xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001921341
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 080122s2007 flu sbm 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0001887
Bullard, Deanna Barcelona.
Academic capitalism in the social sciences :
b faculty responses to the entrepreneurial university
h [electronic resource] /
by Deanna Barcelona Bullard.
[Tampa, Fla] :
University of South Florida,
ABSTRACT: This study explores how faculty in the social sciences experience and respond to academic capitalism. Academic capitalism is about market and market-like activity at the university and professorial efforts to secure external money. This research expands existing literature which has focused on the hard or natural sciences, and other areas more closely aligned with the market. Thirty-seven qualitative research interviews were conducted between March and July of 2006 with professors of sociology, criminology, economics at the University of Florida, Florida State University, and the University of South Florida. Results reveal academic capitalism in the social sciences is mostly about grant activity and involves essentially no technology transfer or patenting. Further, that grant activity is somewhat sporadic, still of marginal concern, and more important to junior faculty than for tenured and senior faculty. Findings also suggest academic capitalism in the social sciences is about a market of ideas, based on the value of positive social change and quality research, rather than economic yield. Despite their small contribution to the university bottom-line, professors in the social sciences find value in what they do. The theoretical component of the study proposed institutionalism and resource dependence theory as useful frameworks for viewing academic capitalism. The findings confirm the usefulness of institutionalism and resource dependence theory, but also add notions of globalization. Academic capitalism is about gaining legitimacy (institutionalism), responding to external constituencies to enhance revenue flows and buffer the institution from resource reductions (resource dependence), and the influence of such larger trends as commodification in the global marketplace (globalization).
Dissertation (Ph.D.)--University of South Florida, 2007.
Includes bibliographical references.
Text (Electronic dissertation) in PDF format.
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 168 pages.
Adviser: Michael Mills, Ph.D.
x Higher Education
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
AcademicCapitalismintheSocialSciences:FacultyResponsestotheEntrepreneurial University by DeannaBarcelonaBullard Adissertationsubmittedinpartialfulfillment oftherequirementsforthedegreeof DoctorofPhilosophy DepartmentofAdult,Career,andHigherEducation CollegeofEducation UniversityofSouthFlorida MajorProfessor:MichaelMills,Ph.D. JanIgnash,Ph.D. WilliamYoung,Ph.D. StevenPermuth,Ph.D. DateofApproval: March28,2007 Keywords:highereducation,Florida,commodification,globalization,facultywork Copyright2007,DeannaBarcelonaBullard
Acknowledgments First, I would like to ack nowledge those closest to me my family and friends. Fortunately, you are too numerous to list. Each of you has enriched my life in special and unique ways and your combined support, love and encouragement has formed a deep source of strength for me. Along with my natural persistence in things I value, it was how I endured this long and arduous process. At long last, I have finished and the pure satisfaction of the moment is made even better because of you. All of you and you know who you are. Second, I would like to express gratitude to my dissertation committee. Thank you to Drs. Michael Mills, Jan Ignash, Bill Young, and Steven Permuth. I would like to especially acknowledge Dr. Mills, my chair and advisor who never ceased to amaze me in his patience, intellect, a nd pure dedication as an academic. His wealth of knowledge on the topic and consistent willingness to share it greatly contributed to the completion of this project.
This work is dedicated to my husband, Burt on. My world is a better place because you are in it. I will always love you. And to my daughter, Ava. Motherhood has been the most wondrous experience of all.
i Table of Contents List of Tables iv List of Figures v Abstract vi Chapter One: Introduction 1 Statement of Problem 3 Research Questions 6 Importance of Study 7 Scope of Study 9 Limitations 10 Chapter Two: A Review of the Literature 12 Academic Capitalism 14 Word Usage 19 Faculty Opinion 23 In Favor 24 Against 28 An Entrepreneurial Setting 32 Globalization 32 Neo-liberal Policy 35 A Shifting Fiscal Resource Base 37 Academic Capitalism and Faculty Work 42 Theory 44 Resource Dependence 44 Institutionalism 47 A Dual Theoretical Perspective 50 Chapter Three: Methodology 56 About Me 57 Data Collection 58 The Sample 60 Analysis 65 Validity and Reliability 67 Chapter Four: Research Findings 71 Three Public Research Universities 72
ii University of Florida 73 Florida State University 75 University of South Florida 76 Forms of Academic Capitalism in the Social Sciences 78 Grant Activity 79 The Research Center 88 Capitalizing the Curriculum 90 Isolated Examples 93 Other Indications of Academic Cap italism in the Social Sciences 95 Recent Talk 95 Tenure, Promotion, and Hiring 97 Junior versus Senior Faculty 100 Pressures from Administration 103 Fund-Raising 105 A Market of Ideas 107 Beyond Economic Value 112 Advantages and Disadvantages 117 Advantages 117 Disadvantages 122 The Future 125 Along Discipline Lines 127 Resources in Criminology 127 Theoretical Considerations 128 Resource Dependence 128 Institutionalism 132 Globalization 137 Chapter Five: Conclusions and Discussion 140 Summary 140 Implications 141 Unevenness 142 Still Valued 143 Faculty Work Patterns 144 Traditional Academic Culture 146 Theory 147 Practice 148 The Academic Capitalism Continuum 148 Further Research 151 Conclusion 153 References Cited 155 Appendices 164 Appendix A: Interview Guide 165 Appendix B: Informed Consent 166
iii Appendix C: Email Drafts 167 Appendix D: IRB Letter of Approval 168 About the Author End Page
iv List of Tables Table 1: Divergent Foci of Institutional and Resource Dependence Perspectives 53 Table 2: Demographics of Particip ants 62
v List of Figures Figure 1: Academic Capitalism Continuum 149
viAc ademicCapitalismintheSocialSciences: FacultyResponsestotheEntrepreneurialUniversity DeannaBarcelonaBullard ABSTRACT Thisstudyexploreshowfacultyinthesocialsciencesexperienceandrespondto academiccapitalism.Academiccapitalismisaboutmarketandmarket-likeactivityatthe universityandprofessorialeffortstosecureexternalmoney.Thisresearchexpands existingliteraturewhichhasfocusedonthehardornaturalsciences,andotherareasmore closelyalignedwiththemarket. Thirty-sevenqualitativeresearchinterviewswereconductedbetweenMarchand Julyof2006withprofessorsofsociology,criminology,economicsattheUniversityof Florida,FloridaStateUniversity,andtheUniversityofSouthFlorida.Resultsreveal academiccapitalisminthesocialsciencesismostlyaboutgrantactivityandinvolves essentiallynotechnologytransferorpatenting.Further,thatgrantactivityissomewhat sporadic,stillofmarginalconcern,andmoreimportanttojuniorfacultythanfortenured andseniorfaculty.Findingsalsosuggestacademiccapitalisminthesocialsciencesis
viiaboutamarketofideas,basedonthevalueofpositivesocialchangeandqualityresearch, ratherthaneconomicyield.Despitetheirsmallcontributiontotheuniversitybottom-line, professorsinthesocialsciencesfindvalueinwhattheydo. Thetheoreticalcomponentofthestudyproposedinstitutionalismandresource dependencetheoryasusefulframeworksforviewingacademiccapitalism.Thefindings confirmtheusefulnessofinstitutionalismandresourcedependencetheory,butalsoadd notionsofglobalization.Academiccapitalismisaboutgaininglegitimacy (institutionalism),respondingtoexternalconstituenciestoenhancerevenueflowsand buffertheinstitutionfromresourcereductions(resourcedependence),andtheinfluence ofsuchlargertrendsascommodificationintheglobalmarketplace(globalization).
1 Chapter One Introduction There are seemingly endless, often competing demands on todays American higher education system. Conflicting missions, rising costs, increased accountability, and a diversifying student body cr eate an endless source of curiosity for study. Through time, higher education continues to evolve by inte racting with major forces such as global economics, postmodern culture, and neo-liberal politics. As a major social institution spanning significant time and space, higher educati on is itself a considerable force. Just as a capitalist culture and economic systems in fluence higher education, universities and colleges possess considerable power ec onomically, politically, and culturally. One way to study the ways in which thes e dominant forces interact is through a concept called academic capitalism. Alt hough the term may seem like an oxymoron, academic capitalism is a literal description of a growing phenomenon influencing higher education. In fact, joining th e two seemingly dissonant idea s precisely captures the point (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). Among scholars of higher education, academic capitalism is a phrase used to describe current trends rela ted to the influence of business ideals upon colleges and universities. How such an interact ion is being played out in certain areas, namely the social sciences, is th e primary focus of this study. The term academic capitalism is defined as market and market-like behaviors on the part of universities and faculty (Slaught er and Leslie, 1997, p.11) Market refers to for-profit activity and market -like is competition among faculty and institutions for
2 resources. Academic capitalism is about the motive for profit-making activities that result in instructional and research products c lose to the market (Sla ughter and Leslie). Students have become consumers, colleges ha ve turned into vendors, and research is being commercialized in applied fields mark ing a new era in higher education as an entrepreneurial institu tion (Chait, 2002). The manifestations of academic capitalism are numerous. Competition and market forces on campus can been seen in recen t increases in campus outsourcing, student consumerism, vocationalization of the curricul um, increases in part-time faculty, and the adoption of privatized models of internal fina ncing. Individually, this trend is manifested in such activity as competition for research and/or training grants, patenting, consulting, copyrighting, and test or courseware development. Other instances of academic capitalism range from pharmaceutical patenti ng and the creation of spin-off companies to the selling of university logos and sports pa raphernalia. By academic capitalism, the literature also means universit y-industry partnerships, incr eases in student tuition and fees, and the elimination of programs of little or no value to the market. Academic capitalism as it relates specifi cally to faculty is best defined as a situation in which the academ ic staff of publicly funded universities operate in an increasingly competitive environment, depl oying their academic capital, which may comprise teaching, research, consultancy skills or other applications or forms of academic knowledge (Deem, 2001, p. 14). More specifically, academic capitalism is defined as professorial market or market -like efforts to secure external moneys (Awbery, 2002, p. 2).
3 In their analysis of academic capitalism Slaughter and Leslie (1997) argue that, as a result of change over the past 30-35 year s, faculty find themselves in a much more competitive environment that is closer than ever to the market. The most significant assertion that Slaughter and Leslie (2001) make in relation to this study is that academic capitalism is restructuring higher education and promoting substantive organizational changes. According to them, such shifts can be seen in internal resource allocation, departmental organization, growth of admi nistration, and division of academic labor regarding teaching and resear ch. In addition, their work focuses on a narrow range of academic disciplines. Individual faculty members engaged in th ese market and market -like activities are what Slaughter and Leslie call academic capitali sts. Academic capitalists are members of the faculty involved in research contracting, patenting, royalt ies, and spin off companies that generate revenue for the institution and in some cases f aculty member as well. The literature on those participating is considerable, but li ttle is said about faculty not directly involved. In the metaphoric brick wall of know ledge, lack of information regarding the ways in which faculty on the margins of this movement are affected causes a sizeable hole. Statement of Problem Capitalist pressures are inherently comp etitive, which means there will be winners as well as losers since market forces inevitab ly lead to inequities. Thus, the move towards a more entrepreneurial university means diffe rent things for different people. In other words, the influence and manifestations of academic capitalism vary along multiple lines. Clark (1998) himself notes that academ ics from different disciplines may respond
4 differently to entrepreneurial pressures [so] that local factors may constrain or support entrepreneurial activities (Deem, 2001, p. 16) Globally, academic capitalism fluctuates by country. Within the United States, it is di splayed differently in community colleges than it is universities, with variation among private, public, and for profit sectors. Impacts differ also among groups of individuals found within each institution. In other words, academic capitalism is pervasive, but uneven. Engaging in academic capitalism is thus no straightforward or unidimensional phenom enon but takes a variety of forms in different disciplines and organisa tional settings (Ylijoki, 2003, p. 327). In discussing the state of affairs cr eated by academic capitalism, Slaughter and Leslie (1997) warn, If institutions and faculty are not successful, there is no bureaucratic recourse; they do without (p. 11). When phr ases such as build on strengths and streamline enter an industry, as they have in higher education, it br ing with it a concern for departments or units seen, for whatever reason, as unsuccessful, or no longer relevant. Slaughter and Leslie are not th e only scholars that have rais ed this concern. Carroll and Beaton (2000) warn that with globalization, market-relevant disciplines and professions become favoured depending on relevance to the market (p. 72). In discussing competition for scarce resources, Awbery (2002) writes fields close to the market, such as business and engineering, continue to gain power while those less close, such as liberal arts, are losing influence (p. 4). Brint (2002) also reminds us that academic capitalism has lead in some cases to hard ti mes for departments that do not appear to pay their own way (p. 252). In discussing th eir results of studying entrepreneurial faculty in the life sciences, Powell and Owen-Smith ( 1998) write, very few university based fields are likely to ha ve the same potential for commercialization of research [as
5 the life sciences] (p. 125). For all the unknowns about academic capitalism, one thing is clear. It impacts groups of individuals within higher education inconsistently. The idea that organizational units of higher education are competing for power and resources in a capitalist market system be gs the question of sustainability for those who do not function well in the existing market Slaughter and Leslie (1997) point out that as a result of the increas ing intersection of professors in particular fields within the market [italics added], we see a new hierarchy of prestige and privilege emerging within universities (p. 141). According to Y oung (s.d.), Those of us doing politically unpopular projects in the Humanities and Soci al Sciences may find ourselves in an increasingly vulnerable position as research dollars become the new criteria for advancement or even employment (p. 4). A study about the influence of academic capitalism on university researchers in Finland also finds differences among units (Ylijoki, 2003). Ylijoki concludes, Engaging in academic capitalism is everyday reality in all units but takes a diversity of forms depending on how close or distant the field is from the market (p. 307). As mentioned, behavior deemed capitalistic inevitably crea tes a binary of haves and have-nots. However, the reality might be better represen ted by a continuum with humanities at one end the life sciences on the other with soci al sciences falling somewhere in between. Who falls into what category can be inferred by the following quote by Aronowitz (2000) surely, except for those working in the applied fields of medical and business ethics, for example, philosophers cannot expect to make a living in the private sector (p. 12). To me, this is problematic.
6 Further, literature on and discussion of the subject thus far has been partial, focusing on areas of the university that most naturally give rise to profit making activities. Most cases provide detailed accounts of entrepreneuria l faculty activity in bioengineering, pharmacology, and computer sc ience, with little or no mention of academic capitalism in the humanities or social sciences. The dilemma then, is that a competitive environment dictated by the market in higher education should raise warning flags to units not in alignment with that ma rket. Is it possible that faculty work in the social sciences is marketable? It is probl ematic that the literature notably lacks explanations about how and in what ways that might be, especially if it impacts the alignment of power and res ources within institutions. If academic capitalism is as pervasive as some authors make it out to be, then it is imperative that we see how it influences faculty in disciplines less close to the market. Indeed, there is a need for more empirical research on the impact of academic capitalism on the academic culture across types of institutions and disciplines [italics added] in order to comprehensively assess the implicati ons (Mendoza and Berger, 2005). In partial response to this call, the focus of this rese arch is to explore dimensions of academic capitalism in the social sciences. Research Questions As such, this study strives to answer tw o primary research questions. 1) How are professors in the social sciences expe riencing academic capitalism? 2) How are professors in the social sciences respondi ng to academic capitalis m? To answer these questions, I conducted a series of semi-structu red interviews with fa culty at three public
7 universities in the Stat e of Florida, the methods of whic h are further described in Chapter Three. Importance of the Study The significance of this study is threefol d. First, it seeks to fill a void in the literature. Explicit attention to faculty in the social sciences is notab ly lacking in writing about academic capitalism. Disciplines that ar e covered include science and engineering (Mendoza, 2005); the life scie nces (Powell and Owen-Smit h, 1998; Louis et al, 1989); and biotechnology (Zucker, Darby, and Arms trong, 2002). Slaughter and Leslie (1997) focused on units generating significant re venue from entrepreneurialism and found substantial activity in the applied natural sc iences, agricultural sciences, and engineering. They concentrate on technology transfer and so the study is about departments with the most potential to transfer research from the uni versity to industry in the form of products. In their work on the intersections of i ndustry and academia, Etzkowitz et al (1998) found principle strategic rese arch alliances in areas such as genetics, combustion technology, biology, biomedicine, pharmacology, medicinal chemistry, cancer research, molecular biology, neuroscience, and dermatology. Nixons (2003) focus is on leadership, while Boks (2003) focus is on athletics, student learning, and basic research. These works and others are further discussed in Chapter Two. A review of the literature shows little consideration of th e social sciences. Slaughter and Leslie (1997) as certained, the sociology of sc ience literature [does not] look far and beyond colleges of science and engineering, an oversight we view as problematic because we think the well-being of professional work depends on the health of the university as a whol e, not only on science and engineering (p. 202).
8 Second, this study hopes to expand our understanding of academic capitalism. Third, it brings awareness to those it studies about the nature of their work and potential futures of their disciplines in the developing structure of hi gher education. Slaughter and Leslie (1997) provide us with three ways for retaining professorial autonomy in the face of academic capitalism. First, make f aculty aware of how academic capitalism is influencing professorial work patterns and the future of higher education in general. Second, hope faculty accommodate and make th e best of new conditi ons resulting from academic capitalism. Third, work towards gettin g states to equally divide block grants according to number of students. The first and second point of this studys significance relates to the third in that increased knowledge and the di ssemination of that knowledge will raise the level of conscious ness to those it is affecting. In an essay on university transformation, Burton Clark (2002) discusses the need for traditional disciplines (like the social scie nces) to be more proactive. He writes, They have to accept the overall need for more en terprising activities and to learn in many cases how to engage in such action (p. 334). To not be aware of academic capitalism or, worse, to ignore it does little to promote what the social sciences represent. Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) urge academic faculty and professionals to engage more deeply in shaping and controlling both academic work and the relationship between the institutions and the marketplace (p. 37). A primary step towards that goal is to improve our understanding of that relationship. In sum, universities and colleges are expe riencing cracks in the ivory tower as they move beyond traditional roles of academ e and into a new phase of organizational development called the contemporary entrepre neurial univers ity (Etzkowitz, Webster,
9 and Healy, 1998). How the various disciplines and other academic units respond will decide the future landscape of higher e ducation. As Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) conclude, in the face of academic capitalism in the new economy, academics and their associations and unions should consider their own participation in this process and begin to articulate new, viable, alternative, paths for colleges, universities and academics to pursue (p. 57). Scope of the Study Three public research universities in the State of Florida were chosen for this study Florida State University (FSU), Univer sity of Florida (UF), and University of South Florida (USF). The departments of Sociology, Criminology, and Economics were targeted at each institution. These three disciplines were chosen as representative of the continuum of social sciences spanning from the traditional field of Sociology, to the slightly more applied field of Criminology, and ending with the most practical and marketable of the social sciences Economics. Academic capitalism is a wide reaching and multi-faceted subject of study. As such, it leaves those who study it with seemi ngly never ending inquiries. This research chooses one area, faculty in the social scie nces as a manageable part of the larger, complex whole. To focus further, this study cen ters on social science faculty in the public research university setting, specifi cally at FSU, UF, and USF. In line with Burton Clark, this study seeks to, aim for explanator y categories that stretch across a set of institutions, which, at the same time, do not do violence to institutional peculiarities. So despite the sc ope defined here, the st udy still contributes to a deeper understanding of academic capitalism at large.
10 Limitations Due to scope, method, and available res ources, there are limitations associated with this study. Again, it covers only faculty in selected departments of the social sciences at three public research universitie s in Florida. Indeed, higher education goes well beyond this. Because I focus on one sector, in one state, and on a particular group of disciplines, there are limitations connected with the ability to generalize results. Much is left out of my range. Students, administrato rs, graduate student employees, and staff are other groups that could be considered. Further, there are questions of how academic capitalism intersects with curriculum, resear ch, and student learning. Some of these areas are being investigated, while ot hers are left uncharted and thus should be considered for future research. My concentration on those in the social sc iences also limits what can be said of faculty in other disciplines. As a whole, and despite their similarities, the professoriate is a fairly diverse profession varying by s ector and discipline. Altbach (1998) writes, While one may speak broadly of the Amer ican professoriate, the working life and culture of most academics is encapsulated in a disciplinary and institutional framework (p. 274). Methodologically, there are concerns of self-reported data and the validity of faculty responses. However, the focus of this study is esse ntially on perceptions and not so called truth. Like Slaughter and Leslie (1997), this study is about faculty values, norms, and beliefs (p. 3). So although it is im portant to keep in mind the strengths and limitations of self-reported data, in this case it is a justifiable me thod. Lastly, available
11 resources (time and money) prevented me from exploring institutions beyond the state of Florida. Despite these limitations, some generaliz ability was sought and room for taking a broader view was maintained. For all the lim itations associated w ith a narrow stud, there are corresponding strengths. A restricted view can allow for a closer look, richer description, and depth of perspe ctive. It is through such de tailed perspective that new dimensions of the more global concept can be explored and can give further nuance to the concept overall.
12 Chapter Two A Review of the Literature Multiple interrelated areas of the academic literature pertaining to this study are covered in the following review. Those topics are academic capitalism and related terminology, varying interpretations organized in a set of pros versus cons, and proposed explanations for the ascending prominence of business ideals in the university setting. The latter has to do with globalization and ne o-liberal policy, as well as higher education finance. I then provide a review of what th e academic literature says about how academic capitalism effects faculty work -life. This chapter concl udes with a presentation of institutionalism and resource dependence theory as the dual theoretical component of this study. First I will provide some historical perspective. Clark Ke rr (1994) wrote, An appreciation of the evolu tion of higher education help s to develop perspective on contemporary issues, since hist orical context often reveals that our present problems are not all new ones (quoted in Altbach et al., 1994). This is important because academic capitalism is not altogether new to higher e ducation. In fact, for-profit ventures of the nonprofit public research unive rsity have been around as long as the university itself. As early as 1905, Harvard University concerned itself with the profitab ility of its football team, while the University of Chicago advert ised to interested potential students (Bok, 2003). Ranting about the men who ran universities, John Jay Chapman exclaimed,
13 They are in truth business men (quoted in Aronowitz, 2000, p. 17). Such a comment could have been made in a recent newspape r editorial, but it was not; it is from 1909. Indeed, the corporatization of the academia is old newsa Faustian bargain a hundred year in the making (Bowen, 2005). Another scholar concerned with the issu e early on was Thorstein Veblen who, in 1918, published The Higher Learning in America: Memorandum on the Conduct of Universities by Business Men. In it, he discusses the consequences of business-like behavior in universities. He hi mself was not very fond of the idea, particularly because of his belief that learning is not readily set out in statisti cal exhibitsand can ordinarily come to appraisal and popular apprehensi on only in the long run (p. 65). Veblens assertion at that early time was that business principles (such as competition) are foreign to the science and scholarship of university li fe. The intrusion of such pecuniary motives to higher learning, according to Veblen, would onl y be destructive. And he warned that it would be worst for disciplines least relevant to the market. Forty years later, historian Richard Hofs tadter wrote, It has been the fate of American higher education to develop a preeminently businesslike culture (in Galston, 2004, p. 77). Like Veblen, Hofstadter felt an overly pragmatic approach to education would devalue it as something inherently worthy. Realizing how far back such corporate intrusion stretches makes one appreciate just how long academic capitalism has been an issue. We might think about academic capitalism a bit differently if we realize it is a construct with a long social evolution. In other words, market and market-like behavior is not new to higher education, so much as it is a growing development. Bok (2003) sees it as a matter of size and scope, pointing
14 out that universities have been much more aggressive than they previously were in trying to make money from their research and educational activi ties (p. vii). Academic Capitalism As the primary notion being explored in this study, academic capitalism must be clearly explained. In this section, I descri be what is meant by academic capitalism and how it should be interpreted for this study. The precise term academic capitalism is used as early as 1991 by Fromm in Academic Capitalism and Literary Value to describe the inherent contradictions of literary critic s who use their postmodern deconstructions to gain privilege and power, as well as material success. Fromm deems such scholars academic capitalists, with an intentionally negative connotation. The material resources in this form of capitalism are the literary works the hypocrites produce. He calls the most spurious of them self-proclaimed Marx ists, who in reality want nothing more than to ascend the metaphorical co rporate ladder. Fromms distaste for what he means by academic capitalism is clear. Although mostly concerned with contemporary value and critique of literature, Fromm s use of the term is not much different than how I use it here. Academic capitalism as market and market-like behavior at both the institutional and individual level is di rectly borrowed from the Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). Academic Capitalism presents a political economic perspectiv e of the university in todays global world. In it, the authors connect the fairly recent upsurge in entrepreneurialism at universities to the following factors: globali zation, national policy in support of applied research, and the decline in state suppor t of universities and university research,
15 particularly in the form of the block gr ant. The book possesses solid theoretical background that includes histor ical and global perspectiv es. The authors consider seriously the policy and economy of the situation not only in the United States, but also in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. To go even further, with each of these nations, Slaughter and Leslie put forth mu ltiple levels of analysis that include international, national, institutional, and individual considerations. Their analyses are guided at each level by explic it theories (political economy, resource dependence theory, and professionalization). A major theme of the book is a concern w ith ongoing changes in the nature of academic labor (p. 1). Their study covers the years 1970 through 1995 with a focus on the 1980s and 1990s. What they find is that ch anges in financial structure and increasing ties with industry has radically altered th e nature of academic labor: changes in what academics do, how they allocate their time ( p. 60). Destabilization of faculty labor patterns as a result of academic capitalis m involves faculty moving further into the marketplace and away from a traditional posi tions of state subsidized shelter from pure market forces. As professionals, members of the academy have been traditionally kept cushioned from the market by the university in the spirit of academic freedom and the pursuit of basic knowledge. Slaughter and Leslie (1997) show how, for some disciplines, this is no longer the case. In large part, those discip lines are not in units associat ed with the social sciences. They write about this lopsided picture in an article that further develops the concept of academic capitalism as a theoretical basis for better explaining the irregular moves toward the market by public research universit ies in the United States over the past 25
16 years (Slaughter and Leslie, 2001, p. 156). By irregular the authors mean the unevenness with which units of an institution are engaged with the market. Beyond the work of Slaughter and Leslie (1997) there are ot her notable studies that use the term academic capitalism. Meaning what it means here, other studies focus on a variety of particulars. For example, Ni xon (2003) looks specifically at the impact of academic capitalism on higher education leadersh ip. To him, an entrepreneurial spirit is crucial to good college leadership in today s state of a diversified funding base, reduced state support, and increasing ti es with the market. The en trepreneurial spirit of a college leader can be seen in full-cost recovery programmi ng, fundraising, increases in tuition and fees, partnering w ith private business, and prof essional training initiatives among other things (Nixon, 2003). Ylijoki (2003) also employs the term academic capitalism and applies it to university research with a fo cus on how university researchers deal with shifting funding patterns in higher education, in Finland. Y lijoki argues disciplinary and institutional cultures play a role in how academic capitalism is expressed. Based on her interviews with senior researchers across research se ttings in Finland, Ylijoki concludes that institutions of traditional academic culture ar e not displaced by market-orientation. In fact, Ylijoki finds the two co-exist. This co incides with earlier re search (Gumport, 2002) as well as more recent studies like Mendoza (2005), which show how academics ideologically incorporate market and market -like activities into traditional academic frameworks. However, in maintaining a balanc e, tensions can rise. One researcher in Ylijokis study explains how competing for grants does not have to interfere with
17 individual interests in a pu rsuit of pure research, but how it is not without concern. Ylijoki (2003) quotes the researcher as saying: It really bothers me a bit that it lack s real genuineness. Fi rst you have to get money by some kind of trickery and then you can do what you want to and you dont have to care about the re search plan at a ll any more. This is how it seems to be at the moment. (p. 314) Ylijoki is referring to way monies to fund doctoral students. This protection of graduate students, which is primarily a char ge of teaching, is grounded in a traditional academic value-set that must be balanced with more capitalist notions such as the pursuit of resources necessary to s upport professional autonomy. Ac ademic capitalists showed a similar response in Slaughter and Leslies 1997 study: altho ugh they sought to expand activities deemed appropriate fo r their professional field, they did not see themselves as undercutting or challenging established status and prestige systems (p. 164). As this study will show, the same goes for social scientists engaged in academic capitalism. A case study of engineering and scien ce graduate students in a department heavily engaged in academic capitalism al so uses the term academic capitalism as discussed here. As part of her dissertati on research, Mendoza (2005) focused on cultural schemas looking for any possible cultural shifts towards business-oriented values among [doctoral] students as they go through th eir socialization process of graduate school. Like Ylijoki (2003) and Gumport (2002), Mendoza found that in settings of academic capitalism, people find ways to reconcile its demands with core academic values.
18 As a follow up to Slaughter and Leslie (1997), Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) coauthored Academic Capitalism and the New Economy in which they expand the concept of academic capitalism into what they ca ll the academic capita list knowledge/learning regime. Although the regime has not fully penetrated the institution or its organizational field, its impacts are broad and its bases ar e many. They (2004) write, Today, higher education inst itutions are seeking to ge nerate revenue from their core educational, researc h, and service functions, rangi ng from the production of knowledge (such as research leading to patents) created by the faculty to the facultys curriculum and instruction (teach ing materials that can be copyrighted and marketed). (p. 8) A key difference between Slaughters wo rk with Leslie and her work with Rhoades is what forces are seen as contribu ting to the encroachment of the profit motive into the academy (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997, p. 210). Although they acknowledge that academic capitalism is a result of national political economic conditions, also contributing in the new version are the actions of a network of actors and organizations that include faculty and other academic pr ofessionals who value revenue generation over other core educational missions that are part of the academy. This elaborated outlook emphasizes the role of agency, which views market and market-like activity as embedded within the system so that individuals that make it up can be seen as actors initiating academic capitalism, not just as players being corporatized (p. 12). However, when discussing such issues, some scholars c hoose to use terms other than academic capitalism.
19 Word Usage Important to note regarding terminology, I use academic capitalism and its definitions of both market and market-lik e behavior and securing external funds interchangeably. I also use entrepreneurialism and the entrepre neurial university to refer to the same phenomenon. There is a broader body of literature about academic capitalism that does use the term academic capitalism per se, but other jargon that refers to the same issues discussed here. In fact there are several business and market-like metaphors being used to describe what I refer to here as academic capitalism or entrepreneurialism. For instance, Derek Bok (2003) writes about the commercial ization of higher education, which he defines as efforts with in the university to make a profit from teaching, research, and other campus activitie s (p. 3). In their work on connections between university and industry in research c onducted in the hard sciences, .Etzkowitz et al (1998) also use the word commercializati on. To them though, it describes the effects of capitalizing knowledge vis--vis intersec tions of academe, industry, and government. Furthermore, Vogel (2004) discusses commer cial practices in higher education, while Scheuerman and Kriger (2004) call it corporatization. Other scholars use the word entrepre neurialism to discuss the profit making endeavors of colleges and universities. Brint (2000) discus ses entrepreneurialism in higher education, which he define s as the efforts of universi ties and individual faculty to capitalize on research discoveries (p. 246). In a recent editorial from The Chronicle Review (March 17, 2006), Bennis and M ovius discuss the rise of campus
20 entrepreneurship, which they describe as a pay-your-own-way philosophy [that] has reshaped the university (p. B20). Burton Clark (1998) also uses entreprene urial, most notably in his work on the transformation of five European universities involved in efforts towards a more enterprising way. Creating Entrepreneurial Universi ties: Organizational Pathways of Transformation focuses on the years 1980 through 1995. In this work, Clark identifies five organizational pathways of transf ormation towards a more entrepreneurial university. Those are a strengthened steering core, an expanded developmental periphery, a diversified funding base, the stimulated academic heartland, and an integrated entrepreneurial culture. Clark shows how unive rsities can and will continue to become more enterprising in a competitive global environment that stresses the need for an entrepreneurial response. Despite its connotation, however, Clark does not use entrepreneurship to represent raw individualistic striving that is socially divisive (p. 148). In his opinion, entrepreneurial refers to a way in which university autonomy can be regained as well as maintained, and a sens e of community be built to benefit all. Marginson and Considine (2000) write about the enterprise university which is about corporate-like executive higher education governance, in Australia, where public policy has dramatically increased managerialis m at universities. They prefer the term enterprise university because it captures both economic and academic dimensions and is as much about generating institutional prestige as about income. They say academic capitalism or corporate univers ity sound too unidimens ional in terms of focusing on profit-seeking. For them, the enterp rise university is a bout a quasi-business
21 culture or a public institution that borrows certain conditions and techniques of business such as competition, scarcity, marketi ng, and goals defined in terms of money. For Shumar (1997) commodification is the chosen term. Commodification is an expression used mostly by anthropologists to describe the relationship of more traditional communities to encroaching capitalist development (p. 15). As an anthropologist, Shumar applie s critical theory to the id eas of academic capitalism and highlights the larger global influences that commodify many aspects of our society, including higher education. In doi ng so, he likens the significant rise of part-time faculty in colleges and universities to the oppression of other marginalized work groups in third world countries as well as our own. Shumar argues this comparable situation, for the most part, goes unnoticed, particularly by fu ll time tenured faculty. Shumars appeal is for academics to realize that the same for ces operating in the rainforests of the Philippines are also impacting the places in which academics work. Elaborating on this metaphor, he calls academics marginalized intellectual workers in the sweatshops of knowledge (p. 13). Patricia Gumport (2002) us es the label industrial logic in her study of the effects of the quickly expandi ng knowledge base on universit y life. Gumport argues the dominant conceptual understanding of universities has changed as a result of the overwhelming growth of information. Looki ng at three case studies (UC Berkeley, SUNY Stony Brook, and the University of Illin ois at Chicago), Gum port concludes that earlier notions of social institutional logic in higher education are being replaced by an industrial logic. The social logic responds to societal expe ctations, inherently values ideals and original scholarship that is co mprehensive and multidisciplinary. While an
22 industrial logic responds to market forces, valuing revenue-genera ting knowledge that aligns with demand of the market and cont ributes to economic development. The term industry denotes the idea that faculty and ot her university players act in a competitive enterprise. This new logic as described by Gumport has striking similarities to what is meant by academic capitalism. In line with resource dependence theory and the work of Slaughter and Leslie (1997), Gumport (2002) lays out how institutions of higher education are being restructured due to diminished funding that requires a more industrial way. The idea of varying institutional logics derives from ne o-institutional theory, which provides a powerful lens for us to conceptualize how be liefs and values are anchored in the wider environment and enacted locally within or ganizations to obtain legitimacy (p. 52). Gumport is clear to point out, though, that the one logic has not completely taken over the other. Rather, the two logics and other logics as well, co-exist al ong side one another, sometimes with tension (Ylijoki, 2003). More important to understand is the diagnostic potential of the model for understanding th e dynamics of academic restructuring in contemporary universities (p. 56). Louis et al (1989) discuss entreprene urs in academe in their study of life science faculty in research universities. They found and tracked five types of academic entrepreneurship large-scale sc ience research funded from the outside, earning supplemental income, gaining industr y support for university research, patenting, and commercialization or involvement with pr ivate enterprise related to research. The authors list the five types in approximate order of increasing incompatibility with traditional views so that forming companies based on the results of research is least
23 congruent with traditional academic ideals. In their analysis of the variables, they find individual attributes best predicted large-scale science and earning supplemental income. Also, local group norms are significan t in predicting commercialization. Powell and Owen-Smith (1998), who also focus on the life sciences, interview faculty about the nature of their work in response to th e blurring boundaries between the university and private industry. There they fi nd a difference between the more traditional university researcher as a dedicated and disinterested, t hough passionate, searcher for truth and the one seen in the life sciences today, scientist-entr epreneur who balances university responsibilities a nd corporate activities [that] improve human health and generate revenues for the investigator, the university, and the investors (p. 108). As is shown, many scholars concern them selves with the notion of academic capitalism. For the most part it is a topic of recent coverage, which is most likely due to its current expansion. This research joins th e rest in further exploring what academic capitalism means and how it impacts higher ed ucation. The intent is to add to the scholarly discussion, particularly as it re lates to faculty in the social sciences. Faculty Opinion As with any issue, academic capitalism has both its critics and proponents. In thought and on paper, the opposing camps can be more easily separated and identified in an oversimplified dichotomy of pros versus cons. In reality though, the lived experience is much more intricate than th at. In fact, often there is a whole group that neither denies nor supports. There are also those who simply accept academic capitalism as an inevitable outcome of the current social and economic context without making judgments about benefits or disadvantages. Nonetheless, I give substance to each conceptual
24 extreme in an attempt to simplify and t hus, understand the different ways in which academic capitalism is perceived. In tryi ng to understand academic capitalism, it is helpful to see both its positive contributions as well its negative effects. As Awbery (2002) points out, academic capitalism is neith er an inherent evil nor an unmitigated blessing. As a strategy with th e potential to harm or benef it universities, it must be understood (p. 2). In favor. Those in support of academic capitalism tout how entrepreneurialism in higher education increases cost efficiency, instills accountability, and divers ifies finances. Those in favor of a business model of higher e ducation claim modern management theories, many of which tend to focus on measuring outpu ts rather than micromanaging inputs, can help cut through the bureaucratic inertia that so often chi lls intellectual and pedagogic innovation in colleges and universities. A nd there is no good reason why a university should maintain an elaborate array of intern al services if outside firms can perform comparable functions at a lower cost (Gal ston, 2004). Marginson and Considine (2000) wrote, There is no doubt that some changes in contemporary university organisation constitute advances. In the virtues of transparency and openness, in the clarity about resource deployment, and in the greater external responsiveness are elements that we would want to take in to any future discussion of the university as an institution. As the later section on higher education finance supports, block state support of higher education is shifting. As a result, inst itutions are facing an increasing need to
25 expand and diversify their funding base. Fr om this perspectiv e, entrepreneurial universities are strategically poised. Academic capitalism a nd entrepreneurship widens the financial base of an institution, providing more in the way of discretionary funds and less reliance on government support. As a re sponse option, entrepreneurship increases university autonomy while reducing depe ndence on government. Some say academic capitalism is needed to link the institution with its external constituents so as to better serve the public (Awbery, 2002, p. 6). Brint writes, The new university is not just inevitably more entrepreneurial than the old but also more responsive and stronger because of it. In a case study investigating the in fluence of academic capitalism on academic culture and norms in a department with sign ificant industrial research ties, Mendoza and Berger (2005) found faculty unanimously c onsidered the negative sides of industrial sponsorship [as part of academic capitalism] minimal compared to the benefits that these partnerships bring to the department, thei r academic careers and students (p. 17). The ten faculty members interviewed in Mendoza and Bergers study believed that ties with industry via research do not have to sta nd out against traditional academic ideals like good teaching and a concern for students, particularly graduate students. The group of faculty in Mendozas study believed that the ri ght partnerships with industry can be a win-win situation for both academia and industr y, in which students are educated, basic science is conducted and technology is transfer red to industry (p. 20). Additional wins are resources, power, and the prestige facu lty can gain with such partnerships. This means that as long as academic values are considered and honored, entrepreneurial behavior of academic groups maintains its legitimacy. The goal is to
26 reconcile business-like values with those of academia in pursuit of the best of both worlds. Entrepreneurship at the university does not have to be detrimental. On the contrary, when done according to academic c odes of ethics, academic capitalism creates opportunities for support and positive change in higher education. Burton Clark (1998) declared: Effective collective entrepreneurship does not carry a university beyond the boundaries of academic legitimacy, se tting off a down-market cycle of reputation, resources, and development. Rather, it can provide resources and infrastructures that build capability beyond what a university would otherwise have, thereby allowing it to subsidize a nd enact an up-market climb in quality and reputation. (p. 5) Those in favor of academic capitalism believe that to survive in todays world, universities must compete in the dominant game of corpor ate culture. In other words, universities must adapt. Proponents argue that beyond simple reasons of response (adaptation), the university should be leaders of social trends. A benefit of embracing the corporate model is an awareness of market position and thus better control of it. A 2001 study in China found empirically base d benefits of applying the principles of the market to higher e ducation. In 1994 the World Bank recommended Chinese higher education move away from the existing centralized model and towards a more decentralized, open market system of co lleges and universities. Acting on those recommendations, China moved forward with a privatization reform of its higher education system. In his study, Wang (2001) found greater autonomy and efficiency of
27 the individual university in the new more entr epreneurial setting. Whet her or not this is inherently good or bad, it was seen as positive. This positive spin is prevalent among s upporters of private fo r profit institutions such as the University Of Phoenix (UP). One study on the university looks at the tensions UP faces as an anomaly in the higher educat ion organizational field, yet with increased footing and influence (Embree, 2001). Those tensions Embree examines are non-profit versus for-profit, retail versus wholesale, a nd tenure versus non-te nure. Via her research, Embree suggests non-profits observe and even mimic the likes of UP so that they remain competitive in the global capitalist system. Another study on UP concurs, suggesting the benefits seen there should be applied to community colleges (Bugay, 2000). Bugay concludes that to better meet the needs of the adult lear ner, community colleges might better serve themselves by becoming more cu stomer driven, like UP which fully takes advantage of corporate ideals. The pro-academic capitalism setting requires business savvy campus administrators. Dr. Constantine Papadakis at Drexel University in Philadelphia is a leading example of this. He was recently the su bject of an article in a Wall Street Journal article called How Dr. Papadakis Runs a Un iversity like a Company (Wysocki, 2005). The answer is by employing fancy marketi ng techniques, digiti zing coursework, and refusing to increase the per student annual li brary services budget. Despite critics, Papadakis quintupled the universit ys endowment to $470 million, doubled undergraduate enrollment to 9,800 and recorded an $83 million surplus in 2004 on revenue of more than $500 million (p. A13). With a salary of $805,000 a year, the former Bechtel Corporation refers to students as customers, and has in his office a Cretan
28 knife he metaphorically uses to slash budgets. In his inaugural addr ess he is quoted as saying: Make no mistake, highe r education is a business. However, Mr. Papadakis does not represen t the majority of leaders in higher education. Besides those that argue academic capitalism is beneficial, there is a strong lobby that argues the influence of market ideals on the university. Against. Across the landscape of higher education liter ature, there is no shortage of works expressing concerns about academic capitalism and all it signifies. Those in opposition to market and market-like behaviors put forth an overall critique of ne o-liberal tenets, which tout market forces and put consumer c hoice as the foundation of economic power (Aronowitz, 2000, p. 58). A market driven university threaten s the production of knowledge, is inconsistent with the traditions and foundatio ns of higher education, and changes the ways of governance. In terms of the perceived threat s to the production of knowledge, the competitiveness inherent to academic capitalism truly flies in the face of the universitys role in the free and open excha nge of scientific in quiry that entails colleagues verifying and replicating each others work. Scholars es pecially in the traditional disciplines, have deliberately chosen academic life in preference to the ways of commerce, in part because they look upon the search for truth and knowledge as a worthier calling than the quest for material wealth (Bok, 2003). Market intrusion into the scientific process is a long held fear among academics. As far back as Socrates, acceptance of fees for teaching was seen as a threat to the quest for truth (Galston, 2004, p. 77). Today, the issue becomes a fear of universities
29 partnerships with companies th rough which they have patent and license deals that might compromise the results of scientific resear ch. As MIT biology professor Jonathan King has reported, many who deliver papers concer ning scientific research at scholarly meetings may omit information on patent grounds, thereby closing intellectual communication (Aronowitz, 2000, p. 48). There is concern that as higher education continues to experience ca pitalist pressures, knowledge becomes information and information becomes a commodity to be manufactured, packaged, bought, and sold, while intellectual work [becomes] a matte r of good being cost-effectively manufactured on a production line (Bertelsen 2002). Still others oppose corporate models because they believe such a mode of operating is incongruent with the traditions of higher education. Slaughter and Leslie (1997) talk about faculty culture as inimical to business culture. The general line of reasoning here is that academic capitalism is an intrusion of values and beliefs that are inappropriate considering the setting of higher education. A central tension in the entrepreneurial university is the need to reconcile new managerial values with traditional acad emic values. Academics are quite properly suspicious of the jargon and outlook of a hard managerialism imported from industry without regard for the vast, f undamental differences between university and non-university forms of organization (Clark, 1997) Birnbaum (1998) writes, there is no metr ic in higher education comparable to money in business, and no goal comparable to profits (p. 11). He goes on to say, because most institutions of higher edu cation lack a clear and unambiguous mission whose achievement cannot be assessed thr ough agreed upon quantifiable measures such
30 as profits, the processes, structures, and systems for accountability commonly used in business firms are not always sensible fo r them (p. 27). In other words, the corporatization of the univers ity may be good for the spread sheet, but it augurs badly for education (Aronowitz, 2000, p. 88). In a piece titled Why Cant a Colleg e be more like a Firm? Gordon Winston (1997) says We can ill afford to be wrong about the economic structure of higher education, confusing it with a for-profit industry (p. 5). This is because, as Winston points out, in higher education when universit ies profit, those prof its do not make the stockholders rich. The stockholders in this case are the public which includes students and parents. Winston says college enrollment is expected to expand upwards of 30% in the coming years. He points out that any good business would be thrilled at the prospect of gaining millions of new customers. For higher education, however, this is cause for concern. This is because more students mean more costs but not much more income. So in response to Winstons initial question why cant a college be more like a firm? The answer is because it operates in a slightly different market than corporate America one that is, in many ways, publicly subsidized. Further, income for institutions of higher education combines donative (endowment, gifts, and government support) with commercial sources (tuition and fees) so that th e true cost of an education is subsidized. Winston reports that in 1991, the average st udent at the average U.S. college paid $3,100 for an education that cost $10,600 to produce (p. 2). This is made possible in higher education only because its social utility makes it worthy of subsidization. Those opposed to what might be seen as a corporate intrusion of higher education, promote what others see as overly idealistic notions of academia. The argument that
31 entrepreneurialism undercuts core academic values can become a heated topic and characterizes the kind of iconoclastic view of academic capitalism taken by those who perceive it as a threat to the traditions and foundations of American higher education. Aware of the growing income gap, human ities and social sciences departments are increasingly subject to the logic of the ma rket, seeking to strike their own Faustian bargains with capital (Young, 2005, p. 6). Notions of the academy as a sacred place are long held and it might be because it is so very different from other organizations. Those in higher education who resist co rporate influences also fear the market will dictate decision-making, displacing the judgme nt of scholars in matters of university governance. Long ago, similar concerns were raised by Thorstei n Veblen (1918) who railed against the effects of boards of trustees increasi ngly made up of businessmen whose interest was focused on efficiency a nd who did not understand the unique nature of the academic enterprise (Birnbaum, 1988). In discussing the impact of academic capitalism on curriculum and instruction, Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) point out that decision-making about such issu es is increasingly dictated by considerations of the market. Faculty members heavily engaged in academic capitalism are also not as inclined to get involved in institutional governance matte rs because of their externally oriented focus on the market. This combined with grea ter oversight from administration, trustees, and elected officials displaces some of th e decision making at the cost of shared governance. In response, challengers call to or ganize, cease the intrusion, and fight for a democratic university. In sum, academic capitalism invokes varied responses. The challenge is to maintain a balance so that the ways of th e marketplace are neither consistently useful
32 nor wholly irrelevant in trying to improve th e performance of resear ch universities (Bok, 2003, p. 32). As a strategy, academic capitalism ha s the potential to either help or harm universities, but it is up to members of academ ia to sort between the two. In part, this research contributes to this important proce ss since only in this way can the advantages and disadvantaged be understood and a consci ous effort [be] made to avoid or lessen negative impacts (Awbery, 2002, p. 13). An Entrepreneurial Setting Throughout this discussion so far, causal theories of acad emic capitalism from multiple scholars have been mentioned. This se ction explores what is driving the rise in entrepreneurialism in colleges and universi ties. Globalization, neo-liberal policy, and a shifting fiscal resource base have all been ci ted as possible forces, although most likely it is a combination of all three plus addi tional unknown factors. Mendoza and Berger (2005) summarize academic capitalism as public universities response to external forces of globalization by maintaining and expanding re venues critical for the organization through market-like behaviors in times when state funding is more and more scarce (p. 2). Slaughter and Leslie (1997) argue the growth of global markets, national policy directed at applied research, and the de cline of the block grant are primary forces sustaining academic capitalism. Globalization. Wesley Shumar (1997) argues global economic pressures that have commodified our culture have also commodi fied higher education. Such gl obal economic pressures are about the power of transnati onal corporations that defin e (and encourage others to define) everything, all aspects of social life, in instrumental economic terms (p. 3).
33 These forces, according to Shumar, impact developing and developed countries alike with little or no prej udice toward type of industry in cluding American higher education. He thus comes up with the idea of the co mmodification of educa tion in his study of marginalized intellectual workers in the sweatshops of knowledge (p. 13). The marginalized intellectual wo rkers are part-time and temporary faculty who are marginalized because of pressures of the marketplace. Academic capitalism as a response to resource dependence is not just the predilection of local university administrators. It is a response that is taking place around the globe (Awbery, 2002, p. 6). Carroll and Beaton (2000) have also looked at the eff ects of capitalist globalization and neo-liberal policies on the public universi ty. Their summation is that the current transformation of higher education forms part of a larger complex of neoliberal hegemony which asserts that public institutions ar e best operated on market principles (Carroll and Beaton, 2000). Hi gher education, like many industries is impacted by this. They write: It is well known that the rise of neoliberalism and the internationalization of economies have altered the power of corpor ate capital and the ab ility of states to regulate business and maintain social serv ices. As global markets discipline state practices, public institutions such as universities adopt as their modus operandi business principles increasingly detached from democratic accountability. The privileging of markets has increased the acceptance of corporate ideals in organizing both society and public institutions. (p. 72)
34 For them and others, academic capitalism is a part of a much larger trend influencing societies and the world in ge neral. As Aronowitz (2000) aptly points out, far from the image of an ivory tower where, monk-like, scholars ponder the star s and other distant things, the universities tend to mirro r the rest of society (p. 11). In line with resource dependence theory, Gumport lays out how institutions of higher education are being restructured due to diminished funding and as a result are expressing an increase in industrial logic. He r idea of institutional logic comes from neoinstitutional theory, which she says provides a powerful lens for us to conceptualize how beliefs and values are anchored in the wider environment and enacted locally within organizations to obtain legitimacy (p. 52). Gumport points out though that the one has not completely taken over the other, but rath er these two and other logics as well exist along side one another, existing often among tension. For Readings (1996), it is higher educations focus on excellence that drives notions of academic capitalism. Inhe rent in its title, Readings book The University in Ruins argues why he thinks the university is in ruins and what faculty must do to prevent its demise. The downfall, according to Read ings, is a result of how business-like universities have become in response to accountability trends of excellence. His underlying message is clear. The university that was built on the power of the nation state and the need to protect national culture is obsolete in toda ys global world of transnationalism. He also associates this shift with the rise in postmodernism, which brought a plethora of voices to higher educat ions intellectual domain. According to Readings, the universitys fixati on with creating and preserving culture has been replaced
35 by a focus on excellence. This new obsession is the fault of the current climate of global capitalism of which the university is a part. Excellence, according to Reading (1996) has no intellectual reference point and that, for the university, is pr oblematic. It is problematic because instead of grounding the concept in intellectualism, excellence is seen as defined by business which makes students into consumers and graduates into quantifiable objects. Reading suggests universities are businesses co mpeting with other businesse s and being evaluated in business terms. In business ideology, accounting principles prevail and to Readings, this represents a downward trend in higher education. Readings proposes three phases in university history of which the last is most market oriented or business-like. Those are the University of Ideas, the University of Culture, and most recently the University of Excellence. Readings says the latter focuse s on an idea devoid of meaning (excellence), which is contained in an era dom inated by a consumerist ideology. Neo-liberal policy. Related to globalization and consumeris t ideology is neo-liberal policy. Neoliberal refers to an emphasis on free market forces and economic growth with liberal meaning in the sense of no controls (Martinez and Garcia, 2000). According to Martinez and Garcia the main points of neoliberalism include the rule of the market, cutting public expenditure for social services deregulation, privatiz ation, and individual responsibility over the public good. This movement can be seen at multiple policy levels. An illustration in higher education in the Unite d States is federal financial aid which is given directly to the student who become s a mobile consumer in a free market.
36 An example at the federal level is the Bayh-Dole Act. Signed into effect in 1980, this legislation allows universities to crea te patents for marketable discoveries made using funding from the government. Prior to the act, the federal government owned inventions made with federal funding at universities who then licensed the inventions free of charge to any party wishing to use them In sum, the law moved ownership of the inventions from the federal government to universities. With the right to license, universities gained a way to profit. Applying economic ration al to the operations of education is a global trend that often called decentralization or deregulation. However, for the purposes of this study Bayh-Dole serves as a worthy American example. A well documented study of the dere gulation of higher education is The enterprise university: Power, go vernance, and reinvention in Australia (Marginson and Considine, 2000). Based on interviews with senior university administrators at 17 Australian universities, the study reveals that the rise of an enterprise university is due to neo-liberal changes in federal policy star ting in the 1980s. However, it is important to note that these neo-liberal policies have been enforced with greater rigour in Australia than in the USA (p. 54) and that the shift to wards a market approach in the US has been fostered by a strong private sector (p.58). Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) argue Bayh-Dole and other legislative acts at both the federal and state levels promote the comm ercialization of research and partnerships with industry that, in part, fuels academic capitalism. As a result, institutions develop policies and organizational units that in turn support the activity. Ho wever the findings of this study make clear, this does not relate to the great majority of academic capitalism in
37 the social sciences. The implications of Ba yh-Dole are relegated to patent producing disciplines such as chemistry and engineering. A shifting fiscal resource base. It has become common knowledge that the percentage of universities budget provided by state legislatures is on the decline (Galston, 2004). Further, despite a 3.5 % increase in spending on higher education, state and local support per student hit a 25-year low in the 2004-05 fiscal year (Fischer, 2006) As a result, univers ities are forced to seek outside sources of funding such as corporate contracts, faculties rental, and outsourcing to compensate for the unpredictabi lity of state and local support (Galston, 2004, p. 79). Present-day financing of higher educati on involves increasing costs, shifts in public funding and an increasi ng reliance on private monies. A focus on the finances of higher education yields an evolving picture of how univers ities receive support and from what sources. Despite the significant and gr owing role of higher education in a global economy, federal and state funding have been st eadily decreasing in the last few years pushing higher education institutions to s eek other sources of revenues in order to survive (Mendoza and Berger, 2005 p. 2). As Awbery (2002) states public higher education institutions have become dependent on income sources beyond the federal government, and that process is already changi ng the roles, rewards, and structures of academic institutions (p. 2). Some say educations golden age of public support, growing enrollment, and increasing federal support for research is over (Altbach, 1998; Shapiro, 1992). This is particularly when you consider the dema nds of enrollment growth and economic
38 inflation, which negates the recent improvement s seen in state support for universities in 2004-2005 (Fischer, 2006). As a result, faculty members are becoming more entrepreneurial in an effort to gain resour ces to support their activ ities. Administrators and boards have turned to marketing strate gies to make up for lost revenue through increased enrollments, tuiti on increases, and business partnerships (Awbery, 2002, p. 10). The faculty has turned to competition for research and/or training grants, patenting, consulting, copyrighting, and test or courseware development. The ability of colleges and universities to generate money dr ives the belief on the part of state Legislatures that when times are tough, higher education can take a budget hit better than others. There appears to be ample evidence to support a negative correlation between the condition of a state budget and support for public higher education. In good times, higher education tends to be well funded. While in times of shortage, state support for higher education has shown declines. When state budge ts are tight, the need to fund big ticket items such as K-12 education, healthcare, and corrections tends to outweigh the needs of higher education. This is because higher educ ation can, at least when compared to K-12, Medicaid and Medicare, or ot her public goods find ways to support itself. Thus, Hovey (1999) calls higher education the state balancing wheel. In doing so, he ties state government support of higher education directly to the conditions of a states financial climate. Hoveys report, put out in July 1999, entitled State Spending for Higher Education in the Decade: The Battle to Sust ain Current Support is a detailed study of state support for higher education in the Unite d States. The picture painted is daunting and he warns that difficult times lie ahead. Us ing baseline budgeting assumptions that are
39 also used by the U.S. Congress for its budge t, Hovey predicts that even with normal economic growth over the next eight years, the vast majority of states will face significant fiscal deficits (p. vi). Of cour se, differences exist among states depending on tax structure, spending needs, and varying economic growth rates. Among the 50 states, Florida came in at 42nd in year eight of fiscal projections, which yielded an 8.8 percent shortfall. Hovey says there are two potential ways a state can deal with such a shortfall, neither of which is likely in Florida. One is to raise taxes and the other is for states to favor higher education over other program s. It was the latter that occurred in the 1970s and early 80s, when according to Aronowitz (2000), tax revolts were the major component of absolute and re lative declines in st ate budget allocations for postsecondary schoolswhich almost ever ywhere focused on and affected state and local expenditures for public goods such as education, health, and social services (p. 80). Make note, Hoveys predictions turned out to be wrong. A plush 2006-2007 budget year in Florida resulted in an 8.5% increase in state spending for public universities. However, this does not account for the rise in enrollments nor inflation. Overall, state support for higher education continues to shrink as a pe rcentage of a public universitys budget. In response, higher education has expanded its so urces of funding to include more federal and private sector reserves. With the relative decreases in state support for higher education, the need for universities to secure funds from other s ources has increased. As a result, state and federal funding of universities is a greatly diminishing part of universities resource base (Breneman 1993). As Barr points out, [there] has been less and less direct support for public institutions of higher education and increased expectat ions that such institutions
40 develop new ways to get resources necessary to operate the enterprise (p. 7). The transfer in the burden of cost from the government to the institution has created a need for academic capitalism. The needs of the institution are then passed on to its members. Students face increasing tuition and faculty experience changing work patterns. Whalen warns that institutionally gene rated income is very different from revenue obtained from governmental sources [since] its generation is dependent on the initiative and effort of operating units a nd individuals within the organization, not on central direction (p. 129). As a result, internal distribution of funds with no consideration of who contributed what may be challenged. This makes for a competitive environment of funding within institutions, one that is also clearly a part of academic capitalism. A symptom of this shift in funding is the Responsibility Centered Management (RCM). Essentially, RCM is a decentralized approach to funding associated with higher education that empowers deans and other mid-level management and makes units responsible for their own financial manage ment. In this system, revenues that are generated by a unit stay in the unit. Costs are also the responsibility of the unit and under RCM, all costs associated with conduc ting teaching, research, and public serve activities are recognized [as] academic units are assessed or charged for academic support services, library and computer services, st udent services, general administration, space, and related physical plant costs (Whale n, 1996, p. 136). In opera ting as independent financial management centers, units of colle ges and universities begin competing against each other for their fair share of what central administration has to offer. This turns the academy internally into a competitive market place for centrally allocated resources
41 (Slaughter and Rhoades, 2000, p. 48). It is an environment based on external market values and represents academic capitalism at its best. Cross-subsidization is a mo re traditional mode of the in ternal financing of higher education. For example, a university taxes its law school or its business school to provide extra resources for its education faculty or divinity school (Bok, 2003, p. 164). Such subsidizing is common because faculties of education and divinity add to a schools reputation and sense of tradition comm on signifiers of worth before academic capitalism. The impact of academ ic capitalism on institutiona l finance is that it produces fresh revenue and initiate[s] new internal di stributions of funds in universities favoring units close to the market (Bloland, 1999). There is concern that the tradition of cr oss-subsidy in higher education financing is directly threatened by the influx of academic capitalism. La test trends show signs of privatization and decreasing internal cross-subsidizati on. This every-tub-on-its-ownbottom approach creates a very competitive atmosphere, which is a hallmark of academic capitalism. Galston (2004) aptly de scribes the cause for apprehension, Some valuable academic activities will never be able to pay their own way, while others can do so only by changing their modus operandi in ways that will knowingly distort their mission (p. 78). In sum, there are many variables involved in the entrepreneuria l university. Issues of globalization, neo-liberal po licy, a diversified resource base, and national trends of accountability are discussed in the literature. The results of this study add three more variables to the possible list administra tive pressure, rising costs, and political
42 environment. Next, I will discuss what the lit erature has to say about academic capitalism and faculty work-life. Academic Capitalism and Faculty Work On her internet home page, Sheila Slaughter writes, The globalization of the political economy at the end of the twentieth century is destabilizing the patterns of university professional work developed over the past hundred years. Some of those changes include increased competition for grants, as well as pressure to apply for grants and other external resources. This leads to a greater focus on external constituencies, a more applied research agenda, and the pursuit of support services such as technology and graduate assistants beyond the department. We might also predict a move towards an emphasis on personal gain over traditional mode s of collegiality and shared governance. With this expansion of self-interest comes l ess allegiance to the institution as faculty increasingly view themselves more and more as independent entr epreneurs (Awbery, 2002, p. 5). Etzkowitz et al (1998) write that as a result of these trends, The role of the professor has already been s ubject to considerable revisi on through the working out of a new balance among teaching, researc h, and invention (p. 16). With academic capitalism, there is an emerging framework of prestige and privilege among professors that shows academic capitalists on top (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). Aronowitz (2000) concurs when he writes: The individual who pursues knowledge for its own sake or for human betterment may still perform this work on her own time. But in their official roles, faculty are more than ever urged, cajoled, and even th reatened to direct their scholarship and
43 research to the ever-decreasing pots of grant gold on penalty of losing resources such as computer time, assistants, equi pment, promotions, and tenure. (p. 67) Further, academic capitalism forces faculty to spend more time on th e upkeep of external partnerships, which in turn diminishes the amount of time spent on instruction and other internal academic activity. With the importance of pursuing and maintaining external funding, the reward system that prizes such act ivity is further enhanc ed at the cost of quality instruction. When faculty member s are under pressure to pursue external resources, they have less time to devot e to instruction (Awbery, 2002, p. 5). How academic capitalism affects professors in the social sciences is the primary purpose of this research. Slaughter and Les lie (1997) mention that academic capitalism can indeed be seen in places like Archeol ogy or Criminology, but perhaps that activity is less research product related as it is about sel ling services. The example they provide is a sociologist who conducts research surveys fo r various external agencies. They predict that faculty far from the market, like in some of the social sciences, might teach more while faculty in fields close to the mark et will focus on research. Awbery (2002) also predicts increased teaching loads from faculty in fields further from the market. Little beyond guesswork was found about how academic capitalism intersects with faculty work-life in the social sciences. To augm ent this thin knowledge base, I chose to specifically study social scienc e faculty in three public institutions in Florida and interview them about issues of academic cap italism and the new, more entrepreneurial public research university.
44 Theory Although many theories, models, and philo sophies influence this study, its main theoretical framework involves two social sc ience theories. Those are institutionalism and resource dependence theory. First, I disc uss each separately since they represent different intellectual histories and ways of explaining. Second, I compare and contrast them and discuss how a dual theoretical perspective might inform this study. Resource dependence. Within organizational analysis, resource dependence begins with the perspective that an organization is depe ndent quite literally on external resources that influence the organization through support and constraint. This means organizations are affected by their evolving environment and the changing availability of resources within that environment. A good metaphor for resource de pendence theory is the old saying, He who pays the piper, calls the tune. In ot her words, the one controlling the money (or other resource) holds the power and the abil ity to influence organizational decisionmaking. More generally, resource dependen ce theory is based on the premise that internal behaviors of organizational memb ers are understood through the actions of external agents (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978, p. 2). One very influential book on the su bject is Pfeffer and Salanciks The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (1978). The authors make a strong case for an external control perspective of organizati ons and the power of social constraints on organiza tional action. In the vein of ecological points of view, Pfeffer and Salancik look at environmenta l factors of organizations and put a heavy emphasis on contextual analysis. The books stated purpose is helping managers see that
45 organizational survival and success has to do wi th the ability to deal with and manage external resource and support sources. They write, A good deal of organizational behavior, the actions taken by organi zations, can be understood only by knowing something about the organizations environmen t and the problems it creates for obtaining resources (p. 3). While arguing for such an external laden approach to business and other organizational endeavors, Pfeffer and Salanc ik (1978) radically claim that leadership often has little effect in making a difference as internal actors are influenced by an externally controlled environment. Res ource dependence assumes organizations are other directed, constantly struggling for au tonomy and discretion faced with constraints and external control (Gornitzka, 1999, p. 7). Therefore, according to resource dependence, the improvement of an organiza tion is not always achieved by internal adjustments or the quality of managers. Admi nistrators face serious constraints in their ability to control organizational behavior many of which are beyond their control. Pfeffer and Salancik summarize, the point is that behavior s are frequently constrained by situational contingencies and the individuals effect is re latively small (p. 16). And they cite ample research empirically b acking their claim. For example, a study by Lieberson and OConnor (1972) looked at 167 companies and partitioned variance in sales and profits to four va riables effects of economic year, industry, company, and administrators. The study concluded that t he administrative eff ect was dwarfed by the impact of the organizations industry and the stable characteristics of a given organization (p. 16).
46 Resource dependence theory holds that th e internal behaviors of organizational members are understood clearly only by referen ce to the actions of external agents, (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). Th is suggests that higher educa tion when starved of crucial resources will seek out new sources of f unding. Resource dependence is one explanation of academic capitalism, particularly when view ed as a result of a shifting resource base. Slaughter and Leslie spend consid erable time on this very point. They write, Our central thesis at the institutional level is that orga nizational relationships are determined or are affected importantly by the changing fina ncial environment (p. 224). Academic capitalism as a response to fiscal restrain t is explained by resource dependence as a theory that anticipates an organization will take on characteristics of external organization on which it depends. This resource dependence take on academic capitalism is reflected in the following quote from Burton R. Clark (1998). Ideas become realistic and capable of some steering as they reflect organizational capability and test environmental possibilities; new organizationa l ideas are but sym bolic experiments in the art of the possible (p. 143). Slaughter and Leslies point is that changes in ways of funding or changes in resource dependence are what is steering alterations in higher education, particularly the rise of academic capita lism. Academic capitalism through a lens of resource dependence focuses on government pr essures and the external market, which encourages market-driven research and activ ity over basic or pure research driven by personal desire or discipli nary inquiry. Resource depende nce also allows for active participation in influencing the environment, so that the power and control travels on a two-way street (Bloland, 1999, p. 115).
47 Institutionalism. Institutionalism has a wide and deep hi story in social inte llectual thought, going back to at least the 1880s (Sco tt, 2000). At a broad level, institutionalism is basically a theory or approach to social analysis used to predict organizational be havior. It is also a significant body of literature spanning multiple disciplines such as sociology, political science, economics, organization studies, a nd anthropology. The reason for such prolific application of institutionalism may be the pervasiveness of institutions in social scientific thought. Institutions represent regularized a nd legitimizing processes within and among organizations. They are politic al, social, historical, and ec onomic and include the family, governmental agencies, markets, and prof essions to name a few. One simplified explanation of institutionalism as a social theo ry is that it emphasizes a constant and repetitive quality to orga nizational life, with homogene ity and stability (Levy, 2004). An institutionalist perspective suggests or ganizations act in response to gaining legitimacy. Suchman (1995) defines legitim acy as a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are de sirable, proper, or a ppropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values beliefs, and definiti ons (p. 574). Basically, it is a collective idea of what is proper or valued. In introducing the theory of institutionalism, it is helpful to first explain the theory of behavioralism a 1950s-60s movement of the social sciences. Behavioralism focused on the observable behavior of individuals to help understand social phenomena. It is a positivist approach or method of generating predictive statements about group behavior from the observation of individual acti on. A corresponding notion is rational choice theory, which claims individuals act according to weighed out cost and benefit analysis.
48 In response to rational choice and behavioralism, institutionalism questioned whether or not we could really make in ferences about collective phenomena from individual behavior. The inst itutionalist premise (like th at of many other critics of behavioralism) was that indi vidual behavior was often le ss than rational and that questions rational choice theory. DiMaggio and Powell (1991) note: Behavioralists viewed institutions as epiphenomenal, merely the sum of individual level properties. But their neglect of social context and the durability of social institutions came at a high cost, especially in a world in which social, political, economic institutions have b ecome larger, considerably more complex and resourceful, and prima facie more important to collective life. (p. 2) The debate was one seen roughly elsewhere in the social sciences in the form of agency versus structure agency as in indivi duals or agents of change and structure as in institutions. Whereas the behavioralist schoo l placed the individual as central (agency), the institutionalist emphasized cultural and normative forces (structure). The agency versus structure dialectic now focuses on how human behavior creates institutions and how institutions in turn li mit/control individual behavior. An institutionalist view emphasizes structure, norms, and other macro level constraints. The institutionalist critique of behavioralism wondered how expressed behavior (what was observabl e) differed from real pref erences, begging the question, does behavior really reveal what people truly want or desire? Institutionalists concentrate on the normative, which is a bout behavior and other decision making influenced by the standards and prescriptions of institutions, whereas the rational choice theory says behavior and deci sion making is dictated by individual cost-benefit analysis.
49 In institutional theory, structure or organizational action is a function of institutions and it includes three main mech anisms of isomorphism: coercive (pressures from those in power, as well as ethical, cu ltural, and societal expectations) mimetic (modeling or patterning), and normative (profess ionalization and socia lization). In higher education there are coercive forces of gove rnment, mimetic templates from successful competitors, and normative pressures of pr estige. However, it can be difficult to distinguish between these different form s (Marginson and Considine, 2000, p. 183). Citing DiMaggio and Powell (1983) as well as Zucker (1977), O liver (1991) writes institutional theory focuses on the reproduction or imitation of organizational structures, activities, and routines in response to state pr essures, the expectations of professions, or collective norms of the institutional environment (p. 149). However, institutionalists vary in th eir relative emphasis on micro and macro features, in their weightings of cognitive and normative aspects of institutions, and in the importance they attribute to interests and re lational networks in th e creation and diffusion of institutions (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991). It is therefore important to flesh some of this complexity out by being clear about what I mean by institutionalism. At heart, institutionalism puts heavy emphasis on sh ared social processes that dictate organizational behavior in the form of norms, rules, and agreed upon social meanings. The invisible pressures of doing things for pr estige or just because they are natural acceptable social behavior is how institutionalism explains organizational change. Without the application of such concep ts as isomorphism, we lack a proper overall understanding of the e volution of higher education, and the policy issues that confront it (Levy, 2004, p. 17). The question is how much of acad emic capitalism can
50 be explained by coercive, mi metic, or normative processes of isomorphism as proposed by institutionalism. Coercion could be seen as pressures coming from other outside organization on which higher education is dependent (i.e. government or industry). Mimetic forces as ambiguity of goals (Zha, 1999) are characterized in higher education as an institution with multiple and often competing missions and goals. However, normative forces of institutionalism are what most intrigue me in thinking about the response of social science faculty to academ ic capitalism. This is because normative aspects of institutionalism focus on established norms and professionalization two leading characteristics of faculty in a university. A dual theoretical perspective. The combination of institutionalism a nd resource dependence as a collective explanatory model has been applied before For instance, Tolbert (1985) examines differences in administration among public and private institutions of higher education using a combined perspective of institutiona lism and resource dependence. She points out that when viewed together, they should not be seen as antagonistic. Rather, each highlights a different perspective, while si multaneously contributing to a more holistic picture of this studys focus. For Tolbert (1985 ), the central premise of this [combined] approach is that dependency relationships ca n, over time, become socially defined as appropriate and legitimate (p. 1). In this case, shifting funding patterns as a case for academic capitalism can be attributed to resource dependence until such activity become institutionalized, at which poi nt institutionalism kicks in. Christine Oliver (1991) expands on th is idea challenging the claim that compliance is the only potential response of organizations in an institutionalist
51 framework. In doing so she responds directly to those major criticisms of institutionalism that question its suppositions of the passive role of organi zations. For Oliver, resource dependence can provide a range of potentia l organizational resist ance strategies in institutional environments as a theory th at considers strategic noncompliance in response to external pressures. To her, intuitionalism and res ource dependence are convergent insights that help explain or ganizational behavior, particularly the likelihood of resistance and conf ormity to institutional pressu re. In this way, resource dependence theory highlights and complements assumptions associated with critiques of institutionalism, so that using the perspec tives together strengthens predictability. Olivers research suggests that possible alternative strategies depend on the nature of institutional pressure, which varies by cause, constituents, content, control, and context. She concludes, Investigation of th ese factors might shed additional light on the forces for resistance versus conformity in institutional environments (p. 173). In sum, institutional theory can accommodate intere st-seeking, active organizational behavior when organizations responses to institutional pressures and expecta tions are not assumed to be invariably passive and conforming (p. 146). In 1999, Ase Gornitzka looked at organiza tional change in higher education as a result of governmental policies using this same dual theoretical mode. For Gornitzka, resource dependence represents a focus on external control and dependencies, while internal power and control is represented by neo-institutionalism. Combining the two, he claims, is key to understanding and specifying the process of environmental effects (p. 8). Gornitzka calls this an integration approach. Its stre ngth lies in its ability to incorporate the possibilities of both exte rnal and internal forces together.
52 Also worth mentioning is Kirby-Harr is (2003) who calls his approach of combining institutionalism with resource de pendence a hybrid framework. To him, resource dependency views organizations responding in an economically rational manner to external economic influences and neo-institutionalism claims organizations act according to a normativel y rational manner to external social influences (p. 358). Ultimately, both perspectives are useful in Kirby-Harris (2003) study on a young university response to governme nt in the recently independent Namibia in South Africa. The following theoretical questi ons are part of this study. How does institutionalism inform the results of th e study? How does resource dependence theory inform the results? Lastly, what does a dual theoretical perspectiv e produce in trying to explain the intersection of academic capitalis m and faculty in the social sciences? Academic capitalism is an organizational cha nge in higher education of which social science faculty are a part. Where resource dependence theo ry helps me understand why there is an increase in academic capitalism (looking primarily outward), institutionalism should assist me in my exploration within the academy (a look from within). However, both have internal and external components of their perspective as well and both deal with the environmental influences of an organization. In sum, resource dependence represents a more recent theory of organizational studies with a tradition of focusing on exte rnal constraints and resources. The more traditional perspective of institutionalism in stead highlights cultural components that make up the social construction of an organi zation as well as its institutional fields shared ideas of what is normal and appr opriate. While resource dependence can be associated with Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) and the concern with relationships between
53 discrete organizations, institutionalism is connected with the work of DiMaggio and Powell (1991) and Meyer and Rowan ( 1977) who focus on appropriateness and legitimacy. One very easy to read break down of the divergent foci of resource dependence and institutionalist theories is the following table adapted from Oliver (1991). Table 1 Divergent Foci of Institutional and Resource Dependence Perspectives Institutional Perspective Resource Dependence Perspective Institutional environment Task environment Nonchoice behavior Active choice behavior Conforming to collective norms and be liefs Coping with interdependence Invisible pressures Visible pressures Isomorphism Adaptation Adherence to rules and norms Management of scarce resources Organizational persistence Reduction of uncertainty Habit and convention Power and influence Social worthiness Resource mobilization Conformity to external criteria Control of external criteria Institutional interests Political interests Compliance self-serving Noncompliance self-serving Note From Strategic Responses to Institu tional Processes, by C. Oliver, 1991, Academy of Management, 16 (1), p. 147.
54 Despite these differences though, resour ce dependence and institutional theories can also be convergent (Oliver, 1991). Those convergent assumptions are: organizational choice is constrained by extern al pressure; organizations ar e interconnected; survival is dependent on responses to external pre ssures; all organizations seek stability, predictability, and legitimacy; and finally, all organizations are interest driven. So even though both theories look toward the external environment of an orga nization, the loci of power (culture versus resource) varies as well as the process of interchange (exchange versus isomorphism). When applied to higher education, inst itutionalists emphasize myths, meaning, and values, while a re source dependence view would highlight efficiency, autonomy, and exchange (Oliver, 1991). As two main theories helping to explain organizational change, resource dependence and institutionalism share two basic assumptions organizations are limited by external demands and organizations must ad apt in order to survive. Yet, these two grand theories deviate in the mechanism by which this change occurs as well as the extent to which an organizat ion will change in response to its environment. Despite similarities and differences, each theory re presents a perspective worth considering. Further, I expect the reality of organizational change to yield examples of both perspectives depending on point of view time of study, or angle of analysis. In theoretical terms, there are a numbe r of potential conclusions one can make from the data. For instance, if the resu lts show the professors are being more entrepreneurial because of m onetary and other resource cons traints, resource dependence is operating. If, on the other hand, data exhib its entrepreneurial activity in response to pressures from administration or peer inst itutions, it is institutionalism at work.
55 Furthermore, signs of resistance would lead me to give weight to new institutionalism, which emphasizes notions of agency. Or th ere may be signs of both institutionalism and resource dependence, in which case a dual theoretical perspective would best fit. In fact, the results showed the latter w ith signs of both resource dependence and institutionalism at work. Re spondents were looking toward entrepreneurial activity because of administrative pressures (institutionalism) as well as in response to the increasing need to generate money in order to do what they do (resource dependence). This finding, along with the others, is more fully e xplored in Chapter Four.
56 Chapter Three Methodology This chapter lays out the research desi gn used for this study. It includes discussion of the qualitative research design along with some philosophical underpinnings of the approach, research methods, data sources, data collection, and data analysis. This chapter also covers issues of reliability and va lidity, which for qualitative studies is about trustworthiness and credibility. As a reminder, the research questions are: 1) How are professors in the social sciences expe riencing academic capitalism? 2) How are professors in the social sciences responding to academic capitalism? Due to the questions open-ended and e xploratory nature, I decided to use a qualitative research design. Creswell (1998) suggests allowing methodology to derive from the line of inquiry and lists seven reas ons for choosing to do a qualitative study. The first one regards the type of research question. Questions that begin with how or what suggest an exploratory nature. The second reason to adopt a qua litative approach is when the topic is one that needs to be explored (p. 17). This means va riables are not easily known or identifiable and theories are need ed to explain behavi or. Creswells third reason is the need for a detailed view or what anthropology cal ls thick description (Geertz, 1973). The fourth reason empha sizes the need to study in the natural setting as opposed to a controlled experimental approac h. In line with Creswells guidelines, this study was driven by two related, exploratory research questio ns looking for how work in
57 the social sciences is affected by academic capitalism. It sought a detailed view via information produced by the qualitative re search interview in a natural setting. A fifth reason for choosing a qualitative re search design is that the researcher may prefer to write in what Creswell terms a more literary style. This includes the use of I and notes of personal standing to contextua lize decision-making. Cr eswells sixth reason is about the availability of time and re sources, while the seventh is based on consideration of audience. About the Author Particularly in qualitative research, researchers, in c ontinuously interacting with those being researched, inevitably influence and structure research processes and their outcomes through their personal and profession al characteristics, by leaning on theories and methods available at a special time and place in the (sub -) cultures, disciplines, and nations (Mruck and Breuer, 2003, p. 1). There are at least a couple of relevant disclosures in this regard. First, I am an anthropologist. This m eans I tend to take a global approach and think along cultural lines. For me, this is not the first time I ha ve used qualitative research interviews to conduct research. Second, I was fa miliar with all three study sites before the start of this study. I received my undergra duate degree from FSU and my Masters degree is from USF both in Anthropology. My doc torate will also be from USF. Although I never attended classes at UF, it too is a fa miliar campus as I have found myself visiting friends there and conducting work. I am less familiar with Gainesville, but Tallahassee and Tampa Bay are places with deep root s and networks for me. I know all three campuses well and have acquaintanc es in all three cities. This made data collection easier
58 than it could have been had I been in unfam iliar territory. In fact, one of the reasons I chose UF, FSU, and USF as sites to study was partly due to the convenience of familiarity and geographic distance since I am a resident of St. Petersburg, FL. Such factors, along with others, combine to form a perspective from which this study has developed. As Peshkin (1988) points out, subjectivity can be seen as virtuous, for it is the basis of the researchers making a distinctive contribution that results from the unique configuration of their personal qualities joined to th e data they have collected (p. 18). Data Collection The primary means of data collection for this study was the qualitative research interview. Steinar Kvale (1996) wrote the re search interview is a conversation about the human life world, with the oral di scourse transformed into texts to be interpreted (p. 46). At a most basic level, we know what we know by communicating, through conversation and talking. To Kvale, the quali tative research interview is a professional version of that very fundamental way of knowing. He says the qualitative research interview is methodological, ontological, and ep istemological. That is, empirically grounded, a source of knowing, as well as a way of knowing. Kvale poses a simple, yet valid question regarding this point, If you want to know how people unders tand their world and their life, why not talk with them? The qualitative research record shows th at when done right, data from the qualitative research interview can be bountiful Rubin and Rubin (2005) point out that the qualitative interview can be like night-visi on goggles, permitting us to see that which is not ordinarily in view and examine that which is often looked at but se ldom seen (p. vii).
59 I chose a semi-structured approach to interviewing, which is a method that allows participants to discuss what he or she feels is most important within guidelines established by my general questions. The openne ss of a semi-structured interview allows for some flexibility, while the guiding questions provide some constanc y. It also allows the researcher to deviate from the interview guide when the participant mentions something of relevance and fu rther explanation/information is needed. Since this method entails some unpredictability, in terviews can vary in conten t, depth, and length. In this study, the interviews ranged from 12 minutes to just over two hours a large span that shows the variety a semi-structured interview can achieve. I designed the interview guide specifi cally for this study. It can be found in Appendix A. Topics included the professorship in the social sciences, work life, resource generating activities, business models in higher education, en trepreneurialism, marketability, and department involvement in uni versity wide strategic directions. It also called for the demographic information of inst itution, gender, discip line, rank, and time at university. I developed the wording of the questions and probes with the help of edits suggested by my dissertation committee as we ll as respondents in two pilot interviews. I made revisions to the original guide that wa s part of my disserta tion proposal according to the feedback provided by the committee and p ilot interviewees. For example, initially I was going to ask faculty about their res earch interests. The committee and pilot interviews agreed it was not relevant to th e study, so it was removed. Another example is to switch the term profit-making with r esource generating to refer to activities relevant to academic capitalism.
60 The two pilots were conducted with pr ofessors at USF one from Social Work and another from Anthropology. These test runs were good practice for following the interview guide and learning th e technology. Even more helpful was the fact that both participants had extensive research intervie w experience and thus, were able to provide knowledgeable feedback. The pilots were tran scribed and reviewed by my advisor, who also provided feedback on how questions we re posed and how interviewees responded. All interviews were digitally recorded using a mini, hand-held, digital voice recorder. The digital audio files were transferre d to my computer where I was able to play them back to transcribe. Most interviews took place in the professors offices on campus, although on a few occasions, the interview was conducted over lunch or coffee. Advantages of in person interviewing incl ude more accurate responses due to natural context and lower interviewer workload, symm etrical distribution of interactive power, greater effectiveness with complex issues, better response rates, and more thoughtful responses (Shuy, 2001). Informed consent was obtained using a form approved by the Institutional Review Board at USF. This form is included in Appendix B. The sample. The goal of data collection was to e licit potential pattern s of experience and interpretation and to produce knowledge th at is descriptive and analytic across institutions. As such, I used purposeful sampling as a method for recruiting study participants. In purposeful sampling, participants ar e chosen for a specific purpose. Also known as judgment sampling, Bernard (1994) de scribes the method as when you decide
61 the purpose you want an informant (or a comm unity) to serve and you go out to find one (p. 95). It is important to note that purposef ul sampling requires the researcher to make key decisions, decisions that must be made clear to his or her a udience. Creswell (1998) points out, researchers designing qualitative studies need clear criteria in mind and need to provide rationales for th eir decisions (p. 188). In this case, the defined group was social science faculty at UF, FSU, and USF. What I call core faculty members includes te nured or tenure earni ng faculty, but there were a few lecturers that ended up in the mix. At each of the three institutions, I gained access to three departments (Sociology, Crimi nology, and Economics), creating a total of nine units. UF, FSU, and USF were chosen because they are the three top public research universities geographica lly accessible to me as a resident of St. Petersburg, FL. For purposes of generalizability, they were also chosen because th ey behave similar to other large public universities active in research and market and market-like endeavors. As research extensive universities, they are also the three Florida public institutions most likely to be involved extensively in academic capitalism. The social sciences I chose to explore are sociology, criminology, and economics. According to Classification of Instructional Pr ograms (CIP), social sciences are defined as those that focus on the systematic study of social systems, social institutions, and social behavior. Sociology, criminology, and economics are all considered social sciences according to CIP and the National Center for Education Statistics. These three social science disciplines were chosen based on three basic criteria. First was representation at all of the three institutions. Second, the num ber of faculty in each department was
62 sufficient to recruit participants. Third, they typify a variety of social sciences as representatives of the continuum that spans from the trad itional field of Sociology, to the more applied field of Criminology, and ending w ith the most marketaware of the social sciences Economics. My goal was to interview five faculty me mbers in each of the nine units, resulting in a total of 45 interviews. I re fer to them as units because one is actually a school (The School of Criminology and Criminal Justice). Si nce the total number of tenure or tenure earning professors in the nine units was 176, 45 would make 25% of my defined sample. However, after transcribing 37 interviews a nd doing some preliminary analysis, I felt I had reached a point of saturation. The re dundancy in responses signaled the end of finding new themes and thus I judged that further interviewing would yield no new information. The demographic breakdown of the final 37 participants is shown in Table 2.
63 Table 2 Demographics of Participants FSU UF USF Total Demographic Gender Male 12 7 8 27 Female 3 4 3 10 Time at University Less than 6 years 5 3 5 13 6-15 years 3 4 3 10 16-25 years 3 1 3 7 26-35 years 2 1 0 3 Over 35 years 2 2 0 4 Rank Lecturer 3 0 0 3 Assistant 0 2 4 6 Associate 3 4 5 12 Full 9 5 2 16 Department Sociology 5 2 3 10 Criminology 5 5 5 15 Economics 5 4 3 12
64 I employed random selection to determin e which of the tota l 176 professors I attempted to recruit. For confidentialit y, each faculty member was assigned a number from 1 to 176. Those numbers were grouped by department and university and then five from each unit were randomly chosen. The corresponding names became the first round of names I contacted. I used envelopes, one for each of the nine units. Each envelope contained small pieces of paper with number s that corresponded to the ID numbers. I made contact using a series of thre e draft messages, which can be found in Appendix C. An initial email was sent and if there was no response after one week, I followed up with the second message. If afte r two weeks, the second attempt did not yield a response, then the third and final email was sent. When it was clear the third message would not yield a response or if the faculty member refused, then that person was taken out of the sample and the ne xt random number was chosen from the appropriate group. In total, I contacted 88 professors, 24 of whom never responded, 19 refused and 37 accepted, initially or during follow-up, fo r a 42 percent response rate. Many of the non-participants were unavailable during the summer seme ster, working from home, off doing research, or out of town. One accepted, but never showed up for the appointment and another expressed intere st but never scheduled. Like the institutions, the ni ne departments chosen for this study, are both similar and different. Some were established a l ong time ago (FSU Sociology in 1918 and UF Economics in the 1920s) and others more recently (USF Criminology in 1972 and UF Criminology in 2004). Criminology department s are generally younger considering they
65 are a discipline that in many ways stemmed from the much ol der discipline of sociology. All nine of the departments offer both MA a nd Ph.D. programs. The size of the faculty was also relatively similar, ranging from 15-25 members. The number of undergraduate majors, at the time, was fairly low for ec onomics, yet it was relatively high for criminology, numbering over 1000 undergra duate majors at FSU and USF. As mentioned, criminology at FSU is actually a school the FSU School of Criminology and Criminal Justice claims to be one of the oldest criminology programs in the world with one of the oldest Ph.D. progr ams in the United States. The US News and World Report 2007 Edition of Americas Best Graduate Schools ranked the FSU School of Criminology as the 12th best, and the Criminal Justic e and Department of Criminology at UF as the 13th best Ph.D. in Criminology program. Analysis Analysis of the transcripts produced by the interviews was a guided process informed by the research design and theoreti cal framework that combines institutionalism and resource dependence theory. To analyze the data, I chose a hermeneutical approach or what Kvale (1996) calls meaning interpretati on. This is when the researcher has a perspective on what is investig ated and interprets the interviews from this perspective (p. 201). In such a case, the researcher must read betw een the lines and work out structures and relations of m eaning not immediately apparent in a text (p. 201). I chose this approach because academic capitalism as a term is not readily understood or used in circles beyond scholars of higher education. The ideas of academic capitalism may be expressed, but it is not likely the expre ssions use those words or the theoretical formulations surrounding it.
66 Consequently, I was vigilant as the on e interpreting subtleties of the interview text. Likening the words of interviews to num bers in statistics Kvale writes, Precision in description and stringency in meaning interp retation correspond in qualitative interviews to exactness in quantitative measurements (p. 32). This is where resource dependence and institutionalism became useful because toge ther they form a theoretical stance from which the results were interpreted. However, there is a fine line between data guiding theory and theory guiding data. So al though I considered resource dependence and institutionalism as I went about dissecting the data, the findings reveal much more than what fits within that specif ic theoretical point of view. Transcripts of the 37 interviews con ducted for this study totaled 118 pages of single-spaced text. Using a simple categoriz ation and sorting approach, the transcripts were condensed to 43 pages. There are many ways this can be done, but the overall goal was to collect passages and put them into m eaningful groupings. Th is is called indexing or coding, which reduces data to manageable and organized parts. I took a rudimentary approach by using symbols to represent each theme I discovered during transcription. As I transcribed each interview, I took notes on commonalities related to the research questions. Each theme was randomly assigned a symbol that I used to index the transcripts. I then used Microsoft Word to copy and paste sections of coded text into documents categorized by theme, although the raw data (full transcripts) was left intact in a separate document and indexed for reference purposes. Each of the groups of passages catego rized by theme was i ndividually analyzed and further distinctions were teased out within and among them. The roughly grouped excerpts from the transcripts were first exam ined without identifiers to focus on meaning
67 and intention of the quote. Then, discipline a nd institution (and in some cases rank) were entered and I re-analyzed the data looking fo r possible demographic trends. During this process, another large amount of text was re moved to isolate the best said and most representative quotes. In fact, another ten pa ges was removed in th e hopes of creating a concise, yet representative picture. I then internally analyzed each cleaned up section organized by theme and came up with some further distinctions by building categories within categories. Throughout the writing proc ess, quotes were sometimes reassigned as further nuances became apparent in the text. And the process of eliminating unnecessary information continued. Overall, I was inclusive in my scope in order to avoid an ecdotalism, identify negative instances, produce quasi-statistics, and thereby represent wit hout analytical bias the full range of phenomena in [the] data set (Seale, 2002, p. 653). As Kvale (1996) points out, focus should be on nuanced descrip tions that depict qua litative diversity, the many difference and varieties of a phenome non, rather than on ending up with fixed categorizations (p. 32). Validity and Reliability The complexities of validating qualita tive research need not be due to an inherent weakness in qualitative methods, but may, on the contrary, rest on their extraordinary power to picture and to ques tion the complexity of the social reality investigated (Kvale, 1996, p. 244). For any research study, consid eration of methods must address validity and reliability. The quote from Kvale nicely expresses how complex, yet fruitful a valid and reliable qua litative study can be. Because reliability is the responsibility of the researcher in qualitative work, it is closely related to issues of
68 trustworthiness and ethics. Valid ity, on the other hand, refers to logical, justifiable, and/or reasonable and sound statements or actions. When viewed in this way, validity is exposed as something argued for and agreed upon. In seeking truth, validity and reliability should be of utmost concern. However, in deliberation of what they mean, we must fi rst address what is meant by truth. Is truth some objective knowable reality waiting to be discovered as positivists believe? Or is truth something local and constantly cha nging as postmodernists believe? The question then becomes, is truth absolute or is it relative? Like Kval e (1996), I took a middle ground approach that rejects th e notion of an objective uni versal truth [accepting] the possibility of specific local, personal, and community forms of truth, with a focus on daily life and local narrative (p. 231). There are several ways that a research er assures validity and reliability in a qualitative study and they occur throughout th e research process, from formulating a research question to making recommendations based on analysis of data. Kvale (1996) provides ample advice on how to do this. To start with, theory a nd related research questions that begin the study must be sound, as does the research design. While interviewing, validity is raised in terms of trustworthiness, interview proficiency, and the ability to be open and hear wh at the interviewee has to say from their perspective. This requires good listening skills, clarification of confusing points, and honest transfer of audio to text. To ensure valid ity of a study, researchers must be aware of whether the questions put to an interview text are valid a nd whether the logic of the interpretations is sound (p. 237). This is of course based on a tran script that stays true from oral to written text. Even at the end stages, a researcher must interject a concern for validity when
69 reporting results that provide an accurate acc ount of the findings and how he or she came to such conclusions. Kvale stre sses the point that, issues of verification do not belong to some separate stage of an investigation, but should be addressed throughout the entire research process (p. 235). To help ensure the validity of this study, I sent a summary of the interview transcript to each participant for corrections, feedback, and further comments. This is one form of member checking, which is a means of verifying information by confirming responses and/or rephrasing an swers back to the participan t for clarification. The same was done during interviews, where exchange was enhanced with impromptu probes used as needed to stay on course, clarify, and respond. This is an important part of maintaining quality and allows for the gathering of a dditional information, permits respondents to validate or clarify the intended meaning be hind certain statements, or comment on the overall adequacy of the interview (Poland, 2001, p.644). Questions of reliability should also be raised at all stages of the research process. While interviewing, the intervie wer should be careful about po tentially leading questions. During analysis, categorization needs to be c onsistent. Even the process of transcription requires regularity during translation, which means following clear and steady procedures. To check reliability of coding and themes, I had my advisor review the initial transcripts, codes, and themes. Reliability is important, but Kvale (1996) points out though increasing the relia bility of the interview findings is desirable in order to counteract haphazard subjectivity, a strong emphasis on reliability may counteract creative innovations and variability (p. 236).
70 Also related to ethics is trustworthiness. The issue of trustworthiness is raised because validity is not only a matter of methods used; the pe rson of the research (Salner, 1989), including his or her moral integrity (S mith, 1990) is critical for evaluation of the quality of the scientific knowledge produced (Kvale, 1996, p. 242). By the 1980s, most fields of academia had established a Code of Ethics designed to guide the research process. Throughout this research, I have fully followed the standards set out by the American Anthropological Association a nd the American Educational Research Association (AERA) found at http://www.aaanet.org/committees/ethics/ethcode.htm and http://www.aera.net/aboutaera/?id=222 respectively. As such, approval from the Institutiona l Review Board (IRB) at USF was sought, and on March 22, 2006 the study was approved. Regarding informed consent, I fully subscribed to the Mill and Webe r tradition, which insists that research subjects have the right to be informed about the nature and c onsequences of experiments they are involved in (p. 138). The review and approval of this study by IRB signifies my commitment to the integrity of this research. The process included completion of the Human Participants Protection for Research Teams online course sponsored by the National Institutes of Health which covers such topics as key hi storical events, ethics, federal regulation, special populations, informed consent, and IRB. For reference, the IRB indicating approval of the project is included in Appendix D.
71 Chapter Four Research Findings This study seeks to answer two broad, exploratory, and interrelated research questions. 1) How are professors in the social sciences experiencing academic capitalism? 2) How are professors in th e social sciences re sponding to academic capitalism? In response to these inquiries, several connected themes were found in the data. Those are 1) academic capitalism is expe rienced differently in the social sciences than it is in other academic disciplines, 2) the marketplace of academic capitalism in the social sciences is a market of ideas rather than an economic one, 3) professors see both advantages and disadvantages to being entr epreneurial, and 4) academic capitalism is more relevant to junior faculty than it is for senior faculty. With regard to theory, many professors in this study cite the notion of a shifting resource base and changing external envir onment, which supports resource dependence theory. However, the data also lends weight to an institut ionalist view. For example, professors at FSU discussed their drive for AAU membership, arguably a prestige seeking mission with ties to institutionalism. In addition, participants raised notions of globalization by citing larger trends of capitalization and the growth of the entrepreneurial university seen world-wide. These themes that emerged from the in terviews are presented more fully below along with quotes from participants to support the findings. Theoretical considerations
72 follow, but first it is important to learn more about the institutional settings. Among the universities there are both similarities a nd differences, some of which are described below in order to provide a fuller context for the data. Such background information will assist in understanding, inte rpreting, and most importan tly, applying the results. Three Public Research Universities I chose three public research institutions for this study, the University of Florida (UF), Florida State University (FSU), and th e University of South Florida (USF). They are both similar and dissimilar, which affects the analysis across sites. Most broadly, all three are major public research universities in the state of Florida. In addition, all are of similar size and status, and st udent population is relatively the same across the board. Th ere are about 49,000 students at UF, FSU has just fewer than 40,000, and at USF there are around 43,000 students. Specific h ead counts vary, but all would be considered to have large student bodies. The total number of faculty at UF is roughly double than it is at USF and FSU, with UF reporting 5,171 faculty and FSU and USF reporting 2,054 and 2,503 respectively (SUS Quick Facts at http://www.flbog.org/factbook/quickfacts.asp ). Although UF and FSU are older than USF, together they maintain a significant pa rt of the states research activities and graduate education. Each serves the state of Florida as a public extension of the government. They also share very high rese arch activity standing with the Carnegie Foundation. No other public university in Florida shares this distinction. According to the 2006 U.S. News and World Report on universities, UF, FSU, and USF ranked the same on three of five measures total cost per year ($20,00025,000), student body (extra large) and institution type (public). On the remaining two
73 measures, they differed, with USF and FSU earning urban status for setting while UF was suburban. Regarding undergraduate selectivity, UF admissions ranked most selective, FSU was more selective, and USF was simply selective. The 2006-2007Almanac Issue of the Chr onicle of Higher Education reported further similarities and differences among the three sites chosen for this study. All three showed up on the national top list of campuses with the la rgest enrollment for Fall 2004, with UF ranking 7th, USF 12th, and FSU 21st. Only UF and FSU made the list for top institutions in licensing income, but all three are on the list of top 100 institutions in total research and development expenditures for science and engineering. University of Florida. Considered a major land-grant university, UF was founded in 1853 and has a long history as a leading universit y in Florida. UF possesses an endowment worth over $669 million and is located in Gainesville, FL. Although it promotes the typical threefold mission of a university (teaching, research, and service), UF claims its fundamental purpose is teaching. Integral to this fundamental goal is scholarship and service. UF is a member of the prestigious Association of Amer ican Universities, a distinction unique to UF among the three case studies. UF also ranked 1st in the state according to the 2006 US News and World Report and 47th overall amongst both privat e and public universities. Located on a 2000-acre campus, UF is the only pub lic university in Florida with a College of Dentistry and a College of Veterinary Medicine. The university houses 16 colleges overall, including the Levin College of Law and the College of Medicine. The most famous example of academic cap italism at UF is the wildly successful Gatorade, a product spawned from a need to pr otect football players from the hot Florida
74 sun. In 1965, assistant coach Dwayne Douglas approached UF kidney disease specialist Robert Cade because he wanted to know why football players lost so much weight during games and practice, yet urinat ed so little. Cade and his colleagues gave thought to the inquiry and summarized that body weight was being shed in the form of sweat. The researchers speculated that the electrolytes primarily sodium and potassium the players were losing in their sweat were upsetting the bodys delicate chemical balance (Kays and Phillips-Hans, 2003). After researching the issue with the help of volunteers from the freshmen football team, the professors concocted a drink with just enough salt and suga r to bring depleted athletes bodies back in bala nce then added lemon juice to make it palatable. Tests of what came to be known as Gatorade proved to prevent heat exhaustion. The team credits their first Orange Bowl win to the drink; t hus, the name Gatorade. Initially marketed by one of Cades research fellows at Stokely-V an Camp at Indiana University, royalties from the drink eventually came to be shared by UF and Stokely-Van Camps Gatorade Trust. Quaker Oats Co purchased Stokely -Van Camp in 1983 and it was then that Gatorade became a significant part of the spor ts beverage market. UF has since earned over $80 million in royalties. UF VP for Res earch is quoted as saying Over the years, royalties from Gatorade and a host of othe r products has enabled the University of Florida to invest in countle ss research projects in a wi de variety of disciplines. For reference, net adjusted income from inventions or products created at UF is divided as follows. If less than $500,000, then 40% goes to the individual, 10% goes to that individuals program, and the depart ment and college each get 7.5%, while the remaining 35% goes to either the Research a nd Graduate Program (RGP) or UF Research
75 Foundation (UFRF). If net adjusted income exceeds $500,000, then the split is 25% to the individual creator, 10% each to the program, department, and college, with the remaining 45% funding the RGP or UFRF. Florida State University. FSU considers itself a comprehensive, graduate-research university with a primary role of advanced graduate and prof essional training with a liberal arts base. According to the 2006 U.S. News and Worl d Report of Best colleges, FSU ranked 51st among public research universities in the U.S. and 109th overall. Founded in 1851, FSU is located in the states capital of Tallahass ee with branch campuses in Panama City, Sarasota, and the Republic of Panama. Th e home campus in Tallahassee sits on 448.3 acres and the universitys endowment is estimated to be over $400 million. FSU boasts 204 graduate programs, of which 72 award th e doctorate, and has a law school and a recently established medical school. FSU is also home to the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, supported by the National Sc ience Foundation. In total, there are 16 colleges and schools at FSU. FSUs major academic capitalist story is the tale of Taxol a story that begins in 1962 when a then 32 year old botanist named Arthur Barclay collected samples from a Pacific yew tree while looking for potential medicines during his work for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Those now infam ous samples eventually made their way to the National Cancer Institutes Cancer Chem otherapy National Service Center (CCNSC), where they proved to be highly toxic to certa in cancer cells. The chemical responsible was dubbed K172 and later named Taxol. Nearly ten years later in 1971, research from CCNSC finally worked out the structure of the molecule.
76 A 1979 article by Susan B. Horowitz fina lly provided Taxols mechanism, but it wasnt until 1993 that Taxol rea lly became catapulted as a can cer fighting drug. That year Robert Holton, currently a professor at FSU, claimed (al ong with his research team) victory in totally synthesizing the drug ( www.research.fsu.edu/researchr/fall2002/taxol.html ). In partnership with the pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers, Taxol was marketed as an FDA approved medication for ovarian cancer. The windfall to FSU as a result of Holtons post there has been staggering. In 1996 alone, FSU received $28 million dollars in royalties from Taxol. Overall, the revenue from Taxol totals over $200 million, among the largest patenting pay-offs for a single uni versity in history. Royalty sharing at FSU for inventions also depends on the amount. For the first $10,000 85% goes to the inventor and 15% to the university or the FSU Research Foundation. If the grant is more than $10,000, 40 % goes to the inventor, 30% to the academic unit, and 30% to the university. Royalties earned for published works, regardless of amount, go 50 % to the author, 25 % to the academic unit, and 25% to the university. University of South Florida. Founded in 1956, USF is a multi-site university with campuses in Tampa, St. Petersburg, Lakeland, and Sarasota. Although re latively young, USF envisions itself as a premier research university with a strong push from leadership to gain ground in the area of sponsored research. A self-s tated goal of USF that is wort h noting here considering its relevance to academic capitalis m is increased fiscal se lf-sufficiency. In 2005, USF completed a $42.9 million research park that houses the USF Research Park, an 87-acre
77 development of office and lab space designed to accommodate bioengineering and life sciences research, entrepre neurship, and partnerships between the university, local government, and business. The complex, lo cated on the southwest corner of USFs main Tampa campus, will bring scientists and entrepreneurs together to work side by side, share innovations and make advancements that succeed in both the laboratory and in the marketplace (Floridas Trends, 2003). USF is also home to H. Lee Moffitt Hospital, which is a National Cancer Institut e Comprehensive Cancer Center. USF has an endowment of over $244 million. There are 13 co lleges and schools at USF including the College of Public Health and the School of Architecture and Co mmunity Design, both of which are unique among the case studies in th is research. There is also the USF College of Medicine. Academic capitalism at USF has less renow n than the stories of Gatorade and Taxol, but exists nonetheless. Still, examples are from among the life and hard sciences. The USF Division of Patents and Licensing re ports patents issued in the 2005-2006 fiscal year. They include a Cancer Treatment using proANP Peptides (Physiology and Biophysics), a therapeutic mattress (Anesthesi a and Critical Care Department of the College of Medicine), an Eccentric Dilati on Balloon for Use with Endoscopes (College of Medicine), and a collapsible computer workstation (Mechanical Engineering). Florida Statutes, Regulation USF10-012, as well as Collective Bargaining Agreements govern books, articles, and inventions made with or without university support at USF. The share of profit resulting from these a pplications are negotiated, but start with no more than 45% of net revenue to the inventor /authors, no more than 55% of net revenue to the inventors/authors resear ch support, and no more then 45% of net
78 revenue to USF. Once set, the shares are managed and protected by the not-for-profit USF Research Foundation that was established in 1989. By considering some of the differenc es and similarities between the three universities, the resu lts of this study can be more d eeply understood. As mentioned, the findings are presented in response to two prim ary research questions : How are professors in the social sciences experiencing academic capitalism and how are professors in the social sciences responding to academic capital ism. The results are organized into several interrelated themes. In many cases the boundaries between experience and response was blurred. In this sense, the following presentation is laid out in a way that makes sense for the argument more than it does correspond directly to each research question. The illustrations of market and market-lik e activity found in the social sciences yield a specific form of academic capitalism th at involves mostly grant activity, but also capitalizing the curriculum and other indications of being entrepreneurial. The market in market and market-like behavior in the social sciences, is about a market based on ideas, professional expectations, a nd higher education cu lture. Across the board, professors saw both clear advantages and disa dvantages to being more entrepreneurial. However, perspectives on the topic varied al ong the lines of junior versus senior faculty. Among the responses, there is deep concer n for the future, but also great hope. Forms of Academic Capitalism in the Social Sciences In thinking about the potential ways the social sciences might be experiencing and responding to academic capitalism, I came up with a list of possibilities to use as probes with the interview question: Have you particip ated in any resource generating activity for the department? I created the list from examples about which I had read, heard, or
79 conceived. That list includes summer field schools on an auxiliary funding model, external grants, royalties from published or patented work, copyrighted survey/testing products or research instruments, courseware development, consulting, and involvement with a research cente r or institute. Based on the interview data however, academ ic capitalism in the social sciences at the three universities centers almost solely on grant activity and in cludes essentially no technology transfer or patenting. While there were examples of research centers, none of the participants gave examples of fiel d schools, patented works with royalties, copyrighted research instrument s, or courseware programs. Fu rther, research centers as an example are, in many ways connected to s ecuring external grants. Ways social science departments are being entrepreneurial that I did not consider in clude capitalizing the curriculum or educational entrepreneurism and a focus on marketing. There are also two second-hand instances of academic capita lism that were given. A professor of economics discussed a social science spin o ff company he knew about and a professor of criminology shared a story about a soft ware product used to map crime. Grant activity. The most prominent finding of this study is that academic capita lism in the social sciences is overwhelmingly interpreted in term s of grant activity. The primary market or market-like behavior cited by the professo rs in this study typically revolves around securing external grants. For the most part, gran ts in the social sciences are less likely to provide significant indirect co sts recovery to universities be cause of their smaller size. Research grants in the social sciences are also somewhat limited, particularly when compared to other sciences, because the amount of money received is linked to the
80 potential marketability of res earch topics. Further, professi onal expectations about grant activity are far less pronounced for social sc ientists than they are for some others on campus, even though the data suggest this might be changing and that in the future, grant activity will gain greater im portance among faculty work in the social sciences. Faculty frequently discussed how grants in the social sciences are usually smaller than and not as prestigious as those found in disciplines like medi cine, engineering, and chemistry. In other words, the amount awarde d for research in the social sciences is usually less than it is for the lab-driven disciplines. This is relevant because the breakdown of how grant monies get internally distributed usually depends on the amount awarded. Due to their generally smaller size, grant money earned in the social sciences are typically not the kind that generates indi rect costs for the unive rsity. A professor of criminology at USF held: Our total amounts are a lot le ss than, for instance, some of the hard sciences and the med school. I have a cousin in Anatomy and I dont know the size of his grants, but I bet you he thinks mine are pe nnies compared to what he brings in. In discussing the contribution of the Departme nt of Economics at FSU to the universitys bottom line, one professor similarly commented: Its still going to be a drop in the buc ket. Economics grants and the same thing goes for education, are very small compar ed to medical grants, compared to grants in chemistry and physics and biology. What they [the university administrators] really want is those obscene relationships with the federal government where you get a grant and they want 46% of it.
81 Economists were particularly aware of th eir disciplines inabi lity to contribute to university-wide budgets via external grants. Ac ross the three institutions, professors of economics noted: The university overall is a little bit happy when the College of Business faculty bring in grants because it adds to the tota l. But the amount that we bring in is so insignificant compared to the hard sciences that it doesnt matter that much. (Professor of Economics at UF) When you think about whats a good way to generate a lot of money for the universityyou [can] come up with a new drug, which somebody in the chemistry department did Taxol, which brought in millions and millions of dollars, but we just dont have the ability to do that in economics. (Professor of Economics at FSU) You shouldnt try to stamp the same incentives on every single college because we cant respond to them. We cannot b ecome an important source of grant funding for the University of South Flor ida even if we had nothing but noble laureates here. It wouldnt happen. (Professor of Economics at USF) Beyond the size of a grant, which was men tioned, there is also the fact that the social sciences are more likely to get state gran ts that typically maintain restrictions about the overhead they allow. So grant activity in the social sciences has a low impact on university bottom lines, but the avai lability of grants in the so cial sciences might also be considered low, especially when compared to other sciences.
82 In fact, professors repeatedly reported that the opportunity for grants in the social sciences is much narrower than it is in othe r research areas. A prof essor of criminology at UF stated, The amount of funds available to them [the natural scie nces] is greater. You have different funding sources. I think the gran ts are much larger and there is a greater diversity of topics in which they can do. According to those I interviewed, the market has a large role in this rega rd and the common perception is that research done in the social sciences is less marketable than th e research going on in me dicine, engineering, physics, and chemistry. For example, a profe ssor of criminology at UF stated, In the hard sciences, its much easier to get grants. There is much more money out there for that sort of thing. A sociologist at UF put it this way: There is more of a market in the sens e that more people are willing to buy research in physics and chemistry and so on. Rightly so engineering. There is not much of a market for poets. There is not much money out there for people who are willing to do a piece of historical research or write a book of poems. If youre on the humanities endhistoriography or textual analysis and those areas, there are no grants. There just are none But if youre in the area of studying infant mortality, HIV, health issues, epidemiology, NIH is a big funder. In some cases, professors research inte rests in certain social science subfields connected them to well funded areas. A professor of economi cs at USF who works in the subfield health economics was aware of his exceptionality in attracting external research grants of a significant kind. He point ed out, I get grants, pretty big ones but Im an exception in social sciences mostly b ecause I do health economics. So I work with other disciplines and we get grants. These are grants from the government, NSF or NIH.
83 A professor of sociology at FSU who considers himself a demographer also conducts research in the health sciences. He too was aware of his advantage as a social scientist in securing big grants, also due to his focus on health. He explained: Im a demographer and in my particular area of sociology, we are a much more natural science, big science, health scien ce model. They [grants] are very relevant for us and we have a long tradition in demography of needing outside funding, relying on outside funding, and looking for outside funding. However, the majority of professors I interviewed categorized their research interests in the less marketable arena, a nd the few who did not were aware of their minority status. It is also important to po int out that the need to get external funding is not nearly as pronounced in the social scienc es as it is in the hard sciences. This is because most research conducted in the social sciences costs less than it does in lab centered disciplines. More often than not, social sc ience research (economics might be the exception) is conducted in the field while medi cal research and chemistry research occur in a lab or clinic. As a professor of economi cs at USF said a lab is very expensive to run. The data showed a great deal of agreem ent about this fairly obvious point. At FSU, they made the following comments: You can buy one piece of equipment in a Physics lab that easily costs more than my entire department gets in a year. Not the equipment, but the budget of my whole department. It could cost millions and millions of dollars. (Professor of Criminology at FSU)
84 I know some people in biology and some ot her fields and they really have to scramble for funds constantly. Its part of their whole way of doing research. We dont have as much overhead cost for our research. Its not laboratory driven. So its different. (Professor of Sociology at FSU) Our need of funding is much less. You know, they need a 10 million dollar particle accelerator; I need a $10,000 com puter lab and $5,000 a year in subject payments. So the scale is much lower. (Professor of Economics at FSU) Professors at UF and USF made similar comments: One of my best friends is an astronomer here and his work is done on instrument design and telescopes. Well, you need millions of dollars to design these telescopes that are 30-50 meters in length. So its very clear that for them, its not a choice. Its a necessity. (Professor of Economics at UF) The kind of research I want to do is vi rtually free. There really arent big expenses. My tenure book that I wrote wa s all archival research at Purdue University and my only expenses were getting there and maybe photo copying. You know thats really low budget stuff. (Professor of Sociology at USF) In sum, the majority of grant activity in the social sciences does not cost as much as it does in some other areas of research. Professors doing more marketable research and bringing in significant grants were also found, yet as exceptions In general, social
85 scientists need to pursue large external grants is minimal and therefor e the activity is still somewhat marginal to social science profe ssional expectations, which is the last point made about the characteristics of gran t activity in the social sciences. In many ways, professional expectations about academic capitalism in the social sciences fall in line with imp act, availability, and need. The data suggest social scientists are aware of academic capitalism, involve them selves in some entr epreneurial activity, yet have not fully embraced or prioritized market and market-like behavior. Having a grant in the social sciences is like icing on the cake, which is not the case in hard sciences. Among social scientis ts, securing external grants is viewed as an added bonus. In the words of a professor of criminology at UF: Its clear that everybody in the hard sciences is funded There isnt anyone who isnt externally funding their laborator y. If youre not, then you dont have a job. Over here, if you have a grant thats great. I mean its good, but its not a sine qua non of your existence. (Professor of Criminology at UF) Grant activity differs along discipline lines and the social sciences are generally less dependent on the need to secu re big external grants than are the hard sciences. In the natural sciences if you dont have a grant, its almost disreput able, which is just not the case for those I interviewed. However, the section on junior versus senior faculty suggests these professional expe ctations might be shifting. In all, as the dominant mode of academic capitalism in the social sciences, securing external funding is more of a bonus than a requisite for your professional advancement or sine non qua [Latin fo r without this, you are nothing] of your
86 existence. This is particularly true when compared to the natural sciences. A professor of economics at FSU put it this way, Iv e heard [stories in]other disciplines wheresomeone in your department [is] looking over you every six months, saying you must bring in more funds. That just doesnt happen in Economics. A professor of criminology at UF concurred, saying, I think with the natural sciences there is this big expectation that they will ge t grants. My guess is that its a bigger consideration at T&P times than it is for the social sciences. In fact, the disparities of impact on the bottom line, availability of funds, need of funds, and professional expectations were often discussed as a continuum with hard sciences on one end, the humanities on the othe r, and social sciences somewhere in the middle. As a professor of sociology sai d, So depending upon what area you are in, it [market and market like activity] is more or less expected. A professor of criminology put it this way: The expectations are not as high for the soci al sciences as they are for the natural sciences. They are higher than they are for the humanities. So they are kind of in between. Psychology comes closer to the natural sciences. Others made the same point about psychology an d elaborated that ther e is a continuum of grant activity based on area of research, and to some extent disciplines. For example, a professor of criminology commented, It [grant activity] depends on what kind of social science youre talking about. In psychology, the expectations are getti ng pretty close to those in the natural sciences. The rest of th e social sciences are somewhere in between. A colleague agreed:
87 There are some areas of so cial science, like psychology where external funding is pretty substantial. Then there are other ar eas, which are really not that far from the kind of traditional humanities model like anthropology, certainly cultural anthropology, some kinds of sociology, even some aspects of criminology are closer to humanities than they are, lets say, to psychology. Whats really interesting is, although theyre no where near the hard sciences level, they [the social sciences] are certainly movi ng away fromthe humanities. In sum, academic capitalism in the social sciences mostly concerns grant activity. Further, that grant-activity generally produ ces low impact on the university bottom line, and, is of limited availability, modest need, and marginal in professional expectations. These issues are, in many ways interrelated. Social scientists typi cally conduct research that is less expensive than re search done in other departme nts and funds made available to them are also less. Therefore their contri bution is less and expectations to generate outside funding are minimal. A professor of economics at FSU summed it up this way: Due to the need factor, the pressure to get funding is di fferent and the availability is different as well. I would add to this, expectations also vary as a result of the overall difference in cost of social sc ience research as compared to medicine and other lab-driven research. Lastly, grant getting seems to be more epis odic in the social sciences than in other areas, and as the primary form of academic cap italism that is significant. This is because it means academic capitalism in the social scie nces may also be episodic. This supports the notion that academic capitalism has yet to truly take hold in nontraditional areas. In other words, academic capitalism is not a continuous or on-going thing for those
88 interviewed. These findings suggest academic ca pitalism is valued in the social sciences, but not imperative. The research center. The mention of research centers as a wa y professors in the social sciences are being entrepreneurial is really just another manifestation of grant activity. Involvement with a research center was cited on more than one occasion as a way of being entrepreneurial. In creating or being a part of a research center, professors reported the provision of support and collaborati on opportunities that in turn assists in getting research funding. An example is the Center for Criminol ogy and Public Policy Research (CPPR) at FSU. As part of the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, CPPR boasts multimillion dollar grant activity from local, state, and federal sources. As the name suggests, the focus is on policy related research. Ongoing projects at CPPR in clude an agricultural crime initiative, a consumer fraud institute, th e Palm Beach violence reduction project, a data management project on violence and dr ug use in Florida schools, and JJEEP the Juvenile Justice Educational Enhancemen t Program. JJEEP is a long term study in collaboration with the Florida Department of Education doing quali ty assurance reviews for juvenile justice schools in the state of Florida. Faculty in the FSU College of Crimin ology and Criminal Justice repeatedly mentioned these projects as examples of academic capitalism in their unit. As a relatively new aspect of the college, the id ea is that CPPR supports grant activity among faculty and thus brings in money. According to one faculty member, the Center for Criminology and Public Policy was born two y ears ago and there are people there that
89 look for opportunities for funding. If they see one and they know that a particular faculty member or members might be interested in th at area, theyll send it to them and say, are you interested in writing a grant? The idea that participation in a research center is entrepreneurial was also mentioned by faculty in the Department of So ciology at FSU. They have the Center for Demography and Population Health (CDPH), wh ich is an interdis ciplinary research center at the college level with a focus on demographic and population health research. As a center, CDPH offers an undergraduate Ce rtificate in Demographi cs and a Master of Science degree in Demography. As in Cr iminology at FSU, a Sociology professor I interviewed said the center was designed e xplicitly for the purposes of bringing in outside money and to conduct training. Her colleague made the same point, explaining how the CDPH helps administer grants: Their job is to support and help write grants, do the bookkeeping. And without them, we couldnt do our job. They are absolu tely critical. They deal with all the details that are so critical a nd which faculty are so bad at. Like the CPPR and in some ways the CD PH, UFs Institute for Crime and Justice Policy Research is a relatively recent focus for the department. A senior faculty member of Criminology there commented: Weve got a thing we call the Institute for Crime and Justice and Policy Research th ats trying to generate proposals, submit more proposals. Its an institute but its not very active right now. Weve got a director and its fairly new. So were trying to use it to help generate proposals.thats one of its purposes, to support and generate and I guess stimulate people making proposals.
90 No examples of the research center as en trepreneurism were given at USF, but in the Department of Sociology there was disc ussion about creating an urban research institute. Again, it was with the intention of supporting sponsored research. A professor there explained: Its been a thought in the b ack of our minds for a long time to eventually have some kind of urban research center. Were in a huge city. Theres no reason why we shouldnt study that city more And I th ink thats a way to kind of dovetail in with both the substantive direction of the university [securing more external grants] and also the Re search I designation. So one way social scientists are expe riencing academic capitalism is through their participation in research centers that are reportedly formed to increase and support grant activity among faculty. Each of the examples raised in the interviews share relatively recent attention, which lends supports to an increasing presence of academic capitalism in the social sciences. Nonetheless, the data also support the notion that entrepreneurial activity among social scientists with these e ndeavors is still fairly limited, particularly when compared to the life sciences. Capitalizing the curriculum. In addition to grant activity, new acade mic programming was also offered as an example of being entrepreneurial in the social sciences. For instance, the Department of Criminology at USF recently created what is called a professional masters program. This is a degree designed specifically for working professional in terms of course format, content, and delivery. In disc ussing ways her department was being market driven, one professor explained:
91 One of the ways that were being entrepreneurial is in the teaching realm and that is developing some programs geared toward s the person that is already in the field the practitioner. For instance, we just developedwere call ing it a professional Masters and so well have two Master s programs. What this new Masters program is trying to do is tap into the professionals around the area that want to earn their Masters. It will be more practical, on Saturdays, some online and so forth. And I definitely see that as being entrepreneurial because there are others out there that are competing with us. So in that sense, I th ink were being very entrepreneurial. Were trying to tap into a business that is on going and that others are into and that were tryi ng to get into as well. Similarly, the department has collaborated with Engineering to create a graduate certificate aimed at generating money. She added: In Engineering, with our support, they have come up with a Homeland Security certificate and thats definitely trying to cash in on a new hot topic thats out there for people who are generally already work ing in the system. So thats a second example of how this university is being entrepreneurial in the teaching realm by reaching out to bring in more constituencies. The Department of Economics at USF al so cited examples of entrepreneurialism in academic programming. There, they have a professional MBA program as well as a few non-degree education programs geared towa rds working professionals. As is typical with such endeavors, tuition by the hour is more expensive than it is for more traditional programs. One professor saw this as a particul arly useful approach for business education to be entrepreneurial, even more benefi cial than grant activity. He rationalized:
92 Our best way to make money here is through a strong executive MBA program and trying to bring in more tuition enrollment at the graduate level where they pay more. Now any grants we can get are gr avy. We should go for them. But to make that a single purpose would take too many resources away from areas where we really can make money The incentive structure that works in engineering does not fit in most social sciences. And it certainly doesnt fit in the School of Business where we have some very lucrat ive opportunities in ex ecutive education. He went on to provide an example of a non-degree executive education program, which offered mini-courses to working prof essionals interested in learning more about a business related area like i nternational credit finance. Such programs can generate significant amounts of money for the department as individuals pay twelve to fifteen hundred dollars for a four day seminar. The College of Business at USF also once offered a special MBA program for medical professionals that not only profited the school, but the professors as well: We [College of Business] did an online executive MBA program for physiciansthrough discs and tapes. Each faculty member did four hours online that was broadcast over the internet. We ga ve them tests, offline reading and work that they did. And that constituted an executive MBA degree. I think there were 12-15 faculty. We did earn royalties on th at, each faculty member did. And we got $50 per student that si gned up for it. Then the college got a big chunk of money as well. I think it was pretty profitable and I heard that there is an interest in doing it again. Apparently, we sort of played out the market. We had like
93 700,000 physicians that we sent brochures to and I dont know how many we ended up enrolling.It was defin itely nothing to sneeze about. Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) call this educational entrepreneurism which is about generating tuition dollars and the co mpetition among units to score high student credit hour productivity. Eckel (2003) has al so written about institutionsturning to their courses, curricula, and teaching activ ities to position themselves in emerging markets and create revenue opportunities (p. 866). He uses the term capitalizing the curriculum in his research on emergi ng curricular-based responses of the entrepreneurial context for higher education. His study is on how capitalizing the curriculum intersects with shared governan ce and institutional autonomy, but his work contributes here in that cu rriculum has become a source of capital (p. 870). In all three of the examples above, faculty reveal an entrepreneurial approach to academic programming and together they make up an area with significant possibilities for academic capitalism in the social sciences. It is not known why professors at UF or FSU did not offer curriculum-based exampl es of entrepreneurial activity. Isolated examples. Marketing was also mentioned as a way of being entrepreneurial in the social sciences. The College of Criminology at FSU recently revved up its marketing activity by hiring a part-time marketing director to crea te brochures and other literature promoting the college. One professor discussed how their efforts in this area are being touted as a successful model for other units on campus wh ile showing me the brochures their new part-time marketing director created:
94 This is a thing we put out that she creat edand this went out to all members of the American Society of Criminology a nd the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. We have our tag line research brought to life that she came up with. And this is just to let people know, becau se weve hired so many new people, this is a list of the faculty and these are a ll the new people that were hired in the previous two years. Here is the Cent er for Criminology and Public Policy Research. Here are some of their project s. This is about the graduate program. This is about the university. This is the universitys tag line ideas that move. And she added people who inspire. So this marketing initiative has been appropriated by the provost and used as an example to the rest of the university that you need to do what these guys are doing. In two instances, interviewees discussed second hand examples of academic capitalism; activities they themselves were not involved in, but other so cial scientists they knew were. In the first case, a professor of Economics discussed a spin-off company at the University of Arizona: There was a spin-off company, which would have been a social science version of some of these business processes. So I have seen that happen. Its very rare in social sciences, but Ive seen it happen. It was to develop commercialized Economics testing software. The second case was the only example given of a patented product in the social sciences. This time it was software developed by an ex-professor of one of the criminology professors I interviewed at USF. He explained:
95 One of my mentors who is now at Texas State University has developed, as part of his dissertation, what we call geographi c profiling. Its software that helps you to predict the home location of your offe nder based on all the crime locations. So if, for example, the offender has committed at least five different crimes, you can enter the data in the software and the software will give you some kind of a map, a topographical map that gives you the re gion where you are more likely to find your offender. So a lot of police orga nizations will purchase this software. In sum, although nothing like Taxol or Gatorade was cited, soci al scientists are being entrepreneurial in their own way. Acco rding to these data, social scientists are being entrepreneurial through competing for ex ternal research grants, participating in research centers, capitalizing the curriculum and getting involved in advertising and marketing initiatives. Other Indications of Academic C apitalism in the Social Sciences As mentioned, the rise of academic capitalism in recent times is being experienced by the social sciences in speci fic ways. It can be seen in increased discussions about applying for grants and the ability to secure external funding, the mounting consideration of such activity in tenure and prom otion as well as the hiring process, increased pressures from administ ration to secure external grants, and a broadening of involvement with fund raising. Recent talk. Despite what the literature says about the long history of entrepreneurism at universities, faculty in this study are experiencing a rela tively new focus on the bottom line. At least in criminology and sociology, facu lty shared a current attention to the need
96 to generate more external funding. To some, my questioning about market and marketlike activity was considered very timely. A prof essor of sociology at UF pointed out, As a department, we have very recently sought more external funding as a group. and the chair has elevated the importance of funding in meetings and memos and annual review letters. Another shared: I actually serve on a budget council with the provost and some other people. All of the things weve been talking about in the last several months are about zero-based budgeting and all these kinds of business models. Weve been looking at books on different business corp orate models for budgeting and how applicable they are to the university. A professor of criminology at FSU claimed the t opic was raised within days of my visit. He commented: It [the pressure to secure external f unding] is now a major thematic issue. The change is within weeks. Youre right on time, seriously it hasnt had the chance to play out yet, but its b een spelled out this week I mean this Wednesday... So its interesting that you bring that up because its a very topical issue here lately at this university and certainly in this colle ge. It was the main topic of the meeting the point was made very emphatically. A colleague referred to the same meeting. In discussing how some faculty members feel about the need to generate external f unding, he added, Everybody who has been around a long time sits around the table and laughs. Others took a more long-term perspectiv e. For instance, a pr ofessor of Sociology at FSU for 25 years said: They [expectati ons to generate fundi ng] have increased.
97 Theyve broadened and increased, but theyve always been there since the day I became a Ph.D. Whereas, a professor of economics at FSU placed the trend as having started more recently: All the public universities have money from the st ates. If you dont compete, you lost some of those resources. So you have to compete. Before, twenty years before, there was not too much compet ition. The competition was lower. Now you have high competition. However, the overall sentiment was that acad emic capitalism is a fairly new phenomenon in the social sciences. A professor of sociol ogy asserted, Theres definitely an increased emphasis on that [generating grant money] in the university. A cr iminologist agreed, Universities are much more about the re search and publications and making money these days than they ever were before. Tenure, promotion, and hiring. Another indication of the ramping up of academic capitalism within the social sciences is the current discu ssion to consider grant activity in the tenure and promotion process. The same goes for new hires. Although mentioned by faculty at all three institutions, this was partic ularly true for the Departme nt of Criminology at UF. A professor there, explained, Its not exactly wr itten in your contract, but its expected. For promotion, they keep telling you, oh, youll do so much better if you have a grant. Others in the department cited similar feelings. One said: Assistant professors in our units are now being told th at they should show some grant activity. They dont necessarily have to get a grant, but they need to be able to write a proposal or show their kno wledge about the importance of grant
98 activity. The deans office has a workshop every year and theyre telling assistant professors that they need to be more sensitive to those issues, college T & P Committees saying that they look for it. Another commented: You ought to be hunting for money and this is the interesting thing because this has come up in tenure and promotion disc ussions. That is, gee, this person is tremendously productive, really outstanding, they certainly meet all of our expectations, but they havent been gett ing external funding. And the issue that has come up is, is that a concern? Is that a problem? Should we encourage them? So there is an interesting conver sation thats happening within the unit, where somebody is already very productiv e. Theyre doing exactly what we hope they should be doing. But if they dont have a record of external funding, the impulse is becoming well, we better en courage them to do that. I would predict that at the college tenure and promotion level and at the university review level, they are going to incr easingly view candidates with that as a criterianot a criteria, but theyre going to look for it. If you dont see evid ence that people are looking for money, then theyre going to ha ve to see a lot of other good stuff to balance it out. However, it was not just professors of criminology at UF that discussed the increasing important of grant activity. For example, a professor of sociology at FSU noted: There are real debate s in the field about whethe r, for example, assistant professors should write grant proposals befo re they hit tenure. And a professor of economics at USF stated, Ive already heard th at in getting promoted now to full, there
99 are some of the other full professors who ar e now saying that they want to see grants before theyll promote you. I dont know how true that is. For many, it seems the jury is still out. Overall, grant activity in tenure a nd promotion was expresse d as a fairly recent topic. One of the things that there is talk ab out is making research grants even more important. In fact, were going to have a m eeting about it in a few days to talk about whether or not that should become a separate it em for the evaluation of faculty. An email came out just last week as king for feedback relevant to what the role of grant writing should be in the evaluation of faculty. (Professor of Criminology at FSU) Through the years that expectation has b ecome more and more the expectations have risen a bit. So that now, if youre looking to be promoted say from associate to full, its not a sine non qua that you ve had external funding, but it really helps your case if you have. (Professor of Sociology at UF) At USF, faculty also mentioned that th e ability to generate outside funding has become something to look for in the hiring process. A professor in the department of sociology informed me that the job descripti on in the most recent faculty hire included the phrase interested and capable of getti ng large grants. In criminology, a recently hired faculty member explaine d: I was actually brought i n, in part because of my experience of bringing in money the job de scription for my pos ition said looking for someone with experience bringing in money.
100 These data support what Young was concer ned about when she wrote, Those of us doing politically unpopular projects in the Humanities and Social Sciences may find ourselves in an increasingly vulnerable posi tion as research dollars become the new criteria for advancement or even employment (p. 4). As it turns out, junior faculty members are feeling it the hardest. Junior versus senior faculty. Another prominent finding of this res earch is that junior faculty members (assistant professors on the tenure track) experience and respond to academic capitalism differently than senior faculty (full profe ssors with tenure). This notion was raised similarly regardless of professorial rank. An associate profes sor of economics said it best: Its changing. Were told that over a nd over and over again. And we can see it happening in terms of, if you need funding for something, more and more you have to figure out a way to get it Younger faculty are much more into that than the older faculty. Overall, it seems junior faculty members take a less judgmental approach to being entrepreneurial or market-like. The attitude typical of the junior faculty stance was summed up by an assistant professor of sociology at USF with the proverbial it is what it is. It seems the acceptance of growing pr essures to secure external funding is much more prominent among assistant professors than for senior or tenured professors. In discussing applying for grants, one j unior faculty member commented: Its a reality to me. Maybe if I were here a number of years and seen it change, I might feel differently about it. But for me I understand its the nature of the beast and at this point, thats the framework we have to work within. Thats my job. If
101 it means trying to be creative about wher e you go to get money, then so be it. I just think that it doesnt really do us a whole lot of goodt o decry a lack of resources and not really pursu e what else might be out th ere. To me, its just the way things are at this point. In the words of another assistant professor, thats just what were supposed to do. For him and others, being a junior faculty member is about coming of age in a time when grant activity is becoming increasingly important. An assistant professor of criminology, in his position at USF less than one year commented: From what I know, its always been like this. Ive done my bachelors, my masters, and my Ph.D. in the past ten y ears. So for me, it was always that when you become faculty you need to publish fi rst, you need to get grants, and hopefully youll be able to teach good courses... But the emphasis is on publishing. This is what you need to do and get grant money. Senior or tenured faculty, on the other ha nd, felt little pressure to secure external grants other than for their own research in terests or support of graduate students. For them, grant activity had not been a significan t part of their professional advancement other than supporting research that became pub lications. However, they discussed its increasing importance for junior colleagues. For example, a professor of criminology at USF for over 25 years expressed concern for th ose early in the tenu re earning process: The university pressures are th ere, particularly for junior faculty. I really feel for them because of the demand to get federal funding for their work. Particularly for junior faculty just starting outparticular ly if theyre going to use that kind of
102 success as a basis of making decision s about tenure and promotion. Its outrageous. Similarly, a senior faculty me mber at FSU disclosed: I entered this field, academics, because I fell in love with the learning process and the opportunity to think freely and read widely and pursue ones own research agenda regardless whether Ive received a ny kind of funding that would derive benefit to the university. For the ne w guys, it [getting funding] has been a necessary transition, I suppose, as universities are not self-sus taining otherwise. They need some kind of monies other th an just tuition in order to survive. So while junior faculty see grant activity as a part of their job and something to consider for tenure and promotion, faculty member s with tenure feel little to no pressure to bring in external resources (at least not for reasons of earning tenure). For senior faculty, grant activity is more of an option than an expecta tion. As a tenured professor of economics at FSU said: I think in the department, one of the things that we look for in assistant professors coming up for tenure is if theyre getting research grants. But Im a full professor with tenure and I look more at whether th e research Im doing is going to lead to good publications rather than thinking about whether I can get a grant or not. Although involvement with academic capitalis m is no where close to what it is in some other places, social sciences ar e showing an increasing acceptance and consideration of the need to generate exte rnal funding. The differen ce between junior and senior is an extension of this. So even if academic capitalism has yet to become an
103 official part of tenure and promotion, the gr owing expectation is be ing discussed. Or as one brand new faculty member at USF stated, this seems to be the word on the street: I dont know of any written rule that you s hould have been able to get a grant before going for tenure. Ive never seen that, but you have to try. This is like the word on the street. You have to try to apply, even if youre not successful; you have to at least try. In sum, the rising expectation of secu ring external resources is much more relevant to junior faculty than it is for senior faculty. The emphasis on grants was not present while senior faculty earned tenure, yet more and more it is a consideration of todays tenure and promotion. Perhaps this is part of what Awbery meant when she wrote, untenured junior f aculty are experiencing high le vels of stress due to an increasing number of faculty roles (2002, p. 5). A junior faculty member working just over one year in sociology at USF put it th is way: It's a slippery slopeAcademic capitalism is a fine line, and it's our generation's burden. Pressures from administration. Across the disciplines and regardless of institution, faculty reported administration as a major source of increased pressure to generate external funding. Faculty repeatedly commented, There is a pr essure from administration for us to have grants. In discussing where the pressure to bring in resources is coming from, another faculty member said, Theyre coming from the Provost to the deans and from the deans to the faculty. This was particularly true for the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at FSU. Faculty there concurred:
104 The current dean is of course trying to enhance grants. But its happening at the highest levels of this university where the pressure is enormous on the deans to produce more funded research. We just had a meeting and the Dean went out of his way to tell us that the pressure was being put on him and he, in turn, was putting the pressure on us to be more aggressive submitting proposals, whether we get them or not. These data suggest the dean of criminology at FSU is focused on generating external funding, a notion suppor ted by the colleges new re search center mentioned earlier. Another professor in th is unit chided, I feel sorry for our dean because our last faculty meeting he was not threatening us at a personal level, but threatening us what would happen, the dire consequences that w ould happen, if we didnt submit more [grant] proposals. Although prevalent, the push from admini stration to bring in grant monies was not unique to criminology. A professor of economics at FSU contended, There are pressures to generate funds. The pressures come from the highest level from the provosts office. Our college, our dean also emphasizes res earch grants and to a lesser extent at the departmental level. A professor of sociology at FSU supported this: T here is definitely an encouragement from the administration al l the way down to the level of department chair, although less there perhap s than higher administration. And at USF, a professor of economics commented, there is a strong m ovement towards outside resources. The provost is on record as saying that the mone y the university will ge t from the state will continue to drop.
105 Since administrators were not included in the study, the sour ce of the pressure they are feeling is unknown. However, resour ce dependence theory suggests it is due to the search for new sources of money when traditional sources are shifting, while institutionalism says it is due to gaining legitimacy. Of significance here, though, is the fact that pressures to secure external funding was found across inst itutions and regardless of discipline. Fund-raising. Yet another manifestation of the rise of academic capitalism in the social sciences is the inclusion of the colleg e-level in fund raising, which has, historically, operated at the university level. It seems faculty members in the social sciences have traditionally been uninvolved in the fund rais ing efforts of a university, with most activity occurring at the highest administrative levels. However, more and more college deans are taking up fund-raising efforts and the shift is moving to include faculty as well. This was particularly true at FSU, where prof essors across the disciplines noted: There is a push or that is an important component of facultys job is to bring in money for the university. I don t think there is any ques tion about that. My sense is that probably the pressure to do that is going to increase in the future. So your job is not just to teach or publish ar ticles, its also to bring in money. (Professor of Criminology at FSU) Theres always been fund raising in highe r administration, the Office of Research and Graduate Studies. But now, its come do wn to the college level. I think there is more pressure on chairs too. Deans now have to be more accountable for fund-raising than they did in the past. They now have special fund raising
106 officers. This is something new. I m ean its just a whole new layer of administration which is dedicated to raising funds. And a good share of those funds is supposed to be based on external grants. (Professor of Sociology at FSU) Faculty being involved in soliciting private donations to universities. has probably increased. I would imagine you w ould find that faculty involvement in trying to put together packages for gett ing funding from donors has been greater in the past 15 years than it was histori cally. Im talking about for endowed chairs, for research centers, for fellowships, and so on and so forth. It was typical that before this sort of break point faculty went about and did their thing and deans and fund raisers went out and got these funds and there wasnt a lot of interaction. Whats happened over the past several y ears has been a lot more of the deans and faculty together talking about what kind of ideas do you think the following list of potential donors might be interest ed in for research centers or endowed chairs. So thats another kind of faculty entrepreneurial activity that is relatively new. More involved and more aware of th e general external fund-raising of the university. (Professor of Economics at FSU) Others agreed and expressed concern a bout such administrative responsibilities creeping into faculty work life. It [fund raising] has trickled down some I think most people dont see any value in trying to push it all the way down to the department level. I mean we dont want to. Thats why we vote for deans and some of those other guys because
107 faculty just want to do their thing and real ly dont want to branch out into the fund raising area. (Professor of Economics at FSU) That [fund-raising] is not a job for an academic person. Academics should deal with making sure our quality is good in the classroom and the research is good. I think someone else should be looking ove r that the resources are being spent well and so on. (Professor of Economics at USF) It is important to note at this point that when posed with the wording of my questions, professors sometimes asked wh at was meant by entrepreneurial and market or market-like. I tried to keep it as open as possible, along the lines of however you interpret it. When asked to lend their own interpretation of being entrepreneurial, professors talked about grant activity, ca pitalizing the cu rriculum, and pressures from administration. When asked about being marketable, participants continuously thought in terms of a market of ideas. A Market of Ideas Traditional interpretations of the word market usually refer to economic terms. Yet, within the social sciences, there are multip le markets, the least of which is economic. In fact, the data suggest faculty in social sc iences do not see themselves competing in an economic market, but one that is based on ideas, research pub lications, prestige, academic skills, and societal value. The market for social scientists is not economic in that it does not involve consumer demand, inte llectual property rights, and profit making.
108 It was important to those I interviewed that they be considered marketable, not towards a market in the classical sense, but within the academic market. A professor of criminology at FSU described it this way: Different people I suppose have different market targets Im accustomed to just focusing on the academic market. Other professors and graduate students and people who would consume what I writ e and what I study and the principle return in that market is, I would say, soci al capital or recognition of whats being done at Florida State... There are other ma rkets that are really important. But the only market Im really concerned with is the market for intellectual capital. A professor of economics at UF thought along th ese same lines: If you think about what we are, were really engaged in a market of ideas. In some regards, what were offering is a stream of idea generation and you can sell those ideas to policy makers, to other faculty members, to people in the lay public. And the degree to which you can sell these ideas increases your standing, your influence. A significant part of this academic mark et or market of ideas is the policy arena. To many, it is important to do research with policy implications, a sort of market in and of itself, but with no economic retur n, only influence or so cial contribution. A professor of economics at UF put it this way: The kind of work that I do is policy orient ed. So I dont think there is a product to market in that sense, but I do think, it is important to me that the research has some application sort of a direct application.
109 The concern for policy relevance was also expressed in criminology. For example, a professor of criminology at FSU explained: To me, it [research] should be important in terms of policy in that if the work that we do doesnt inform policy to an appreciab le degree, then the value is certainly diminished. To really be a first-cla ss college, you need to be producing things that help society in general in some wa y If policy-makers arent using our work to make better decisions then to me, our value is diminished significantly. When considering the market at large, so cial scientists in this study tended to downplay the relevance of th eir research products in terms of economic yield. As mentioned, more valuable to social scientists is a market of ideas, particularly as they apply to the policy arena. The thought of profiting from the research social scientists do is a distant one and faculty agreed on this point. Criminology profe ssors in particular raised the issue. A professor of criminology at UF explained, Research is our product and it has an effect on peoplesome of it. But it doesnt make money the way the life sciences do, like developing a new drug or Gatorade. It was the same for a professor of criminology at USF who lamented: Yeah, I mean our research is not as dire ctly applicable as I perceive the life sciences or engineering to be, where you can actually sell your research to a company who will actually do something w ith it and make money off of it and give you a cut of the profit. Research in the social sciences often makes one of its goals contributing socially or making things better for people through greater understanding. In doing so, there is
110 hardly any motive to profit fina ncially. Social scientists, themselves, personify this value. For example: In the academic world, my stuff is really marketable. I publish in top journals. But marketable like out in the marketplace absent the university setting, theres no marketability at all My academic skills taught me skills that I could use in the marketplace if I wanted to. But I didnt want to. I want to use them in the university setting. Thats why I got a Ph.D. (Professor of Criminology at FSU) Beyond the realm of the US economy, I can think about a market for ideas and research that answers moral dilemmas and social problems that the country faces. To me that is important, somewhat. But the economic marketability of my stuff is not at all important. (Professor of Sociology at USF) Despite its lack of marketability or economic yield, professors in this study believed in the value of their work. Accord ing to these data, market and market-like behavior for social scientists is not driven by the desire to profit. As shown, social science faculty expressed little concern for the economic value of their work. To them, fiscal gain was not associated with anything they produce. Th is was true across the three disciplines. For example, a professor of ec onomics contended, I dont think I need to necessarily be marketable. None of my research needs to be marketable in the sense that somebody wants to pay money for it.
111 A professor of sociology at FSU commented similarly: I want to be engaged in research that is going to have some relevance to contemporary debate and that is tied in to what is seen as good research and good science. In terms of economic yield, that doesnt really except keeping me employed, its not a major factor. I just dont respond to those kinds of economic incentives real well. And a professor of criminology at USF aired the same opinion: Its not that important to me if people want to buy something that comes out of the work that we do. Its more important to me to make a contribution to improve the quality of life in the community a nd help develop services that may be effective and then have them take on a lif e of their own. So, Im not interested in selling these things. I enjoy the process of developing them and evaluating them and hope that they continue over time, that theyre useful. Sometimes Ive done that, and thats been a nice experience. Im not interested in selling anything or getting rich. The term market was also interprete d in terms of the market for graduate students. An economist at FSU explained: We constantly talk among ourselves about the market and if other people dont understand that, then theyre missing out on something. This is a market. And we tent to interpret things like that and we do the same thing in talking about whether we were successful or not successf ul with graduate students. [Well ask] whats the market for graduate students? So that does permeate.
112 But the reference to a market of graduate students was made by non-economists as well. For example, a professor of criminology at UF noted: As a unit, we think about it [the mark et] in terms of ranking and recruiting graduate students. We determine our marketability based on how many applications we get at the graduate level and the quality of t hose applicants. I see us as a more marketable unit if we can br ing in students we want to work with and quality students that shoo t for the best programs. And as a professor of criminology at FSU commented, to get the best graduate students, you have to have funding for them. In sum, being marketable in the social sciences means operating in a market of worthy concepts, relevant resear ch, and quality graduate stude nts. This market of ideas is a common interpretation of academic work, so it makes sense professors in this study interpreted notions of market in the way that they did. This also explains their general acceptance. By perceiving the market in market or market-like activity to be a market of ideas, professors in this study were able to reconcile any negative implications that a market based on economic value might bring. According to the literature, academic capitalism threatens some social science disciplines because a pure market system does not support those who do not contribute to the bottom line or at least pay their own wa y. However, the findings of this research denote a sense of security among those interviewed. Beyond Economic Value Professors in this study were aware of th eir inability to contribute to the university in the form of large grants that carry indir ect costs, yet confiden t in their ability to
113 contribute to the university in other ways. Fo r instance, regarding university tradition and balance, a professor of so ciology at FSU commented: I think probably the overall trend is mo re focused on building the hard sciences than Sociology, but I dont feel that our department is devalued in the university, although I do think there is this emphasis on the grant-getti ng departments being favored somewhat. In recent hiring initia tives, they probably get more positions than we do. But our dean has been very good to us. Weve been hiring every year and every vacancy that weve had, weve been able to fill it plus some. So I havent felt any kind of negative I mean, I f eel like Florida State wants to keep a balanced university and while there is so me direction towards the hard sciences, I feel there is also a concern for arts and humanities and social science. I explicitly asked professors whether or not they felt valued or involved in the university-wide strategic dire ction. In response, professo rs often commented on their contribution to university-wide goals in the form of the research they conduct. For instance, a sociology professor at UF answered: The strategic plan of the university defi nitely aligns with what we do very closely. The university has emphasized ch ildren and families aging, and more recently environmental sciences. Part of the strategic plan also deals with globalization and international issues and a number of our faculty, in one way or another, are linked through race, ethnicity, migration, environment [studies]. A professor of criminology at UF made a sim ilar point: UF has a strategic plan and one of the priority areas is research concerning women and children and I fit that niche.
114 Her colleague commented similarly: We fit into a number of areas the univers ity is interested in. One of those is families and children and a lot of what we do is on juvenile delinquency, family factors in crime and delinquency, family vi olence, and things like that. So were a part of that strategy. So yeah, I woul d say right now, were well thought of. While for others, their contribution to uni versity-wide direction is about their role in undergraduate general education. Again, prof essors made clear their awareness of the difference between economic value and a more intrinsic, and just as important, kind of value. A professor of criminology at USF expr essed, the department is very important, because the student body is very big, enroll ment is high. Its very popular. Students like criminology. We have a lot of stuff to study, interesting stuff to study. He went on to say: I think its a very productive depart ment. There are good people here. We are producing very good research, very good public ations. We have a lot of students. We have a Ph.D. program. So I think it s an important department. I dont know how important it is in terms of grant m oney. With that, I dont think were as important as a department like chemistry or medicine, but in some ways I think the Criminology Department is very important to USF. One professor related the va lue of his unit to its national standing. As a professor of criminology at UF, he said, nationally were well thought of.... we re just about top ten [and] whenever you get that kind of rec ognition, then internally youre valued. The fact that professors came up with so many wa ys in which they fit into university-wide
115 strategic direction highlights the shifting and often ambiguous nature of such strategic plans. A professor of criminology at UF put it this way: University wide strategic direction right now is hard to say. Weve got a new president and a new provost, so who th e heck knows what the university-wide direction is. Generally sp eaking though, these universi ty-wide direction kind of things tend to be very broad, very genera l. And you sort of try to climb aboard where you can, but we dont have much say in what that direction is going to be. We just try to jump on for the ride if we can. A colleague in the same department commented: We have a new president and he just ci rculated, in early February, his working plan, his strategic plan. And y eah, were a part of that in the sense that, as a unit, like all other units, are trying to find out wh ere we fit into the presidents strategic plan for the university. Before we ha d an interim president who was around for about four years and he did the same th ing. It just sort of depends on whos strategic plan it is. When asked how he felt his unit fit into the cu rrent plan, he explaine d, just in terms of some of the things that are being prioritized like interdisciplinary research, which were really good at, some policy focus sorts of things, and in ternational things that are going on, that we fit in nicely. This was the majority view. However, a couple of dissenters make it relevant to point out that not everyone f eels the social sciences are va lued in terms of strategic direction. For instance, a professor of economics at USF commented:
116 I wouldnt have any reason to think that [w e are a part of the strategic plan]. I think if you go and ask that question to people in medicine and engineering, youll get a different answer. Yes and w hy wouldnt they be ? Theyre the ones bringing in the money, although we br ing in money through tuition and enrollment. We have what 6000 business majors. So were big, but we dont bring in money through grantsmaybe a litt le bit, but we are peanuts compared to medicine and engineering. Similar sentiment is found in the followi ng quote from a professor of criminology at USF: I think we have to be realistic that the strategic mission of the university is to be in the top 50 and were going to do that through the med school and thats just the reality of it. Thats where the funding is, thats where the major bucks are. Its the med school that drives us to that position. So what can criminology do to contribute? We can not be an annoyance and do our fair share, given that were just criminologists. So that means gaini ng national visibility within the field. WE do that through publication. We do that through strategic placement of our publications so that we are bett er known to other criminologist. The ability of social scientists to fi nd value in their work as it relates to university-wide strategic direc tion was found in their contribution to university tradition and balance, valued researc h, undergraduate education, and na tional ranking. Add to this the sometimes nebulous nature of university strategic plans and we fi nd social scientists feel their units are we ll thought of, even treasured by larger university directives, despite initial concerns of favoritism. Further, social science professors are not dissatisfied with
117 their role in university wide strategic di rection, nor to they consider themselves marginalized in the capitalism-driven university. From the results of this study, it is apparent that the university is maintaining a balance between units that contribute financially (those close to the market) and uni ts, far from the market, that contribute in other ways. So far, the findings allege there is a particular form of academic capitalism in the social sciences and that it involves different ways of bei ng entrepreneurial and marketlike. In sharing their stories, which form the basis of this new knowledge, faculty also expressed how they felt about the topic. In this regard, ther e was both support and opposition among participants. Advantages and Disadvantages Advantages. Interestingly, academic capitalism in the social sciences is considered a worthy pursuit for many. According to those interviewed, the worthi ness of academic capitalism (particularly grant activity) can be found in its ability to promote individual research, support graduate students, and provide assist ance to the department. For example, a professor of sociology at UF argued: Grants help provide research assistantships for some of the graduate students and summer money for the faculty and some overhead for the department while at the same time providing funds to run a program in the community where the academics are going to do certain things for, maybe its a health related clinic for mental health or reproductive planning... community members are being serviced. The academy is being serviced. Students are being taught. Faculty are being
118 provided the opportunity to do research, publis h, and the things that are part of the academic model, then all of those th ings can be woven together. The results of this study are consistent with the findings of Mendoza and Berger (2005) who concluded research partnerships w ith industry (a form of academic capitalism found elsewhere) can be beneficial for al l when done properly. This provides a winning situation for both academia and industr y, in which students are educated, basic science is conducted and technol ogy is transferred to industry (p.20). Securing external grants in the social sciences was viewed as a laudable pursuit to most of those I interviewed. For social scientists in this st udy, the utilization of external grants can be a win-win-win. They contended: Try to get money as much as you can and thats good, good for the salary, good for everybody. Because you have more reso urces, you can do more things. With less money, you cannot improve your techno logy, do research. Money is good. So you want to maximize your income or your resources Its good, not because of the money incentives, which are not bad, but mainly because of the objective of the activity: improving the social welfar e of the country/sta te/region/local area where money is the ends, not the means. (Professor of Economics at FSU) Ive had a lot of funding over the years, lo t of external funding. The reasons for it are that of course, it advances your ow n research It allows you to do your own research and explore your own ideas. Th e second thing it does is allow you to support graduate students in a bette r way. It allows you to support your department because every university has a system whereby some of the overhead
119 money that comes from the grants will flow back to the department. So you help your college, you help your department, and you help yourself. (Professor of Sociology at UF) However, as a professor of crimi nology at USF cautioned, You have to be creative about where you go for money so long as youre not obviously compromising values that we hold in the academy. A major rationale given for seeking external grants is that it serves as a means for professional autonomy. The ability to do what one wants or needs to do was a clear advantage of grant activity for faculty in this study. As one professor proclaimed, there is never enough money to do everything you wa nt to do. When asked what drove them in their efforts to secure external fundi ng, faculty at FSU in particular showed considerable consistency on this point: [About AC] If it lets you do what you want to do, then theres a purpose. Its for yourself and for your own career in the way you want to practice your profession. Youre not doing it for a boss thats telli ng you to bring in a m illion dollars this year. Thats really what being a prof essor is, being a professional is, youre practicing your profession, your way. (Professor of Sociology at FSU) We get outside funding just to take the pre ssure off our budget a nd it allows us to do more things if we get outside money. Bu t we can operate just fine without any outside funding. Wed just be a little more limited in some of the things that we want to do. And it allows us to do more of what we want to do as opposed to being kind of bare-boned and saying okay, here is our budget from the
120 department. We can do a few things. If we get outside funding, well then we can do more things. (Professor of Economics at FSU) I believe very firmly that what makes wh at I do valuable is that its good basic research, which means its nationally visibl e. Its published in the best journals. Its presented at NIH all of those th ings. Thats whats important about the research and thats the only reason, from my point of view, to get money. (Professor of Sociology at FSU) Others mentioned the importance of suppor ting graduate students. A professor of sociology at FSU made clear his intentions for securing external funding: I dont see myself as bringi ng in resources for the uni versity. I see myself as trying to bring in resources so that I can fund my graduate students and help them pay their way to meetings, get research experience, and have money to pay them to work on projects. My concern is with my students, not with paying for the universitys needs. A professor of criminology at FSU agreed, T o get the best graduate students, you have to have funding for them and that puts even more pressure to bring in outside funding. A professor of sociology at U SF made yet the same point. In discussing what grants make possible, he strongly stated: As a faculty member, we have the respons ibility to bring in the money to support our students. I believe that firmly. If we just stick our hand out and take what the university gives us, then were not doi ng the best as far as our students.
121 All in all, securing external money is something professors in the social sciences do because it supports professional autonomy, re search activity, and graduate students. However, beyond the benefits of extra spendi ng money, faculty cited other advantages as well. For instance, some feel academic capitalism breeds competition and that competition, promotes excellence. They commented: I think in general some competition is probably a good thing because it keeps people on their toes. It makes you want to excel if you have some sort of benchmark. Its kind of like criminology schools get ranked every year. It comes out in US News and World Report. We ge t to see where we are and its a very important thing. You want to be number one, right? So you try to do things to improve your ranking just like the FSU base ball team. Id say as a unit, you work harder and hopefully smarter to try and do the things to increase your visibility, your image, your standing amongst others. (Professor of Criminology at FSU) I like the entrepreneurial idea because I want our teachers to be nationally visible. I want the quality of teaching in this de partment to follow the national trends and to keep up with innovations, technology, and so forth. And the way to do that is to be pushing the boundaries of whatever it is youre doing. This is what we ought to be doing at every level. Everything were doing, we should be doing at the frontier. Thats what an entrepreneur is, whether its a dollar measure or a learning measure. (Professor of Sociology at FSU)
122 This Darwinian logic says that more competitive, more scarce, and more selective, leads to f itter and more worthy of survival hence better (p. 142), although in a competition, the objective is relative performance, not absolute performance (Marginson and Considine, 2000, p. 184). This again leads to the issue of disparity among disciplines raised in Chapter One. Those in favor also view the entrepre neurial university as more accountable and argue for the benefits of being held respons ible for things such as student learning, teaching, research, and community service. Fo r example, a professor of criminology at UF discussed the benefits of taking a more market based approach: My understanding of zero-based budgeting and other kinds of business budget models is that they require you to sh ow that youre making progress and I like that. I can see the value of accountabi lity. I think everybody should have it and you should be able to go to anyone and say, what have you done? So I really like that they can make us more acc ountable. Im okay with that. A colleague concurred: Knowi ng what people want from yo u and clear expectations, I think thats good stuff. I think its fair. I th ink there is too much vagueness in academia. In sum, the advantages of academic cap italism in the social sciences focus on securing external monies that have the pot ential to provide pr ofessional autonomy and support to graduate students. As a business model it also brings competition and accountability, both of which can lead to excellence. Disadvantages. However, participants also cited disadvantages to academic capitalism in the social sciences. For the most part, this perspective claims th ere is a fundamental
123 inconsistency in running a university like a business. As a professor of sociology at USF noted the values of business are not the va lues of education. Unlike the view towards securing external funding, academic capitalism in its broadest sense was considered a slippery slope. The data make clear that some professors in this study believe there is a fundamental inconsistency between the ideologies of university life and entrepreneurialism. Respondents agreed about this regardless of discipline or institution. A professor of economics at FSU noted, We have different incentives. Were not expected to show a profit at the end of the year The incentives in the corporate world are completely different than the incentives at the univers ity. A professor of so ciology at FSU made the same point: Its a different way of ope rating at the university than in the business world and thankfully so. Some of the values that drive our work are non-materialistic. Its very difficult to adopt a kind of a singul ar focus on profit to a case in which in terms of economics, is a losing propositi on. Were never going to generate high revenues. Were never going to be a Microsoft. Similar sentiment was found in criminology as well when one professor commented, I think market values and market concepts are useful and they have their place, but I think that things can often be judged by other valu es and other terms than their marketability, than their bottom line value. He went on to say: Sometimes things poetry, archeology, philosophy wheres the market? Wheres the bottom-line? Literature are th ey not intrinsically valuable? I mean isnt the culture richer for it? Music and art in general? Thats the danger is that
124 those areas within the university that dont have a market relevance in traditional capitalism terms could be marginalized or eliminated. You know, unless it could be seen as producing people who contribu te to the market economy in some marketable, money rendering way than thei r utility would be somehow disvalued. And I think thats inherently wrong, especially for a university. The idea that corporate ways and the unive rsity life are intrinsically different was extended to discussions about measuring what universities produce. A professor of economics at USF raised this concern in discussing the difficulty of assessing knowledge. He argued: What we produce is much more difficult to measure. What we produce here is education, knowledge. We dont produce degrees. We produce knowledge. How do you measure knowledge? How do we measure the knowledge you have when you come in compared to when you get out? This is a very complex industry, what we produce. A professor of criminology at UF held a similar position: You cant really have a zero-based b udgeting model for a university system. I dont think when they were developed at th e corporate level they were ever really meant to be applicable to a university. I dont like the idea of universities being assessed on their value or about the ability to produce certain things when were producing something that you cant really quantify student knowledge, increase in experience, cultural experience. However, some discussed the advantag es along with the disadvantages. As a professor of economics at FSU cautioned, I think this can be very good. But anybody
125 who thinks it [academic capitalism] is going to be risk-free is really missing out on something. To some, there are potential bene fits to an entrepreneurial university, but there are also some possible risks as well. In the words of one professo r, I think there are some real strengths in what is happeni ng and there are weakne sses too if it helps administrators and universities make more informed decisions that value and reflect faculty strengths, then fine. But if it doesnt, then not fine. Taken as a whole then, professors in the social sciences experience and respond to academic capitalism in unique ways that focus on the rising prominence of external research grants. The Future A natural way to end this section is to consider the future. The general outlook given by respondents includes an expectation that academic capitalism will continue to gain prominence among the social sciences. This is supported by the junior, senior faculty divide and recent rele vance in meetings, tenure and promotion, as well as in new hires. In discussing external grants, a professor with a dual appointment in sociology and criminology at UF predicted, The more th e university goes on, the more and more it depends on that kind of money [external grants]. A professor of economics agreed, I can imagine social scientists beginning to feel more of this because over time as were seeing external grant writing as being a more and more valued way of funding the basic functions of the university. Also on the t opic of external grants, a professor of criminology at USF commented:
126 Its not going to get better as I can see it, certainly in the foreseeable future, and universities depend a lot on th ese resources to do different things. So I dont think its going to let up. I thin k its going to continue. A professor of criminology at UF said about th e pressure to generate external funding, I think its likely to get toughe r and tougher and well be evaluated on our ability to bring in those dollars and use those dollars. Professors also expressed a fear that increased dependence on grants will bring with it the potential of the market dictating what is, and what is not, worthy of support at the university. A professor of criminology at FSU noted, Thats the danger. There are areas within the university that dont have a market-relevance in traditional capitalism terms [that] could be marginalized or elim inated. A colleague in sociology at USF shared this concern: Jump forward 30 years, what would the university look like if it were run by grants and private organizations?... Wh at happens to people who are raising important questions about gender or race, bu t there is not really a market for that. Do they just get put by the wayside? It becomes if you cant peddle your wares in the market, then are your ideas worth not hing? It becomes measuring the worth of ideas by just monetary value and market. you cant just measure an idea by its value in the market. In truth, no one knows what the future hol ds. Concerns expressed by faculty raise interesting questions. Will the momentum of academic capitalism continue and in what ways? In the future, will social sciences main tain their sense of pride and value adapting in their own way on their own terms?
127 Along Discipline Lines To respond directly to some initial plan s of the research, data did not yield as much variance along discipline lines as original ly anticipated. In fact the professors in this study tended to agree regardless of disc ipline. Indeed, there was a great deal of common perception among those interviewed. In only one case was there a clear pattern of responses related to discipline. That is, professors of criminology reported a specific crunch on federal monies for research in their discipline and are thus feeling the need to become more competitive or entrepreneurial. Resources in criminology. The only significant finding along discipli nary lines was that criminologists in particular expressed concern about a current strain on resources, resulting in more competitive grant activity. In the words of a professor of criminology at UF, Here in criminology, theyre cutting all this money Fede ral sources are very tight. Its really super hard to get money. Over and over, professors of crimi nology reported a recent crunch on funding opportunities in their field. From their comments, it seems federal funding for research on deviance, corrections juvenile justice, and other areas of criminology and criminal justice are drying up as the government shifts money to other areas like homeland security. An associate professor of criminology at UF told me, The Department of Justice has a certain amount of money and its comp etitive. An associate professor at USF agreed, Criminal Justice at least the fede ral sources are becoming fewer in dollars and much more competitive. At FSU as well, one professor noted: In criminology, we have
128 the National Institute of Justice, probably the major funder, and they keep chopping the budget. The word dry was popular in describing current federal support for research in criminology. A professor at UF told me, NIJ [N ational Institute of Justice] is just dry. Another at USF commented, Were hitti ng up anybody for money because our usual federal sources are all dried up. Yet another lamented, G etting resources is not that easy. Its more difficult than it has been in a long time...because funding is drying out. Findings presented so far are made up from themes that emerge d from the data in response to the research questi ons. What follows discusses findi ngs as they relate to the theoretical component of this study. Theoretical Considerations A critical component of any re search is its potenti al to inform theory. In this case, the results both support and debunk existing kno wledge. Overall, the findings support resource dependence as a useful theory in explaining the rise of academic capitalism, but data showed signs of institutionalism as well. However, references to globalization were also made in professors attempts to explain academic capitalism. Resource dependence. As discussed in Chapter Two, resource de pendence theory is about the influence of external resources on the behavior of organizations and its members. Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) wrote, a good deal of organizational be havior, the actions taken by organizations, can be understood only by knowing something about the organizations environment and the problems it creates for obtaining resources ( p. 3). In resource dependence terms, situational constituencie s is the most influential factor in
129 organizational action. When applied to highe r education, resource de pendence says the university has become more entrepreneurial in response to situationa l constituencies such as the government pressures and a shifting resource base. In talking about recent trends of acad emic capitalism, many professors in this study pointed to state government as a r eason for increasing academic capitalism. In Florida, higher education is particularly po litical, with a history of clashes between a governor appointed governing board and the pub licly elected state legislature. In resource dependence terms, Florida politic s is a situational c onstituency for public universities in the state. As a prof essor of criminology at UF commented: Clearly, its happening since the restructuri ng of the education system in Florida. I think thats clearly whats going on, to pus h the business model I think that in our state the governor is very focused on th at sort of thing. Thats how he thinks about the world. So thats why I think we re getting pressure for it [to be more business-like]. Also referring to state government and in line with resource dependence, is the idea that public univer sities are receiving less state support. A professor of sociology at FSU explained the situation this way, The cha nge at the university has been the decline in state money has made us increasingly rely on money that we gene rate in order to do the things we want to do for our work. It s a conscious strate gy. A professor of criminology at UF put it this way, What is e ffectively happening is we are no longer a state supported entity. So whats the alternative? The altern ative is to become marketoriented. The alternative is to become entrepreneurial.
130 The influence of state government (situational constituency) on public universities (organization) was a common concern. This wa s particularly true for state funding. An economist at USF stated, Theyre cutting money. State support has been cut. So were going to have to get the money from some wh ere else and research universities, like we are, were supposed to get it with our resear ch. Across the board, faculty expressed the belief that less support from the state create s a need to be more entrepreneurial. In fact, the idea that universities are looking for funding beyond state support was raised several times. In discussing ways a public institution can increase its resource base, one professor suggested look[ing] for funding outside of st ate appropriations. The belief is that state appropriations are diminishing and so univers ities are looking for more money to fund their activities. Or as a professor of sociology at FSU commented, There is less public funding available, so th ere is more pressure on faculty to try and get grants and bring in money. A professor of criminology at UF felt the strain at an individual level when she explained: Because the state is cutting more mone y, we dont have a lot of resource money for simple things like you would think of like paper clips and paper that we think you have to have to have your job. I actually buy a lot of my own because we just dont have a lot here. And we dont have a lot because we just dont have a lot of extra money floating around because the state only gives you a small amount of money. The perception that state f unding is declining was prevalent and this is relevant to resource dependence. However, a recent study conducted by the Center for Study of
131 Education Policy at Illinois State Univer sity concluded, total state general-fund appropriations for higher education have showed recent gains (Schmidt, 2006). In Florida, state appropriations for higher e ducation went up 6.9 percent from 2005-6 to 2006-7. This is not to say such short term ch ange contradicts what has been a long term trend and it supports Hoveys argument that hi gher education is a balancing wheel of state budgets since recent state budgets have sh owed surpluses. Regardless of what the future holds, there is still a strong belief that public support for higher education is declining. Then again, higher education is in a seemingly endless quest for more resources. Colleges and univers ities tend to always be in ne ed. No amount of public or private support can alleviate the drive to ge t more and do more. For public universities, state support will forever fall relative to need. A professor of criminology at USF discussed what he thought was an entrepreneurial approach to dealing with th e perceived crunch ta p into a diversified funding base that includ es research grants: We need money. We need money to do re search and I dont think the university should be the one who is re sponsible to provide all th is money for researchers. Especially when there are agencies who specialize in some kind of research and you should be able to get money to do th at research. Also these agencies will think of the problems that should be studied, important problems. As faculty at public research universities in Florida, professors in this study reported pressures from state government and rela ted issues of a shifting resource base as reasons for the entrepreneurial universit y. In resource dependence terms, academic
132 capitalism is an organizational response to ex ternal conditions related to the state. The findings support this notion. However, issues of institutionalism were raised as well. Institutionalism. An institutionalist perspective suggests or ganizations act in response to gaining legitimacy, which is about a generalized pe rception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions (Shumar, 1995 p. 574). In other words, people will do what is considered proper or valued by their peers. Institutionalism claims organizations look to others like th em for standards or legitimacy. Institutionalism was most clearly seen at FSU where it seems entrepreneurial activity is due, in part, to their current drive for membership in the prestigious American Association of Universities (AAU). Professors there were explicit about the connection between boosting grant activity and the goal of becoming part of the AAU. Gaining membership involves ramping up grant activ ity. One professor commented, with trying to get into the American Asso ciation of Universities, there is a strong push to get outside grant money. A colleague commented similarly: The provost is very interested in seei ng people get funding. Florida State right now is trying to trying to get itself inducted into the AAU. One of their main criteria deals with levels of funding, whether or not the university is getting enough funding compared to peer institutions.
133 Another remarked: Clearly the last couple of years here at FSU with the opening of the medical school and the Pathways of Excellence a nd trying to get into the American Association of Universities, there is a strong push to get outside grant money. So grant activity at FSU has been fueled by a desire for legitimacy, in this case AAU membership. Also in support of an institutionalist framework, a professor of economics at FSU discussed looking to peers for solutions to budget problems, one of which is being more entrepreneurial in funding your own agenda. He explained: I think the University of Michigan and the University of Virginia each receive less than 10% of thei r total budget from state appropria tions. That seems to me to be a good model because then you insulate yourself from politics in the state capital and the state budgetary process. So youre more entrepreneurial in funding your own agenda. [Another] thing is peopl e, organizations, and so forth look at when they rate the quality of the universitie s is the level of grants that they get a lot of the times government grants. I think thats a poor measure myself, but nevertheless its part of th e ranking. If you want to rank hi gher its reasonable to go for those grants Its unclear to me how close a relationship there is between increased grants and increased academic excellence. Nevertheless, if people perceive that relationship thats another reason to be entrepreneurial to go after those things that people perceive as indicators of academic excellence. The idea that grant activity is prestigious is common in higher education and it was expressed by those interviewed as well. Fo r example, in discussing the importance of
134 grant activity for a university, a professor of sociology at FSU commented, [it] becomes a prime consideration in the quality of th e university is how much money does it bring in. where we rank nationally in terms of our funding and all this kind of stuff. In discussing the idea of a corporate a pproach to higher education, a professor of economics at FSU gave further support for an institutionalist point of view: The genesis of this model is the idea there have been so many examples of community wide economic activity bei ng driven by these entrepreneurial activities of the universities like Resear ch Triangle and Silicon Valley that no one wants to stomp on this activity. So peopl e look around for kind of the right way to do it. There were also reports of activity related to gaining legitimacy at USF. There, the raised importance of securing external m onies might be connected to their use of AAU standards and benchmarks and the recent Top 50 in 50 campaign, which is to become part of the top 50 public research universities by its 50th year. Just like FSUs drive for AAU membership, goals of the recent efforts involve increasing research grant activity. In fact, becoming elig ible for AAU membership is part of USFs strategic plan. Although, none of the professors mentioned th is connection explicitl y, the pressures at USF also confirm institutionalist theory in this way. For example, a professor of criminology there commented: One of the things that I perceive is th at USF wants to do more research and get more research dollars because again that is a major goal for being in the higher level of the Carnegie list .it makes the university happy in part because thats one of the criteria for Carn egie is federal funding.
135 A colleague of his in the Department of Economics commented similarly when he said, You notice the most successful univers ities have very good endowments, so you want to create a nice endowment. A profe ssor of criminology made a parallel reference within his discipline: On the whole, we know our mandate is to produce commensurate with other university programs in our area and that is kind of our role in moving us forward. I think we understand that we re supposed to benchmark ourselves against similar programs in our field and sort of try to progress that way. In these data, the rationale for academic capitalism exemplifies an institutionalist approach. These findings also support the litera ture, particularly the work of Fairweather (1988) who argued entrepreneuria l behavior at universities not only contributes new revenue but also generates prestige (Eckel, 2003, p. 868). And Marginson and Considine (2000) argue that can be even more importa nt than the money. Research, among other things is a source of both income and institut ional value (prestige) for universities. As Burton Clark wrote about higher education, pres tige is the coin of th e realm. Slaughter and Leslie (1997) talk about how universit ies are both prestige maximizers and profit maximizers by nature so that with academic capitalism, institutionalism and resource dependence play a role. In other words, there is little doubt entrepreneurial beha vior at the university is about both a response to situationa l constituencies (resource dependence), but also the desire to be legitimate (institutionalism). To borrow from Table 1, academic capitalism in the social sciences can be viewed as a bout both conforming to collective norms and beliefs (institutionalism) and coping with interdependence (resource dependence). It
136 is also involved both social worthiness (i nstitutionalism) and resource mobilization (resource dependence). This idea highlights the point Oliver ( 1991) makes about the convergent insights of institutional and res ource dependence perspectives (p. 145). Entrepreneurial university can be explai ned as much by habit and convention (institutionalism), as it can by power and in fluence (resource dependence) or similarly by adherence to rules and norms as much as management of scarce resources. Perhaps, resource dependence best explains the start of a more profit-orientated way in higher education and institutionalism best informs how it has been sustained. I thought this might be the case in thinking about the work of Tolbert (1985) who wrote, the central premise of this [combined] a pproach is that dependency relationships can, over time, become socially defined as appr opriate and legitimate (p. 1). Colleges and universities have become more market orie nted because of a shifting resource base, which is related to the state for public re search universities lik e those in this study (resource dependence). Market and market-lik e behavior that s upports research and professional autonomy fits well with traditio nal notions of prestige (institutionalism). Academic capitalism becomes something legitimate to mimic, in institutional terms, which explains how it has spread to othe r organizations. Grant activity provides both prestige and extra support, which coincide to make academic capitalism acceptable among academics, regardless of discipline. However, academic capitalism also has ties to globalization. This was a theoretical construct I did not initially make part of the studys design, although I probably should have since it is a concept Slau ghter and Leslie (1997) discuss, as well as others (Shuman, 1997; Carroll and Beaton, 2000; Marginson and Considine, 2000).
137 However, globalization is not so much an expl anatory framework, as it is a notion to be considered. Globalization. Globalization, in general, is more of a no tion then it is a theory. In other words, it describes more than it explains. Institutiona lism and resource dependence, on the other hand, are theories that explai n organizational response to en vironmental pressures. The word globalization brings to mind interdepe ndence, internationalism, and other grand societal forces such as culture, politics, economics, and technology. As part of this globalism, higher education functions in an environment characterized by economic interconnectedness, political democrac y, market economy, consumerismglobal ecological issues, and global multicultural values (p. 251). In terms of academic capitalism, globalization is the context for the spread or dominance of capitalism in general. Slaughter and Leslie (1997) used the growth of global markets as a context for their discussion on academic capitalism and others use it as well, including professors in this study. For example, a professor of sociology at FSU contended, I really think you have to connect it [academic capitalism] to nationa l, international comparisons that are more orienting toward generating profit, generating tangible material outcomes. In discussing business-like behaviors of public research un iversities, another sociologist commented similarly, I think its societ y. We have this trend to mark et everything. I guess its just something that is going to happen. Professors of economics and criminology also made this point. A professor of economics at FSU explained the increasing tr end [of academic capitalism] is because the
138 world is more integrated. There is competition anywhere in any institution, any university. They have to compete. A criminologist at FSU argued: The values and structures of capitalism per se have proliferated into all areas of culture and certain politics. Its like ther e isnt a competing set of values. Its all about markets bottom lines, and return on investment as if there were no other values in the world like community, like neighborhood, like family, like other things that matter besides just the botto m line what capitalism is about. I think the ethic and ethos and spirit of capitalis m has just exploded. Not just here, but around the world. Its a global thing and so I think the pres sure within the university is just the same as everywhere else the proliferation of market values, market culture, market ideology. These data support Shumars notion that higher education, in its commodification, mirrors many other aspects of our global soci ety. It also supports Carroll and Beatons discussion of the effects of capitalist globalizat ion on universities. That is corporatizing university practices of governan ce, teaching, research, etc., as universities become key ancillaries of production (2000, p. 71), which is in line with Currie (2003) as well, who wrote: The particular impact of globalizat ion on universities starts with the transformation on the nation state into a competitive player in the new global marketplace [and] creates markets where none existed before and encourages public institutions to beha ve in market-like ways.
139 It is logical that those interviewed w ould take a globalizatio n stance since it is something they themselves will often study as social scientists. From these data and the literature combined, globalization con tinues to be a cons iderable factor. All in all, academic capitalism is a complex phenomenon with roots in many places, many of which were identified by the part icipants in this study. As a professor of criminology at FSU said: I think its so multi-faceted as to what the causes might be. He went on to say Honestly, Im not sure I fully understand it. Resource dependence, institutionalism, and larger trends of globali zation are likely all a part of understanding academic capitalism. Some in this study interpret their experience with academic capitalism in terms of globalization and certa inly there are global factors involved, but there seems to also be more local issues of resource dependence and institutional frameworks at work as well.
140 Chapter Five Conclusions and Discussion Chapter Five provides a summary of the research, implications of the findings, suggestions for further re search, and a conclusion. Summary This study explores how faculty in the so cial sciences experience and respond to academic capitalism. Academic capitalism is about the advance of a profit motive at the university and the pursuit of external monies or mark et/market-like behavior by professors and other university personnel. Th is research expands ex isting literature which has focused on the hard or natural sciences, and other areas more closely aligned with the market. Thirty-seven qualitative research inte rviews were conducted between March and July of 2006 with professors of sociol ogy, criminology, and economics at the UF, FSU, and USF. Results reveal academic capitalism in the social sciences is mostly about grant activity and involves essentially no technology transfer or pate nting. Further, that grant activity is somewhat sporadic, still of marg inal concern, and more important to junior faculty than for tenured senior faculty. Findi ngs also suggest academic capitalism in the social sciences is about a market of ideas, based on the value of positive social change and quality research, rather than economic yield.
141 The theoretical framework of the study proposed institutionalism and resource dependence theory as useful frameworks for viewing academic capitalism. The findings confirm the usefulness of institutionalism and resource dependence theory, but also add notions of globalization. Academic cap italism is about gaining legitimacy (institutionalism), responding to external constituencies to enhance revenue flows and buffer the institution from resource reductions (resource dependence), and trends of commodification in a global marketplace (globalization). Implications The results of this research can stand al one and be interprete d within the context of the study. However, it is also importan t to consider its implications for existing knowledge. In this regard, ther e are a number of points to be made. First, this study confirms that academic capitalism is uneven. That is, being entrepreneurial and getting involved with market and marketlike activity is different for the social sciences than it is for other areas in the university. Second, the fi ndings of this study contradict predictions that this unevenness will cause loss of power or a feeling of not being valued among those not aligned with the mark et. Third, this study conclude s that faculty work patterns in the social sciences have ch anged little in the face of a cademic capitalism, at least not yet. Fourth, this research s upports the literature that says academic capitalism does not typically displace traditional academic cultur e. Fifth, resource dependence continues to be a useful theory as does institutionalis m and globalization. Sixth, implications for practice are provided. Seventh, a new way of viewing the effects of academic capitalism is presented. Unevenness.
142 As stated, this study confirms that academic capitalism is an uneven phenomenon. Just as Ylijoki said, Engaging in academic cap italism is everyday reality in all units but takes a diversity of forms depending on how clos e or distant the field is from the market (p. 307). The results of this study uphold this st atement as seen in th e specific form of academic capitalism found in the social scie nces and professors discussion of the continuum of disciplines based on relevance to the market. The results of this study verify that academic capitalism does not imp act segments of higher education uniformly with the greatest difference showing up when comparing social versus life or hard sciences. The initial plan of seeing differences among sociology, criminology, and economics in terms of closeness or distance to the market was not realized. Rather, those interviewed for this study yielded a fairly c onsistent picture from which we can conclude a shared experience. It seems, in the hard sciences, being entrepreneurial is a much more critical thing than it is for most social scientists. In the social sciences, academic capitalism in general, and grant activity in particul ar, are sporadic and still somewhat peripheral to core activities. In units like medicine, chemistry, and engineering, academic capitalism is required to conduct research and establish tenur e, or even maintain employment. In the social sciences, academic capitalism is more about extra support, evaluation enhancement, and prestige. In this sense, the findings suggest that the social sciences are still relatively insulated from the market and have yet to become the academic entrepreneurs as presented by Slaughter and Le slie (1997). In sum, this st udy backs up existing literature, which claims there are irregularities in how academic capitalism is experienced among
143 disciplines. In other words, academic capitalism is not universal or as Slaughter and Leslie put it, movement toward academic capitalism is far from uniform, indeed, it is characterized by unevenness (p. 12). Still valued. In discussing capitalism in general, Bowe n (2005) wrote, it may result in greater freedom for some (the sharks), but may also oppress others (the minnows). Sharks here refer to those close to the market, gobbli ng up significant resources, while the minnows are those far from it, getting the smaller prizes In this scheme, those I interviewed would be considered minnows. Slaughter and Leslie (1997) take the same position discussing academic capitalism with their talk of haves and have-nots. They wrote: Some departments, colleges, and curricular areas gain revenue shares (e.g., some areas of the physical and biological scienc es and engineering, business, and law), whereas areas such as the humanities, so me physical sciences (e.g., physics), and most social sciences lost shares, as do fields such as education, social work, home economics, or family studies. According to the literature, an initial concern of academic capitalism is that it might be more easily understood and utilized by academic units most closely aligned with the market and that by extension, could harm those not closely aligned with the market. Awbery (2002) pointed ou t, fields close to the market continue to gain power while those less close are losing influence (p. 4). Aronowitz (2000) also wrote about an emerging framework of prestige and priv ilege based on grant activity, with academic capitalists on top and those pursuing knowledge for its own sake or for human
144 betterment on the bottom. Again, those interv iewed for this study would be considered on the bottom. However, the findings of this study reject such a stance. Contrary to what the literature predicts, the majority of professors in the social sciences do not feel oppressed. In fact, many faculty members that I interviewed felt valued despite larger trends of market and market-like behavior and their ab ility as social scientists to respond. They were aware of their inability to contribute financially, but proud of their role in the traditional core of the university. The idea that disciplines with little po tential to contribute economically might lose power remains to be seen. At least accord ing to professors in this study, their work maintains value and contributes socially regardle ss of its ability to bring in large grants that impact university bottom lines. As a pr ofessor of criminology at USF commented, if I can make a difference, constructive difference, thats what drives me. So even if institutions are directing efforts towards pr ograms closest to the market, social science faculty continue to feel valued. These findi ngs suggest the university is maintaining a balance with concern for teaching, research, a nd service that includes disciplines near and far from the market. Further, and more impor tantly, social sciences are not doing without as was suggested in Academic Capitalism which predicts institutions and faculty that are not successful in securing external funds, will do without. Faculty work-patterns. Another implication of this study on existi ng research is that academic capitalism has not (at least yet) really changed faculty work patterns in the social sciences. Slaughters claim that globali zation of the political economy has destabilized university
145 professional work patterns may hold true for uni versity administrators and professors in the medical and natural sciences but it has yet to become a meaningful part of social sciences professorial work patterns. In his work on the entrepreneurial university, Clark (1998) wrote faculty in the social sciences must look out for themselves, raise money, actively choose among specialties, and otherwise take on an entr epreneurial outlook ( p. 146). These findings confirm Clarks predictions. There was so me indication of changing faculty work patterns as seen in the discu ssion about fund-raising and faculty, as well as the increasing importance of grant activity in tenure, pr omotion, and hiring. Although grant activity is gaining increased importance, it or any othe r form of academic capitalism has not truly taken hold in the social scienc es. In other words, it has taken effect, but it is not the requirement that it is in the hard scie nces, nor has it changed work-patterns. The revision of the balance among t eaching, research, and invention found by Etzkowitz et al (1998) within the life scienc es, was not found within the social sciences. Their idea was that academic capitalism might force faculty to spend more time on securing external grants and less time on inst ruction. However, this research puts grant activity as still somewhat marginal and sporadic to daily professorial activity in the social sciences, particularly for thos e with tenure. However, for those without te nure, securing external grants was much mo re important, and for them, Aronowitz statement about faculty being urged, cajoled, a nd even threatened to direct their scholarship and research to the ever-decreasing pots of grant gold on penalty of losing resources such as computer time, assistants, equipment, promotions and tenure (p. 62) might be true.
146 Without really collecting data, Slaughter and Leslie (1997) guessed that academic capitalism in the social sciences might be less about a research product and more about selling services. This research both agrees and disagrees with this point. Capitalizing the curriculum, as seen at USF is about both sel ling services and creating a product, albeit an educational one as opposed to a scientific one. Grant activity as the primary form of academic capitalism among the social sciences was portrayed as neither a research product nor service, although some of the projects occurring in the research centers could be considered part of public service. Howe ver, marketing initiatives are more about selling than being about creati ng a product. On the prediction that faculty far from the market will teach more and research less (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997; Awbery, 2002), these data were even less clear. Traditional academic culture A review of the literature on academic capitalism in Chapter Two revealed solid agreement among researchers regarding the streng th of traditional acad emic culture in the face of academic capitalism. The findings of this study back that up. Very much like Gumports (2002) co-existence of social a nd industrial logics and Ylijokis (2003) conclusion that increasing mark et-orientation does not disp lace traditional academic practices, values and ideals as researchers try to accommodate them to entrepreneurial activities (p. 307), this study shows trad itional academic culture is alive and well. Mendoza (2005) also found the incorporati on of market and market-like activities into traditional academic frameworks. Her dissertation research focused on graduate student socialization in departments heavily involved in academic capitalism. She found, despite the high value that students place on industrial partners hips, the traditional
147 values of the academic profession are being preserved through their socialization (p. 121). In line with such prev ious research, social scientists in this study are holding onto traditional academic values even in the face of growing capitalist pressures. This is significant because of its consistency. The regularity with which traditional academic values maintain a place in the face of current market forces on the university, combined with academic capitalisms unevenness are the tw o most sure aspects of the scholarly literature on the issues at hand. Theory Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) let go of resource dependence in their book Academic capitalism and the new economy. This is because a premise of resource dependence theory, as of much organization th eory, is that there is a relatively clear boundary between the organization and its en vironment (p.11-12). To Slaughter and Rhoades, there are no boundaries or boundari es are unclear. However, this study proposes the idea that resource dependence can still inform the study of academic capitalism. Theoretically, the support fo r resource dependence among the findings was fairly strong. Even if the boundaries are bl urred, resource dependence should not be dismissed. It remains a useful part of expl aining academic capitalism and adds to notions that institutionalism and globalizat ion play a role as well. Early on, it was expected that both institutionalism and resource dependence theory play a role in explaining academic capitalism. Their asset as a dual theoretical perspective is only strengthen ed by added notions of globaliz ation. So if globalization is at play here, which the liter ature suggests and this study backs up, how does it relate to explanations put forth by resource dependence and institutionalism?
148 Globalization as a context for higher edu cation helps explain shifting resources, political environment, global competition, and increasing interconnectedness that shape organizational behavior in higher educati on and elsewhere. Perhaps these larger globalization forces make up the organizationa l field in which resource dependence and institutionalism operate. So as the backdrop, globalization sets th e stage for shifting resources and institutional in terconnectedness that forms th e environment that supports academic capitalism. Practice On a more practical note, what are the implications of the findings on how professors do what they do? One prediction is that, like many other professions, faculty work is becoming more specialized. For in stance, some professors focus more on teaching, while others focus on research and gr ant activity. The rise of part-time faculty, who focus on teaching, has already been linke d with academic capitalism. An implication of this is a call to acknowledge differentiate d paths of faculty work, particularly as it relates to tenure. In other words, the role of grants in achieving tenure should depend on the professors discipline. The Academic Capitalism Continuum As Chapter Two points out, there are se veral words used to discuss the ideas studied in this research. My decision to use the terms academic capitalism and entrepreneurial was based on my own starting point with the literature, Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University In light of this research experience, I have gained a deep ened, wider, and more complex understanding of academic capitalism. Slaughter and Leslie (1997) explicitly consider the terms use
149 and admit having lengthy discussions with colleagues about whether or not it fully captures what they meant by it. And while some agreed with their choice, others felt it too strongly connoted a Faustian bargain with the business class (p. 8). However, in the end, the university administration, professors, and other personnel they interviewed really did portray academic capitalism quite litera lly with their examples of academic professionals producing and selling academic c apital. Capitalism refers to an economic system that revolves around private ownershi p and the free market. It often brings to mind competition and, more importantly, the motive of profit. This definition makes sense for those that Slaughter and Leslie studied. However, in this study, those interviewed showed just the oppos ite. In fact, they showed little to no desire for profit and th ey valued scholarly contribution and the improvement of society over individual gain and competition. In many ways, they represent a much more tradi tional academic mode of th inking as opposed to more capitalistic ways. I also borrowed entreprene urial from Slaughter and Leslie, directly from the title of their book. Again, their global focus turned up a grea t deal of what would be considered entrepreneurial, which generally refers to business ownership. Yet, many definitions feature the term risk. Again, the professors I interviewed for this study did not really portray themselves as entrepreneurial, per se at least not in a classical sense. Throughout this study, I have intentionally stayed open in looking at a wide reaching and current notion within higher education that includes academic capitalism, entrepreneurialism, a market focus, and other related themes. In applying a social science
150 lens, this study has shed light on a different kind of academic capitalism one that does not fit exactly into the current model. One way to think about this variation is with a continuum. The lack of uniformity in academic capitalism can be thought of in terms of a range of expressions based on distance to the market and disc iplinary lines. On one end of this continuum is little to no effect of academic capitalism and on the othe r is near complete effect. Academic capitalism is a want or wish in the areas with little to no e ffect, whereas it is a need/requirement in units of high effect. S uperimpose this range of effect with the continuum of disciplines presented earl ier and we see something like Figure 1. Figure 1. Effect of academic capitalism on faculty along discipline lines. Humanities Social Sciences Natural Sciences ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No effect Modest effect Aver age effect Significant effect Full effect Further, there are continuu ms within continuums to show further variation within each group of disciplines. So that, depending on the discipline, in the humanities there is modest to no effect, in the social sciences there is modest to average effect, and in the natural sciences there is significant to fu ll effect. Traditional notions of academic capitalism can be found towards the right of the scale. Since the results of this study can only in form what is occurring in the social sciences, its presentation of academic capital ism can be found somewhere in the middle. From the data, sociology, criminology, and ec onomics might be considered somewhere
151 between modest and average effect. Psyc hology, as reported by faculty, falls more towards average to significant effect. How this is playing out in the humanities, where it is assumed there is even less effect related to their distance from the market is not known. It is likely, in this regard, that the continuum of effect can be broadened to go beyond no effect to complete resistance or downright objection. The same could be said for the extreme right, which can be expanded to incl ude a sort of complete immersion without awareness of any other way. Further Research Most research raises more questions than it answers, so here I present the need for further studies on unanswered questions genera ted by this study. Like Chapter One points out, there are numerous ways one can study en trepreneurialism at the university. As discussed in the section on limitations, the scope of this research leaves a lot to be explored. I mentioned students, administrators graduate student employees, and staff as other groups to consider and cu rriculum, research, and student learning as further topics for research on the impact of academic capitalism. In fact, the topic of how students experience and re spond to academic capitalism was raised by some of the participants. Discu ssion of issues related to an entrepreneurial university raised the subject of student consumerism on more than one occasion. For instance, a professor of economics at UF cl aimed one of the major demands of his job involves the consumerist nature of undergradu ate teaching. A professor of criminology at USF concurred when she described how she dislikes the whole idea that has been foisted on us that our students are somehow customers. When you evaluate teaching the primary focus is on student course eval uation. So you wind up pleasing the student
152 rather than necessarily educa ting the student. Another f aculty member in Sociology at USF shared: In this class that just ended last w eek, students were demanding review sessions, study sheets, sample questions, sample tests pretty strong demands. We realized that these are rea lly the first generation of students who have been in FCAT [the standardized te sting system for primary and secondary public schools in Florida Floridas Comprehensive Asse ssment Test] systems for the last four years. Theyre already livi ng in this kind of corporatized model in high school where theyre going to be evaluated by numb ers and all that matters to them are those numbers. How academic capitalism affects the clas sroom and student behavior is one line of inquiry. Beyond concerns a bout student attitudes was al so apprehension about the influences of academic capitalism on student learning. This represents another possible area of future study. A professor of criminol ogy at FSU stated, St udents are getting least preference in universities because of the phenomenon that were talking about. Universities are much more a bout the research and publicat ions and making money these days than they ever were before. A professor of sociology referred to this as educational malpractice. He was mostly concerned about the idea of focusing on quantity over quality and how that translates into the classroom. In discussing his experience teaching introductory classes to over 500 students, he said, I do them and I do them enthusiastically, but its just not the same as even when youve got even 50 people in the room is better than 300 when it becomes a focus on numbers and quantity. Clearly the effect of academic capitalism on st udents is one of the many areas of with the
153 potential for further research. Like the soci al sciences, academic capitalism and students or student learning have not been fully considered in the higher education literature. College administrators are another group that could benefit from some attention regarding academic capitalism. Since admini stration was often cited as the source of increased pressures to generate external grants, a natural extens ion of this research is to learn more about how academic capitalism is being experienced by administrators. In light of this research, furthe r questions might be: Who and wh at is putting pressure on administrators? What do administ rators value in university-wide strategic direction? Also to what degree are administrators influenced by forces at play in academic capitalism? These and numerous other questions about the varied experience of academic capitalism in higher education form the basi s for future research suggested here. Conclusion One way to conclude a study is to look back to its beginning. In this case, it leads back to the research questions. 1) How are prof essors in the social sciences responding to academic capitalism? 2) How are professors in the social sciences experiencing academic capitalism? As mentioned, the findings of this study are presented in a way that makes sense for the argument. In concluding, it might be helpful to present the results again in direct response to each specific question. In terms of response to academic capitalism, professors in the social sciences have proven their awareness and resiliency as a group. Against early predictions of the literature and my own initial t houghts, faculty in this study sh owed a sense of awareness, control, and realistic acceptance of entrepre neurial forces. For the most part, social scientists seem aware of the im pact of market forces on their campus and daily work life.
154 They see its benefits, but only alongside traditional academic values. Despite their relatively low contribution to su ch matters, social scientists maintain a strong sense of professional and self worth. They are also r ealistic about changing expectations and the possible need to more fully respond in times that have yet to come. Regarding the experience of academic capit alism in the social sciences, this study shows sporadic events of a le sser degree than has been shown in some other areas. Also junior faculty members in the social scienc es experience academic capitalism to a greater degree than do senior faculty. As with how professors are responding, professional autonomy and university customs make th e experience one of their own making, although this (again) might change in years to come as indicated by junior faculty perceptions. In sum, professors in the social sc iences respond to and experience academic capitalism in unique ways. This study pres ents some of those ways, and in doing so, expands our understanding of market forces on higher education, the entrepreneurial university, and other issues concerning academic capitalism. In Chapter One, I introduce academic capitalism, in its broadest sense, as a way to view the intersection of higher education with other major social forces. Fr om this research, it is clear the modern university is greatly influenced by market fo rces. In examining one small part of this larger whole, I hope this st udy better prepares colleges and universities for taking advantage of its position in a constantly changing world.
155 References Cited Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O., & Gumport, P.J. (Eds.) (1994). Higher education in American society 3rd ed.). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books Altbach, P.G., Berdahl, R.O., & Gumport, P.J. (Eds.) (1998). American higher education in the 21st century: Social, political and economic challenges Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press. Angrosino, M.V. (2002). Doing cultural anthropology: Projects for ethnographic data Collection Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Pres, Inc. Aronowitz, S. (2000). The knowledge factory: Dismantli ng the corporate university and creating true higher learning Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Awbery, S. M. (2002). Making the invisible hand visi ble: The case for dialogue about academic capitalism (Report No. HE035298). East Lansing, MI: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning. (ERI C Document Reproduction Service No. ED469338) Barr, M.J. (2002). Academic administrators guide to budgets and financial management San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bennis, W. & Movius, H. (2006, March 17) Why Harvard is so hard to lead. The Chronicle of Higher Education, B20. Bernard, H. R. (1994). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
156 Blake, B.D. (2001). Transcription quality. In Handbook of Interview Research: Context & method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, p. 629-649 Bloland, H.G. (1999). The end(s) of academic labor. The Review of Higher Education 23(1), 107-118. Birnbaum, R. (1998). How colleges work: The cybernet ics of academic organization and leadership San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bok, Derek. (2003) Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bowen, R.W. (2005, May-J une). Book Reviews, Academe Breneman, D. W. (1993). Guar anteed student loans: Great success or dismal failure? In ASHE Reader of Finance in Higher Education edited by David W. Breneman. Bugay, D. P. (2000). The five-week class of the University of Phoenix corporate model can be utilized by community colleges. DAI, 61 no. 09A. The Union Institute. Callan, P. M. (2002). http://www.highereducation.org/repo rts/cwrecession/cwrecession.shtml Caplow, T., & McGee, R.J. (1958). The academic marketplace By Basic Books, Inc. Carroll, W. & Beaton, J. (2000). Globalization, neo-liberalism, and the changing face of corporate hegemony in higher education. Studies in Political Economy 62, 71-97. Clark, B.R. (1997). The forward In Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions edited by Marvin W. Peterson, David D. Dill, & Lisa A. Mets.
157 Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universi ties: Organizational pathways of transformation. International Association of Un iversities and Elsevier Science Ltd. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Deem, R. (2001). Globalisa tion, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in university: is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education 37(1), 7-20. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. DiMaggio, P. & Powell, W.W. (1991). The new-institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Donoghue, F. (2004). The uneasy relationship between business and the humanities. American Academic 1(1), 93-110. Eckel, P.D. (2003). Capitalizing on the curriculum. American Behavioral Scientist, 46(7), 865-882. Embree, C.M. (2001). The University of Phoenix: A case study of a for-profit university DAI, 62 no. 05A. Columbia University Teachers College. Etzkowtiz, H., Webster, A., & Healy, P. (Eds.). (1998). Capitalizing knowledge: New intersections of industry and academia Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Fromm, H. (1991). Academic capitalism & literary value Athens and London: The University of Georgia Press.
158 Galston, W.A. (2004). Business forces and the life of the mind. American Academic, 1(1), 77-80. Geertz, (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc Goodstein, J.D. (1994). Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: Employer involvement in work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 350382. Gumport, P.J. (2002). University and knowledge: Restructuring the ci ty of intellect. In Brint, S. (Ed.). The future of the city of intellect (pp.47-81). Stanford University Press. Hauptman, A.M. (1997). Financing Ameri can higher education in the 1990s. New Directions for Institutional Research, 93, 19-34. Jensen, K. (1999, January). The corporatization of higher educati on. Message posted to http://www.sojo.net/magazine/index.cfm/action/sojourners Jones, B.D., Baumgartner, F.R., & True, J. L. (1998). Policy punctuations: U.S. budget authority, 1947-1995. The Journal of Politics 60, 1-33. Kane, T.J. & Orszag, P.R. (2003). Funding restri ctions at public univ ersities: Effects and policy implications. Brookings Institute ( www.brookings.edu ) Kays, J. & Phillips-Hans, A. (2003). Gato rade: The idea that launched an industry. Explore: Research at th e University of Florida, 8(1). Retrieved from http://rgp.ufl.edu/publicati ons/explore/v08n1/gatorade.html Kerr, C. (1995). The uses of the university (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1963).
159 Kirby-Harris, R. (2003). Univer sities responding to policy: Or ganizational change at the University of Namibia. Higher Education 45, 353-374. Kirp, D. L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Levy, D.C. (2004). The new institutionalism: Mismatches with private higher educations global growth PROPHE Working Paper # 3: University at Albany SUNY. Lipka, S (2006, June 9). Texas A&M: Patents to count for tenure. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, A12. Louis, K.S. D., Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M. E., & Soto, M.A. (1989). Entrepreneurs in academe: an exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 31(1), 110-32. Marginson, S. & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, Governance, and reinvention in Australia Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Martinez, E. & Garcia, A. (2000, February). Wh at is neo-liberalism? A brief definition. Global Economy 101 Retrieved from http://www.globalexchange.org/campai gns/econ101/neoliberalDefined.html Mendoza, P. (2005). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case study Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ ersity of Massachusetts Amherst. Mendoza, P. & Berger, J.B. (2005, April). The impact of academic capitalism on the academic culture: A case study. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal. Moving innovation to market: USF ramps up biot ech research and corporate partnerships. (2003, August). Floridas Trends, RF-8-RF-9.
160 Mruck, K. & Breuer, F. (2003, May). Subjec tivity and Reflexivity in Qualitative Research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 4(2): Art. 23. National Center for Public Poli cy and Higher Education. (1999). State spending for higher education in the next decade : The battle to sustain current support San Jose, CA: Harold A. Hovey. National Center for Public Poli cy and Higher Education. (2002). Coping with recession: Public policy, economic dow nturns, and higher education (No. 02-2). San Jose, CA: Patrick M. Callan. Newfield, C. (2003). Ivy and industry: Business and the making of the American university Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic respon ses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review 16(1), 145-179. Peshkin, A. (1988). In search of subjectivity: Ones own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17-21. Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective New York, NY: Harper & Row. Powell, W. & Owen-Smith, J. (1998). Univ ersities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17(2), 253-277. Ryan, Y. (2001). Higher education as a busin ess: Lessons from the corporate world. Minerva 39, 115-135. Schmidt, P. (2006). State funds for colleges continue to rebound. The Chronicle of Higher Education LIII (17), A-1.
161 Scott, J. (2000). In Understanding contemporary society: Theories of the present. Edited by G. Browing, A. Halcli, N. Hewlett, and F. Webster. Sage Publications. Salner, M. (1989). Validity in human sc ience research. In S. Kvale (Ed.), Issues of validity in qualitative research (pp. 47-72). Lund, Swedan : Studentlitteratur. Sanchez-Penley, Y., Martinez, M.C., & Nodine T. (1997). Florida: Protecting access and anticipating growth. In Callan, P.M., Finne y, J.E., Reeves Bracco, K., and Doyle, W.R. (Eds.). Public and private financing of hi gher education: Shaping public policy for the future (pp.107-135). American Counc il on Education Oryx Press Series on Higher Education. Shapiro, H.T. (1992). The function and resour ces of the American university of the twenty-first century. Minerva 30, 163-174. Shuy, R.W. (2001). In-person versus telephone interviewing.. In Handbook of Interview Research: Context & method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, p. 537555. Slaughter S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Polit ics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Slaughter S. & Leslie, L. L. (2001). Expandi ng and elaborating the concept of academic capitalism. Organization, 8(2), 154-161. Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. ( 2000). The neo-liberal university. New Labor Forum Spring, 23-42. Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism in the new economy: Challenges and choices. American Academic 1(1): 37-59.
162 Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education Baltimore, MD.: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Smith, L.M. (1990). Ethics in qualitative fiel d research: An indivi dual perspective. In E.W. Eisner & A. Peskin (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education (pp. 258-276). NewYork: Teachers College Press. Soley, L. (2000). The selling of the academy. In The Advocate (chap.) Retrieved March 5, 2002, from http://www.newhavenadvocate.com/articles/academy.html Soukhanov, A.H. et al. (1999). Encarta World English Dictionary (1st ed.). New York: St. Martins Press. Stein, D.C. (2004). Buying in or selling out? The commercialization of the American research university Baltimore, MD.: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Suchman, M. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610. Tasker, M.E., & Packham, D.E. (1990). Freed om, funding and the future of universities. Studies in Higher Education 15, 181-195. Tolbert, P.S. (1985). Institutional environmen ts and resource dependence: Sources of administrative structure in in stitutions of higher education. Administrative Quarterly 30(1), 1-13. Veblen, T. (1957). The higher learning in America: Memorandum on the conduct of universities by business men. New York: Sagamore Press. (Originally published in 1918). Vogel, M. (2004). Editors note. American Academic 1(1): 1-6.
163 Wang. Y. (2001). Higher education reform in China. DAI, 62 no. 01A. Baylor University. Whalen, E.L. (1996). Responsibility-centered ma nagement: An approach to decentralized financial operations. In D.S. Honeym an, J.L. Wattenbarger, & K.C. Westbrook (Vol. Ed.), Yearbook of the American educati on finance association: Vol. 17. A struggle to survive: Fund ing in the next century (pp.127-154). Gainesville, Florida: Corwin Press. Winston, G.C. (1997). Why cant a college be more like a firm? Change 29, 32-38. Wysocki, B. (2005, February 23). How Papa dakis runs a university like a company. The Wall Street Journal pp. A1, A13. Ylijoki, O. (2003). Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing ideals and practices of university research. Higher Education, 45, 307-335. Young, C. (s.d.). Academic capitalism in a public ivy. A Journal for Academic Labor 2(1), 1-8. (Retrieved February 1, 2005 from http://www.workplace-gsc .com/workplace2-1/young.html ) Zucker, L.G., Darby, M.R., & Armstrong, J.S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge: University science, knowledge capture and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science, 48(1), 138-153.
165 Appendix A: Interview Guide ID: Institution: Gender: Discipline: Rank: 1 How long have you been working at UNIVERSITY? 2 What would you say are some of th e primary pressures of your job? Are there pressures for making money? From where? If yes, what sources are being discussed? Are there greater pressures to gene rate revenue than in the past? 3 What differences do you see between being a professor in social sciences as compared to some other disciplines? If yes, what are those differences? 4 Is your department involved in university wide strategic directions as you see them? [PROBE] Im wondering if social scientists see themselves as part of the strategic direction of their organizati on and if the institutions curr ent directions seem to be moving in directions to which the department can contribute. And by strategic direction I dont necessarily mean as laid out by centr al administration so much as I do university patterns of behavior, part icularly resource support. 5 From your point of view, how important is it that the activities you or the department undertake be marketable, that is, directly relevant to those in the market for goods, services, and skilled labor? 6 In what ways, if any, are you entrepreneurial as a professor of social sciences? 8 Are there any fund raising staff associated with this department? If yes, what do they do? 9 Have you participated in any resource generating activities for the department? EXAMPLES: Field schools Program/needs assessment Research grants Courseware development Royalties from published or patented work Consulting Survey/testing/other research instru ment research centers or institutes 10 What do you think about the business like behaviors of public re search universities? What do you see as the possible causes of such trends? 11 Any other comments on what might be called entrepreneurialism in higher education? Thank you for your time. I will email you with a summary of this interview soon, so that you may make any corrections or further comments.
166 Appendix B: Informed Consent Title of research study: Social Science Faculty in the New University Purpose of study: To explore impacts of the entrepreneuria l university on the work life of social science faculty. Expected duration: It is estimated that the duration of the study will be from March 2006 until December 2006. If the study continues pa st December 2006, you will be notified. Potential Benefits/Risks: While you may not directly benefit from participating in this study, you may contribute to the scholarly literature on academ ic capitalism and related areas of research. There are no known risks related to participating in this study. Further, your decision to participate or not participate will in no way affect your job status. Procedures: This interview, which will take 25-35 minutes, consists of a series of semi-structured questions. Your resp onses will be digitally recorded and transcribed. A summary of the transcript will be given to you for review. Participation is vo luntary. You may refuse to participate at any point during the interview or dura tion of the study. You will not be pa id for participating in this study. Confidentiality: Your identity will remain confidential and any quotations used in writing up the results will not be attributed by name or any unique identifiers. Your privacy and research records will be kept confidential to the ext ent of the law. Authorized rese arch personnel, employees of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the USF Institutional Review Board, its staff, and any other individuals acting on behalf of USF, may inspect the records from this research project. The results of this study may be published. However, the data obtained from you will be combined with the data from others in the publicat ion. The published results will not include your name or any other information that woul d personally identify you in any way. Contact Information: If you have any questions about this study, you may call Deanna Bullard at 727-822-5437 or email her at firstname.lastname@example.org If you have questions about your rights as a pers on who is taking part in a study, call USF Research Compliance at (813) 974-5638. Statement of person taking part in study: I freely give my consent to take part in this study. I understand that this is research. I have received a copy of this consent form. ________________________ ________________________ ___________ Signature Printed Name Date of Person taking part in study of Person taking part in study Statement of person obtaining informed consent: I adhere to all statements of purpose, duration, procedure, and confidentiality outlined in this document. ________________________ _______________________________________ Signature of Investigator Printed Name of Investigator Date or authorized research investigator designated by the Principal Investigator
167 Appendix C: Email Drafts Initial You have been randomly selected to participate in a qualitative research project on academic capitalism. This study is part of my dissertation work as a doctoral student in Higher Education Administration at the University of South Florida. As it relates directly to my study, academic capi talism refers to market and market-like activities of universities and university faculty. Awberry (2002, p.2) describes it as professorial market or market-like efforts to secure external moneys. Academic capital includes teaching, research, consulting, and other applications of academic knowledge and expertise for the purpose of generating departmental resources. Research on this topic thus far, has lacked att ention to the social sciences. Therefore, I have chosen to focus explicitly on the departments of Criminology, Economics, and Sociology at the University of Florida, Florida State University, and University of South Florida. As a faculty member in the Department of Ec onomics at FSU, you were randomly chosen as a potential participant. If you agree and I hope you do we will arrange for an in person interview, which will last 25-35 minutes. You do not have to be heav ily involved in such activity to participate and any questions you might have should be answered in the attached documents. This study is completely voluntary and requires rela tively little of your time. It is my sincere hope that you are willing and able to assist me in my endeavors and I look forward to your response. Contact Information: If you have any questions about this study, you may call Deanna Bullard at 727-822-5437 or email her at email@example.com If you have questions about your rights as a pers on who is taking part in a study, call USF Research Compliance at (813) 974-5638. Follow-up (example) I am writing again to let you know that I will be in Gainesville Tuesday June 20th. If you have had the chance to consider my requ est and are willing to give 20-25 mi nutes of your time, take into account the possibility of meeting sometime that day (12:45, 1pm, or 1:30pm). There will be future dates/times made available. So if you are willing to participate, yet cannot meet on the 20th please let me know. Thank you again for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response. Final In an effort to move forward with data collection, I am writing one last time to determine if this is something you are willing and able to do. If the answer is no, please send word. Knowing one way or another will be helpful in keeping record of the random selection process and more importantly allow me to move on to the next possible participant. Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your response.
168 Appendix D: IRB Letter of Approval March 22, 2006 Deanna Bullard, M.A. an d Michael Mills, Ph.D. 490 24th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Fl 33704 RE: Expedited Approval for Initial Review IRB#: 104477 Title: Exploring Academic Capitalism in the Social Sciences: Faculty Responses to the Entrepreneurial University Study Approval Period: 03/22/2Q06 to 03/21/2007 Dear Ms. Bullard and Dr. Mills: On March 22, 2006, Institutional Review Bo ard (IRB) reviewed and APPROVED the above protocol for the period indicated above. It was the de termination of the IRB that your study qualified for expedited review base d on the federal expedited category number five (5), number six (6), and number seven (7), including the informed consent form. Please note, if applicable, the enclosed in formed consent/assent documents are valid during the period indicated by the official, IRB-Approval st amp located on page one of the form. Valid consent must be documen ted on a copy of the most recently IRBapproved consent form. Make copies from the enclosed original. Please reference the above IRB protocol num ber in all correspondence regarding this protocol with the IRB or the Division of Research Compliance. In addition, we have enclosed an Institutional Review Boar d (IRB). Quick Reference Guide providing guidelines and resources to assist you in m eeting your responsibili ties in the conduction of human subjects research. Pleas e read this guide carefully. It is your responsibility to conduct this study in accordance with IRB po licies and procedures and as approved by the IRB. We appreciate your dedication to the ethical conduct of human subject research at the University of South Florida and your con tinued commitment to the Human Research Protections Program. If you have any questi ons regarding this matter, please call 813974-9343. DIVISION OF RESEARCH COMPLIANCE University of South Florida 12901 Bru ce B. Downs Blvd., MDCO35 Tampa, FL 33612-4799 (813) 974-5638 FAX (813) 974-5618
A bouttheAuthor DeannaBarcelonaBullardreceivedaBachelorofScienceinAnthropologywitha minorinBiologyfromFloridaStateUniversityin1997andaMastersDegreeinApplied AnthropologyfromtheUniversityofSouthFlorida(USF)in2001.Sheenteredthe Ph.D.programforHigherEducationAdministrationatUSFin2001. DeannahastaughtthefreshmenorientationclassUniversityExperienceatUSF, workedasanoralhistoryresearcher,heldnumerousgraduateassistantships,andhas presentedatseveralacademicconferencesincludingtheSocietyforApplied AnthropologyandtheFloridaAcademyofSciences.