SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 27 Sayı: 1

INTERMEDIARY IN BUILDING TRIPLE HELIX COLLABORATION FOR SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND COMMUNITIES: MARMARA URBAN FORUM (MARUF21)

SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİR ŞEHİRLER VE TOPLULUKLAR İÇİN ÜÇLÜ SARMAL İŞBİRLİĞİ KURULMASINDA ARACI KURUMLAR: MARMARA KENT FORUMU (MARUF21)

İrem Güneş(ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1443-2934
Özcan Garan(ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY)0000-0001-8126-6473
Betül Pişkin(ISTANBUL UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-1589-8947
Pages
873–895
Publication Date
2026-03-23
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings suggest that stakeholders should align on shared goals, act collectively, and improve coordination to enhance the forum’s effectiveness as a knowledge and governance intermediary.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study evaluates the role of intermediary institutions in establishing triple helix collaborations for SDG 11.
📊
Key Findings & Data:It focuses on MARUF21 as an international urban forum and analyzes its content and documented interactions among participants.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings suggest that stakeholders should align on shared goals, act collectively, and improve coordination to enhance the forum’s effectiveness as a knowledge and governance intermediary.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Sürdürülebilir şehirler · Sürdürülebilir topluluklar · Üçlü sarmal modeli

Abstract

This study evaluates the role of intermediary institutions in establishing triple helix collaborations for SDG 11. It focuses on MARUF21 as an international urban forum and analyzes its content and documented interactions among participants. The university emerges as the primary helix actor, while government involvement remains limited. Although some stakeholders reach bilateral consensus, trilateral collaboration is often lacking. MARUF21 facilitates discussions and reflects potential for stronger collaboration. The findings suggest that stakeholders should align on shared goals, act collectively, and improve coordination to enhance the forum’s effectiveness as a knowledge and governance intermediary.

Özet

Bu çalışma, aracı kurumların SDG 11 için üçlü sarmal iş birlikleri kurmadaki rolünü değerlendirmektedir. Uluslararası bir kentsel forum olan MARUF21'e odaklanmakta ve içeriğini ve raporlanan katılımcı etkileşimlerini analiz etmektedir. Üniversite, birincil sarmal aktörü olarak ortaya çıkarken, devletin katılımı sınırlı kalmaktadır. Bazı paydaşlar ikili konsensüs sağlasa da, üçlü iş birliği genellikle eksik kalmaktadır. MARUF21 tartışmaları kolaylaştırmakta ve daha güçlü bir iş birliği potansiyelini yansıtmaktadır. Bulgular, paydaşların ortak hedefler etrafında birleşmeyi, kolektif hareket etmeyi ve forumun bir bilgi ve yönetişim aracı olarak etkinliğini artırmak için koordinasyonu geliştirmeyi hedeflemeleri gerektiğini göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Güneş, İ., Garan, Ö., Pişkin, B., *, İ. G. (2026). INTERMEDIARY IN BUILDING TRIPLE HELIX COLLABORATION FOR SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND COMMUNITIES: MARMARA URBAN FORUM (MARUF21). Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 1, 873–895. https://doi.org/10.31671/doujournal.1822350

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Adewumi, A.S., Onyango, V. and Moyo, D. (2021). Institutional stakeholders’ perceptions of a sustainable neighbourhood in metropolitan Lagos. SN Social Sciences, 1(7), 179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00175-w
  2. Ali, A. (2022). Fragile states, decentralisation and the nature of barriers to citizen participation in local government: a view from Pakistan. SN Social Sciences, 2(2), 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00308-1
  3. Atukpa, E., Durokifa, A., Ukeje, I. O., Akor, I. C., Joseph, A. E., Chinenyenwa, N. H., and Arinze, (2025). From control to collaboration: stakeholder perspectives on rethinking local governance and state guardianship through the prism of digital technology for sustainable grassroots transformation. SN Social Sciences, 5(8), 114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-025-01148-z
  4. Battard, N., Donnelly, P.F. and Mangematin, V. (2013, July). Understanding the emergence of new institutional logics: A boundary story. 29th European group for organizational studies colloquium, Montreal, Canada. https://arrow.tudublin.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=buschmarcon
  5. Burbridge M and Morrison GM. (2021). A systematic literature review of partnership development at the university-industry-government nexus. Sustainability, 13(24), 13780. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413780
  6. Champenois, C. and Etzkowitz, H. (2018). From boundary line to boundary space: The creation of hybrid organizations as a triple helix micro-foundation. Technovation, 76, 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2017.11.002
  7. Chatterjee, D., Jacob, M. and Subramanian, B. (2023). Third stream activities of universities: balancing global and national institutional conformity in India. SN Social Sciences, 3(1), 14.https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00602-6
  8. Eisenhardt, K. M. and Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20159839
  9. Etzkowitz, H. (2003a). Innovation in innovation: The triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Social Science Information, 42(3), 293-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/05390184030423002
  10. Etzkowitz, H. (2003b). Learning from transition: The triple helix as innovation system. [Conference Presentation] Knowledge based society: A challenge for new EU and accession countries. Zagreb, Croatia. https://www.pilar.hr/wp-content/images/stories/dokumenti/zbornici/27/z_27_039.pdf
  11. Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. London and New York: Routledge.
  12. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: A “triple helix” of university-industry-government relations: Introduction. Minerva, 203-208.
  13. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: from national systems and “mode 2” to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
  14. Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29(2), 313-330. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4
  15. European Environment Agengy Glossary (2023, June). Urbanisation. https://www.eea.europa.eu/help/glossary/eea-glossary/urbanisation
  16. Fitjar, R. D., Gjelsvik, M. and Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2014). Organizing product innovation: Hierarchy, market or triple-helix networks? Triple Helix, 1(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-014-0003-0
  17. Gagakuma, D., Takyi, S., Amponsah, O. and Quagraine, V. K. (2025). The functionality of urban green spaces in the greater Kumasi Metropolis of Ghana: categorisation of green spaces, prospects, challenges and implications for sustainable management. SN Social Sciences, 5(4), 48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-025-01079-9
  18. Hakeem, V., Takyi, S.A., Asibey, M.O. and Amponsah, O. (2022). From informal settlements to environmentally sustainable communities: Lessons from Kumasi. SN Social Sciences, 2(7), 104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-022-00402-y
  19. Howells, J., (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
  20. Kabonga, I., Nhamo, G. and Musara, E. (2024). Localisation of SDGs in privately owned universities: Perceptions from academics and students at Zimbabwe Ezekiel Guti University. SN Social Sciences, 4(10), 180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-024-00977-8
  21. Kuckartz, U. (2014). Qualitative Text Analysis: A Guide to methods, practice and using software. Sage.
  22. Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Triple helix of university-industry-government relations. In: E. G. Carayannis, Ed. Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York: Springer, 1844-1851.
  23. Leydesdorff, L. and Etzkowitz, H. (1998). The triple helix as a model for innovation studies. Science & Public Policy, 25(3), 195-203. https://doi.org/10.1093/spp/25.3.195
  24. Marmara Municipalities Union (n.d.). Retrieved June 12, 2023 from https://www.marmara.gov.tr/en
  25. Marmara Urban Forum (n.d.). Retrieved June 12, 2023 from https://maruf21.marmaraurbanforum.org/
  26. Marmara Municipalities Union. (2022). MARUF21 Report. Marmara Municipalities Union Publication, No: 150. https://mbbkulturyayinlari.com/maruf21-report
  27. Mensah, H., Amponsah, O., Opoku, P., Ahadzie, D. K. and Takyi, S. A. (2021). Resilience to climate change in Ghanaian cities and its implications for urban policy and planning. SN Social Sciences, 1(5), 118, https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00123-8
  28. Mensah, A.A., Amponsah, O., Takyi, S.A. and Mensah, H. (2022). Land governance in Ghana and its implications for inclusive city development. SN Social Sciences, 2(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00310-7
  29. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research a guide to design and Implementation. (2nd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  30. Metcalfe, A. S. (2010). Examining the trilateral networks of the triple helix: Intermediating organizations and academy-industry-government relations. Critical Sociology, 36(4), 503-519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920510365920
  31. Metcalfe, S., De Liso, N., Gagliardi, D. and Ramlogan, R. (2012). Innovation systems, innovation ecologies: Innovation policy and the world of restless capitalism. OPENLOC Working Paper Series, University of Trento, Working Paper Number 3/12. http://www.escholar.manchester.ac.uk/uk-ac-man-scw:179115
  32. Meyer, M., Kuusisto, J., Grant, K., De Silva, M., Flowers, S. and Choksy, U. (2019). Towards new triple helix organisations? A comparative study of competence centres as knowledge, consensus and Innovation Spaces. R&D Management, 49(4), 555-573. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12342
  33. Munkongsujarit, S. and Jetter, A. J. (2013). The impact of social capital on the outcomes of innovation intermediation process. 2013 Proceedings of PICMET’13: Technology Management in the IT-Driven Services (PICMET), San Jose, CA, USA, 800-806.
  34. Okoh Agyemang, F., Amponsah, O., Abubakari, M. and Takyi, S. A. (2024). Investigating the purposefulness of development planning in Ghana through a political economy lens. SN Social Sciences, 4(3), 69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-024-00866-0
  35. Poppen, F. and Decker, R. (2018). The Intermediary as an institutional entrepreneur: Institutional change and stability in triple-helix cooperation. Triple Helix, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40604-018-0063-7
  36. Rahman, M.M. and Islam, M.S. (2024). Institutional dynamics and climate adaptation: unveiling the challenges and opportunities in coastal Bangladesh. SN Social Sciences, 4(8), 150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-024-00951-4
  37. Roller, M. R. (2019). A quality approach to qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences compared to other qualitative methods. Forum qualitative sozialforschung forum: Qualitative social research, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3385
  38. Roller, M. R. & Lavrakas, P. J. (2015). Applied qualitative research design: A total quality framework approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  39. Silva Martinelli, F. and Lindner, A. (2021). How far are the metropolitan areas in Brazil from achieving the sustainable development goals? An analysis based on SDG dashboards. SN Social Sciences, 1(5), 103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00131-8
  40. The Global Goals. (2023). 11 sustainable cities and communities. Retrieved from The Global Goals: https://www.globalgoals.org/goals/11-sustainable-cities-and-communities/
  41. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (2022). The sustainable development goals report 2022. United Nations. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2022/
  42. United Nations General Assembly. (2015, October 21). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015, A/RES/70/1. https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf
  43. UN. (2018, May 16). 68% of the world population projected to live in urban areas by 2050, says UN. Retrieved from United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html
  44. UN Habitat. (2013). Habitat III. UN-Habitat Urban Visions No.3 Vision for Habitat III.
  45. UN Habitat. (2022, April 28). The high-level meeting of the General Assembly on the progress in the implementation of the New Urban Agenda. UN Habitat. https://unhabitat.org/hlm-new-urban-agenda
  46. UN Habitat. (n.d.). New Urban Agenda. Retrieved January 27, 2024 from https://unhabitat.org/about-us/new-urban-agenda
  47. World Bank. (2023). World Bank Data. Retrieved from World Bank Open Data: https://data.worldbank.org
  48. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.