Skip to main content

Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
  • 483 Accesses

Introduction

During the second half of the twentieth century, professors, like other professionals, gradually became more involved in the market (Slaughter and Rhoades 1990; Brint 1994). In the 1980s, globalization accelerated the movement of faculty and universities toward the market. The 1980s were a turning point, when faculty and universities were incorporated into the market to the point where professional work began to be patterned differently, in kind, rather than in degree. Participation in the market began to undercut the tacit contract between professors and society because the market put as much emphasis on the bottom line as on client welfare. The raison d’etre for special treatment for universities, the training ground of professionals, as well as for professional privilege was undermined, increasing the likelihood that universities would be treated more like other organizations and professionals more like other workers.

As the economy globalized, the business or corporate...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

References

  • Becker, G.S. 1964. Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education, National Bureau of economic research, general series. Vol. 80. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brint, S.G. 1994. In an age of experts: The changing role of professionals in politics and public life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, I. 2009. The ‘indefinite discipline’ of competitiveness benchmarking as a neoliberal technology of government. Minerva 47: 261–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R.G. 2000. Tuition rising: Why college costs so much. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. 1994a. Academic-industry relations: A sociological paradigm for economic development. In Evolutionary economics and chaos theory: New directions in technology studies? ed. Loet Leydersdorff and Peter Van den Besselaar. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz. 1994b. Beyond the frontier: The convergence of military and civilian R&D in the U.S. Science Studies 7 (2): 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. 2000. Presidential conclusions: Lisbon. European Council 23 and 24 March 2000. Resource document. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/summits/lis1_en.htm. Accessed 20 May 2010.

  • European Commission. 2006. Delivering on the modernization agenda for universities. European Commission. http://ec.eupropa.eu/education/policies/2010/lisbon_en.html. Accessed 17 May 2010.

  • European Research Council. 2008. ERC advanced grant competition 2008: Statistics. Brussels: ERC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., and B. Martin. 2003. University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva 41 (4): 277–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gummett, P. 1991. The evolution of science and technology policy: A UK perspective. Science and Public Policy 18 (1): 31–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halliday, J. 1993. Maoist Britain? The ideological function of vocationalizing the higher education curriculum. Curriculum Studies 1 (3): 365–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, S. 1993. Concentration of minds: Research centres in Australia. In Paper presented to the third international conference on University-industry relations. SUNY Purchase. May 1. State University of New York at Purchase, Purchase, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. 1993. Towards a Schumpeterian workfare state? Preliminary remarks on post-Fordist political economy. Studies in Political Economy 40 (Spring): 7–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julien, G. 1989. The funding of university research in Canada: Current trends. Higher Education Management 1 (1): 66–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, L.L. 1994. A comparative analysis of civilian technology strategies among some nations. Policy Studies Journal 22 (2): 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, L., and P. Brinkman. 1988. The economic value of higher education. New York: American Councilon Education/MacMillian Series on Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. 1994. New models of technological change: New theories for technology studies? In Evolutionary economics and chaos theory: New directions in technology studies? ed. Loet Leydesdorff and Peter Van den Besselaar, 180–192. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, N. (1996). Policy communities, issue networks and the formulation of Australian higher education policy. Higher Education. forthcoming 1996. 30 (3): 273–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B.R., Irvine, J., and Isard., P.A. 1992. Input measures: trends in UK government spending on academic and related research: a comparison with F R Germany, France, Japan, the Netherlands and USA. Science and Public Policy 17 (1): 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, W. 2009. Higher learning, greater good: The private and social benefits of higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestre, D., and P. Weingart. 2009. Governance of and through science and numbers: Categories tools and technologies – Preface. Minerva 47 (3): 241–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S. 1990. Lipset’s ‘continental divide’ and the ideological basis for differences in higher education between Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 20 (2): 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., and B. Cantwell. 2012. Transatlantic moves to the market: Academic capitalism in the US & EU. Higher Education. 63 (5): 583–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., and L.L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1990. Renorming the social relations of academic science: Technology transfer. Educational Policy 4 (4): 341–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1996. The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology and Human Values 21 (3 Summer): 303–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, F.Q. 1992. The commercialisation of university research in Australia: Issues and problems. Comparative Education 28: 293–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheila Slaughter .

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Slaughter, S. (2018). Academic Capitalism, Evolution and Comparisons. In: Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_601-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_601-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9553-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9553-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics