Oxford-style debate: “This house believes that Silicon Valley is a relevant innovation model for other regions in the world”

Innovation is nowadays widely recognized as a key driver of economic growth, jobs and competitiveness, and regions around the world are in a frantic search for successful models they could apply and adapt to their specific features, in the pursuit of these objectives. Silicon Valley has been an iconic model and an inspiration for many. Nevertheless, the replication of the Valley’s agglomeration of social, intellectual and financial capital, encouraged by university-industry-government-interactions that build upon the strengths of a region and address its weaknesses, remains a major challenge.

Join us in this debate where the relevance of Silicon Valley as an innovation model for other regions of the world will be argued for and against by leading academics and innovation practitioners, and express your views in the subsequent discussion!

Chair: Marina Ranga, Senior Researcher, H-STAR Institute, Stanford University

Team defending the motion (Affirmative team):

- Proposer: Stephen Adams, Associate Professor of Management, Franklin P. Perdue School of Business, Salisbury University, US Center for the American West, Stanford University
- Proposer’s Seconder: Eoin P O’Neill, Adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship, School of Business and Trinity Research and Innovation Trinity College, Dublin

Team against the motion (Negative team):

- Opposer: Margaret Pugh O’Mara, Assistant Professor of History, University of Washington, US
- Opposer’s Seconder: Paul Van Dun, General Manager of K.U.Leuven Research & Development, Catholic University of Leuven (K.U.Leuven), and Managing Director of Gemma Frisius-Fonds K.U.Leuven nv, Belgium

The debate

The Chair announces the debate motion and the Rules for Debate in Oxford Style (simplified rules are applied). Then the Chair calls on the debate teams to present their standpoints. The Proposer speaks first, followed by the Opposer. Then the Proposer’s Seconder speaks, followed by the Opposer’s Seconder. Each speaker has 10 minutes. The objective of the Affirmative team is to set out convincing arguments that support a ‘yes’ response to the motion. The objective of the Negative Team is to refute the points made by the Affirmative Team through the use of convincing arguments. After the debate teams interventions, the Chair opens the floor for audience discussion. This part of the debate is open to anyone in the audience and lasts for approximately 15 minutes. Each audience member may speak for max. 1 min and only once until all interested participants have spoken. At the end of the audience discussion, the Chair invites the audience to vote for the debate team which has put forth the most convincing arguments. The audience votes by secret paper ballot. Paper ballots will be distributed to the audience for the vote and the result will be announced at the Welcome Reception. The vote and collection of paper ballots will last for approximately 5 minutes. To conclude the debate, the Chair announces whether the motion is carried (Proposer win, majority of votes ‘for’) or defeated (Opposer win, majority of votes ‘against’) by saying “I declare this motion carried or defeated.”

Triple Helix Conference I Amsterdam, 1996 II New York, 1998 III Rio de Janeiro, 2000 IV Copenhagen, 2002 V Turin, 2005 VI Singapore, 2007 VII Glasgow, 2009 VIII Madrid, 2010 IX Stanford, 2011 X Indonesia, 2012 XI London, 2013
Powered by WordPress
Development by Techbridge WordPress Developers Toronto