix in the Quadruple Helix. Rather, it is an institutional foundation [78,79] or "a launch pad for the take-off of triple helix interactions" [72] (p. 20). Thus, citizens' engagement is positioned in Figure 4 as the foundation of transnational Triple Helix interactions. Nevertheless, we admit that the Triple Helix Model has not explicitly addressed the emerging phenomena or new characteristics in innovation ecosystems. Meanwhile, we consider that the relatively more elaborated theoretical foundations of Triple Helix Model may help enhance the explanation power of Quadruple Helix [80], which was conceptualized to cope with the innovation ecosystem of the 21st Century [6].

Moreover, Triple Helix model is needed to be further improved with the dimension of sustainable development. In this regards, Scalia, Barile, Saviano and Farioli [70] suggested the model of Triple Helix of sustainability based on both the concept of Triple Bottom Lines of Elkington [7] and the Triple Helix Model of innovation Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz [81]. It implies that interactions between society, economy and environment must be considered when studying innovation, either approached by the Triple Helix Model or Quadruple Helix Model.

The foundational statement of the Triple Helix Model is that the interactions between university, industry, and government sectors provide optimal conditions for innovation [8]. The core mechanism underlying these interactions is "taking the role of the other" [8]. Organizations taking on non-traditional roles are viewed as a major potential source of innovation. In the meantime, they still retain their traditional functions. To add the sustainability or ecosystem dimension in the Triple Helix model, the role of university must go beyond production and capitalization of knowledge [82], as main function of the third mission of universities.

In transnational contexts, the roles of transnational university cooperation are more than producing and transferring knowledge across national borders. There are two additional roles, namely fostering institutional change (concerning norms and values) in transnational innovation ecosystems and building trust between various actors in the systems [83]. The development of innovation systems is largely concerned with institutional change [40,41] and successful cooperation in research, development, and innovation relies on trust between the collaborators [84]. Both institutional change and trust building are even more salient in transnational innovation ecosystems because of the more complicated institutional configurations and distance between the collaborators in a transnational context [36]. The role of university as institutional entrepreneur [85] or social trust builder [86] is relevant to sustainable development because the it brings in social capital into the analytical foci of innovation ecosystem [6], in addition to human and financial capital as emphasizes of the concept of university's "third mission". The two roles concerning institutional change and trust building can be respectively explained by institutional logics theory and social network theory.

#### *3.2. Institutional Theory*

From the perspective of institutional theory, there are two essential issues in forming an innovation (eco)system, namely institutional conditions enabling innovation [78] and the agency of actors to change the institutional context [87,88]. These two factors can be respectively explained by the institutional logics approach and the notion of institutional entrepreneurship.

Institutional logic is defined as "a set of material practices and symbolic constructions" that constitute an institutional order's "organizing principle" and are "available to organizations and individuals to elaborate" [89] (p. 248). The institutional logics approach helps better explain how institutions both enable and constrain action by incorporating macro structure, local culture and human agency [90]. One central pervasive argument of the institutional logics perspective is that multiple and contending logics provide the dynamic for potential change in both organizations and societies [90].

The notion of institutional entrepreneurship, which was originally introduced by DiMaggio [91] as a way to reintroduce actors' agency into institutional analysis, refers to the activities of institutional entrepreneurs, who not only initiate diverse changes in the institutional environment but also actively participate in the implementation of such changes [92]. Institutional entrepreneurs may initiate institutional change intentionally or unintentionally. They may have a high or low social status and "can be organizations or groups of organizations, or individuals or groups of individuals" [92] (p. 68). Leca, et al. [93] reported that institutional entrepreneurship is likely to take place in contexts with conflicting institutional arrangements. Battilana, Leca and Boxenbaum [94] stated that "joint actions and interactions between institutional entrepreneurs" (p. 77) provide conditions conducive to institutional entrepreneurship.

In the Triple Helix Model, for instance, there is mingling of the logics of state, market/corporate and profession, which respectively dominate in the spheres of government, industry, and academia [94]. In transnational contexts, the institutional configurations would be more complex. According to the institutional logics perspective, crossing organizational field operations, e.g., between the fields of university and industry, is likely to generate novelty [95]. The multiple and sometimes hybrid institutional environments, created by triple helix interactions, also forester institutional entrepreneurs.

#### *3.3. Social Network Theory*

The social network theory could provide useful hints regarding where and how actors crossing sectors and national borders can be connected or can collaborate for synergy building. For instance, in his seminal work titled *Strength of Weak Ties*, Granovetter [96] contends that in the case of job hunting, what is most helpful for the job seekers is not strong ties within their dense networks of relatives and friends for social support. Rather, it is the connections derived from weak ties, composed of distant acquaintances, which give access to new (not redundant) information and job offers. In other words, the strength of weak ties lies in its nature of being a source of novel information. Burt [97] put forward that social networks, especially in their function of facilitating weak ties that bridge dense networks, reflect the effect of "social capital" [98]. Instead of using the concept of "weak tie", Burt [99] coined the concept of the "structural hole". A structural hole refers to a lack of connection between two nodes (e.g., two individuals who have complementary sources of information), and social capital can be best realized through the brokerage of that structural hole. The underlying assumption is:

Opinion and behavior are more homogeneous within than between groups, so people connected across groups are more familiar with alternative ways of thinking and behaving. Brokerage across the structural holes between groups provides a vision of options otherwise unseen, which is the mechanism by which brokerage becomes social capital. [100] (p. 349)

When applying social network theory in the context of innovation, it has been suggested that stimulating innovation within networks requires a combination of both strong and weak ties [101–103]. "Weak ties aid exploration (the generation of new ideas), whereas strong ties aid exploitation (the implementation of new ideas)" [35] (p. 212). The creation and diffusion of innovation are mostly attributed to weak ties [104]. For instance, one reason why the Triple Helix Model [8,71] provides optimal conditions for innovation is because through the interactions of university, industry and government—three traditionally not overly connected sectors or networks—a large variety of new ideas and technologies are likely to be created.

Trustworthy social relationships and common institutional frameworks are also beneficial for interactive learning and innovation [105]. While the most useful knowledge/ideas would come from weak ties, one challenge is that the trust between actors connected by weak ties might be low. The trust issue is even more important when the knowledge is tacit. Increasing the level of trust is crucial to enhancing the performance of weak ties in knowledge transfer [106].

#### *3.4. Limitations of Existing Literature*

The literature on the Helix models of innovation [8,9,70,71], institutional logics [90] and social network theory [96,97] may somewhat explain the mechanisms underlying the interactions between TIC and TUC from the perspectives of overlapping roles, institutional change and trustworthy relationship building. However, there is still a big gap regarding comprehensively theorizing the synergy building between TIC and TUC. Specific limitations of these theories are outlined below.

First, the theories focus on relations between obvious actors, and are not designed to identify and analyze unobvious or hidden relations. For instance, while the role of brokers in the innovation process has been strongly indicated by the social network theory and evidenced in empirical studies, the challenge in practice is how to proactively identify them. Sometimes, even potential brokers might not be aware of their position and potential for network building.

Second, social network theory tends to consider single nodes (either individuals or organizations) as brokers and there is no attempt to think of brokers in other formats. It excludes the assumption that a pair of nodes, e.g., in the form of a transnational university research partnership, together could play the role of filling structural holes.

Third, the current theoretical accounts about university and industry relations address the domestic context and need to be adjusted for analyzing phenomena in transnational innovation ecosystems.

#### **4. How Can the TIC and TUC Synergy Building Be Methodologically Realized?**

Although TIC and TUC synergy building is a new topic in research, some popular approaches in social and computer sciences can provide methodological bases for empirical exploration on how to build synergies between TIC and TUC, including identifying potential collaborators and building relations. These approaches are social network analysis, professional social matching and AI.

#### *4.1. Social Network Analysis*

Social network analysis (SNA) are the methods and techniques (primarily relying on computer-based statistical measures and link analysis algorithms) used for discovering patterns of interaction between social actors in social networks. Tabassum, et al. [107] have identified different types of SNA.

Traditional SNA includes statistical measures of social networks. The fundamental units in this analysis are vertices and edges. Vertices (or nodes) can refer to a wide variety of individual entities, such as people and organizations or publications, and an edge connects a pair of vertices that represent numerous kinds of (direct or indirect) relationships (such as communication, cooperation, friendship, and trade) between individual entities.

More recent SNA focuses on node identification and link prediction. Node identification is used to identify the most valuable or influential nodes in certain network settings. To support this kind of analysis, several link analysis algorithms are devised, amongst which the most popular ones are the HITS29 and Brin and Page [108] algorithms. Parallel to node identification is the analysis of link prediction, which predicts which links are more likely to appear in the future. More specifically, such SNA is used for predicting re-occurring links instead of new links [107]. Both node identification and link prediction are important approaches in synergy building between TIC and TUC.

The other two emerging SNA approaches deal with, respectively, community detection and evolving networks, which are useful for TIC and TIC synergy building. The former is concerned with communities in networks and the latter emphasizes networks that are generated in real time, which are not static but evolving [107]. The core of TIC and TUC synergy building is concerned with relations between two communities in a transnational innovation network. The evolving aspect is especially relevant to analyzing networks in an innovation ecosystem.

#### *4.2. Professional Social Matching*

Related to SNA, a recent approach to support human collaboration is social matching, which identifies and facilitates new social connections between people using computational techniques [109]. Professional social matching (PSM) matches individuals or groups for professional collaboration and co-creation of value. It covers a range of "organizational activities, including recruitment, headhunting, community building, and team formation within or across organizations as well as individually driven activities like mentoring, seeking advisory relationships, and general networking" [34].

Olsson, Huhtamäki, and Kärkkäinen [34] compared conventional PSM based on human decisions and the computational approach of PSM. It has been suggested by knowledge management studies that the most fruitful collaboration and the capacity for high innovation may result from complementary viewpoints amongst a diverse groups of actors [110]. Thus, the traditional approach of PSM may constrain such co-creative potential, because people tend to choose collaborators with similar mind-sets and professional experiences, as well as from a limited pool of candidates. The computational approach of PSM, however, can help identify optimal collaborators with supplementary capacities and bring them together for co-creation networks. However, the existing approaches are often too simplistic [34].

Olsson, Huhtamäki, and Kärkkäinen [34] also proposed that a more advanced PSM system to be developed in the future should focus on the following dimensions when matching collaborators:

