Academic Capitalism, Conceptual Issues

  • Sheila Slaughter
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_100-1

Introduction

A number of theories speak to the increasing alignment between science and engineering, universities, and the economy. Among the more prominent are the triple helix (Etzkowitz et al. 1998), Mode 2 (Gibbons et al. 1994), and entrepreneurial universities (Clark 1998). The triple helix (science, government, industry) is in many cases a descriptive, win–win narrative that celebrates the decontextualized emergence of university-industry partnerships that are assumed to be engines of economic development and prosperity. Universities win because they claim intellectual property that leads to income for research; industries win because they gain access to the scientific and technological creativity of university-based discoveries. However, the theory leaves universities as institutions relatively unexamined beyond technology transfer activities. Nor is government analyzed, other than in its provision of funds for research, while industry is usually focused upon in its capacity as...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Ball, S.J. 2012. Global Education, Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Branscomb, L. et al. 1997a. Technology politics to technology policy. Issues in Science and Technology. 13 (Spring): 41–48.Google Scholar
  3. Branscomb, L. et. al. 1997b. Investing in innovation, toward a consensus strategy for federal technology policy. Cambridge: Harvard University, Center for Science and International Affairs.Google Scholar
  4. Braverman, H. 1975. Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bush, V. 1945. Science–the endless frontier: A report to the president on a program for postwar scientific research. Reprint, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. Cantwell, B., and I. Kauppinen. eds. 2014. Academic capitalism in the age of globalization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, B. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz, J., A. Webster, and P. Healey. 1998. Capitalizing knowledge: New interactions of industry and academe. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  9. Geuna, A., and A. Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. xi, 47(1), 93–114.Google Scholar
  10. Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, S. Schwartzman, H. Nowotny, M. Trow, and P. Scott. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Merton, R., K. 1942. The normative structure of science. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  12. O’Connor, J. 1973. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martin’s.Google Scholar
  13. Powers, J. 2003. Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26–50.Google Scholar
  14. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2005. From endless frontier to basic science for use: Social contracts between science and society. Science, Technology and Human Values 30 (4): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Slaughter, S., and B. Cantwell. 2012. Transatlantic moves to the market: Academic capitalism in the US & EU. Higher Education 63 (5): 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Slaughter, S., and L.L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1990. Renorming the social relations of academic science: Technology transfer. Educational Policy 4 (4): 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Slaughter, S., and B. Taylor, eds. 2016. Higher education, stratification, and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe the US, and Canada. Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Stokes, D. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  21. Wood, F.Q. 1992. The commercialisation of university research in Australia: Issues and problems. Comparative Education 28: 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Higher EducationThe University of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Pedro Nuno Teixeira
    • 1
  1. 1.Director CIPESMatosinhosPortugal