ACADEMIC CAPITALISM AND THE NEW ECONOMY ACADEMIC CAPITALISM and the NEW ECONOMY Markets, State, and Higher Education Sheila Slaughter and Gary Rhoades © 2004 The Johns Hopkins University Press All rights reserved Published 2004 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper Johns Hopkins Paperback edition, 2010 987654321 The Johns Hopkins University Press 2715 North Charles Street Baltimore, Maryland 21218-4363 www.press.jhu.edu The Library of Congress has catalogued the hardcover edition of this book as follows: Slaughter, Sheila Academic capitalism and the new economy: markets, state, and higher education / Sheila Slaughter and Gary Rhoades p cm Includes bibliographical references (p ) and index ISBN 0-8018-7949-3 (hardcover: alk paper) Education, Higher—Economic aspects—United States Industry and education—United States Universities and colleges—United States—Sociological aspects I Rhoades, Gary II Title LC67.62.S62 2004 338.4’337873—dc22 2003024783 A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 13: 978-0-8018-9233-2 ISBN 10: 0-8018-9233-3 To Larry L Leslie Scholar and colleague, and much more CONTENTS List of Figures and Tables Acknowledgments Chapter 1: The Theory of Academic Capitalism Chapter 2: The Policy Climate for Academic Capitalism Chapter 3: Patent Policies: Legislative Change and Commercial Expansion Chapter 4: Patent Policies Play Out: Student and Faculty Life Chapter 5: Copyright: Institutional Policies and Practices Chapter 6: Copyrights Play Out: Commodifying the Core Academic Function Chapter 7: Academic Capitalism at the Department Level Chapter 8: Administrative Academic Capitalism Chapter 9: Networks of Power: Boards of Trustees and Presidents Chapter 10: Sports ‘R’ Us: Contracts, Trademarks, and Logos, by Samantha King and Sheila Slaughter Chapter 11: Undergraduate Students and Educational Markets Chapter 12: The Academic Capitalist Knowledge/Learning Regime References Index FIGURES AND TABLES Figures 1.1 Changes in Expenditures Accounted for by Research, Instruction, and Public Service at Public and Private Institutions, 1977–1996 13 3.1 Public Good Model of Research 76 3.2 Academic Capitalism Research Regime 77 9.1 NSF Top 10 Private Research Universities, 2000 237 9.2 NSF Top 10 Public Research Universities, 2000 238 9.3 NSF Top Research Universities, 1981 245 Tables 2.1 Selected Legislation Enabling a Competitive Research and Development Policy 57 2.2 Votes on Competitive Research and Development Policy 64 3.1 Summary of Institutions in Study and Technology Transfer Activities, Fiscal Year 2000 82 3.2 Patents, Copyrights, and Other Intellectual Property 85 3.3 Technology Transfer Activities, Fiscal Year 2000 101 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writing of this book benefited from the support and input of many agencies, organizations, and colleagues Much of the data and analysis received substantial support from the National Science Foundation, which funded the following research: “Universities in the information age” (SDEST); “Creating flexible structures of academic work” (STS); “Steps toward resolving ambiguities in university-industry relationships” (SBR); “Academic science policy and the Clinton administration” (EVS); “Protecting the public’s trust: A search for balance among benefits and conflict of interest in university-industry relations” (SBER-RST); and “The effects of research related activities on undergraduate education” (SBR) We are especially grateful to supportive program officers Rachelle Hollander and Len Lederman and to the colleagues with whom we conducted these studies and with whom we wrote articles that contributed to this book—Larry L Leslie, Ron Oaxaca, Samantha King, Teresa Campbell, Jen Croissant, and Andrea Hoplight Tapia We thank other colleagues with whom we co-authored articles that inform this book: Cynthia Archerd, Ben Baez, Rachel Hendrickson, Margaret Holleman, Chris Maitland, Brian Pusser, Barbara Sporn, Scott Thomas, and Cindy Volk Additionally, we deeply appreciate the insights and criticism of colleagues who read chapters of this book or articles that contributed to this book: Debbie Anderson, Ernie Benjamin, John Cheslock, Joan Hirt, Ken Koput, Rob Rhoads, and Doug Woodard Over eighteen years Doug has raised a range of issues about the role of student services in the academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime and reminded us that colleges and universities must attend to undergraduate education and student development To our new colleague, Jenny Lee, our thanks for pushing us to more explicitly place ourselves in relation to the academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime In addition to these principal investigators, we thank the many graduate students who worked on these grants Thanks also to Sheila’s Academic Capitalism seminar in spring 2003 who sharpened our thinking and writing: Tamara DeStefanis, Teri Knutson-Woods, George McClelland, Jeff Orgera, Marcus Machado, Charles Rice, Vernon Smith, Glen Williams, and Greg Wilson Special thanks to Amy Metcalfe, who participated in all the above activities, was a dedicated research assistant, and helped us realize the possibilities of intermediating organizations The database of collective bargaining agreements (the Higher Education Contract Analysis System), which enabled us to explore the policy dimensions of academic capitalism in the new economy in community colleges and comprehensive universities, was developed and made available through the good work and generosity of the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers We particularly thank Christine Maitland and Rachel Hendrickson at the NEA We appreciate as well the feedback and support of Larry Gold at the AFT Further, we also owe a debt to each other Over the course of seventeen years of conversations and exchanges ranging over political economy, professions, policy, and organizations in higher education, and much more, we have challenged and stretched each other in ways that have enhanced and brought out the best in our work and lives Finally, we dedicate this book to Larry L Leslie, whom we could not pull away from the joys of retirement, poker, hiking, and county politics to co-author this volume In more ways than we can enumerate, Larry has influenced our work and shaped the very special Center for the Study of Higher Education in which our work has thrived His contributions, for each of us, in distinctive but profound ways, go well beyond the boundaries of simple colleagueship To Sheila Slaughter, who is S2, he is L3, and a partner nonpareil who grounds her in the realities of hiking, camping, hunting, and country western dancing To Gary Rhoades, whose unparalleled partner is his wife, Janet, centering him in the realities of an eternal Enchanted April, and of being a dad making Knots in a Counting Rope with Elizabeth and Olivia, Larry is and always will be, simply and affectionately, Chief ACADEMIC CAPITALISM AND THE NEW ECONOMY Lape’s reference to the effects of the 1976 Copyright Act is important in that this is a subject of debate among legal scholars Some, like Lape, believe that the law did not change the so-called teacher exception to the “work for hire” doctrine, an exception that a leading legal scholar on copyright (Nimmer 1985) has argued was clearly established in the 1909 law, which first codified the work-for-hire doctrine Others have argued that the 1976 law represented a significant change, effectively eliminating the teacher exception and strengthening the claim of employers that employees’ works created “within the scope of employment” fall within the category of “work for hire” and are therefore owned by the employer (DuBoff 1985; Simon 1983) Whatever one’s interpretation of the 1976 Copyright Act, university policies are an effort by universities to formally and explicitly lay claim to at least some copyrightable products created by faculty, which represents an important departure from their past practice We are interested in policies related to copyrightable materials produced by institutional employees, not regulations concerning the use of copyrightable materials The use of copyrighted materials by educational institutions is usually treated under concepts of “fair use,” and while fair use has important implications for academic capitalism, considerations of length keep us from treating it Currently there is no data source that tracks income from copyright for institutions A far greater number of campuses are covered because many of the agreements are for state systems of universities and municipal systems of community colleges In several cases, this varies from the provision regarding patents and inventions, which accords ownership to the institution when significant institutional resources are utilized National data systems have not yet caught up with the changes in the higher education labor force, so managerial or support professionals are an undifferentiated category, making it difficult to calculate cost savings Both technology licensing staff and computer repair persons are included in the category However, when a position is permanent, salaries usually increase more regularly than they for contingent workers, raising questions about the long-term cost savings of hiring managerial or support professionals However, there is important evidence to the contrary in terms of general responsiveness (Francis and Hampton 1999) Public research universities are the sites of some of the most longstanding and aggressively pursued technology transfer activity The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) at the University of Wisconsin began in the 1930s The University of California is one of the largest generators of patent activity and revenue The University of Utah is renowned for its aggressive pursuit of commercialization The question of increased competition for federal grant and contract funding is complex Federal grant and contract funding has not decreased but has grown steadily over the last twenty-five years However, the size of the science establishment has increased, which increases competition, and the fields of science that are most richly funded have shifted See Greenberg 2001 Thanks to Ken Koput for these suggestions and for his reading of this chapter Athleisure wear is a term used in the contracts to describe apparel such as golf shirts and knitted vests Reebok appears to be withdrawing from college athletics sponsorship They had an agreement with Wisconsin from 1996 to 2001, but we cannot find evidence of any other full- or partial-program contracts These figures exclude tournament and bowl games The USAFA is different from other “Nike schools” because as a government agency it is not permitted to promote one corporation over another Royalties are not mentioned in the Louisville contract, and Wisconsin’s agreement sets the rate in accordance with the university standard in effect during each year of the contract In most cases, the contracts stipulate how many tickets the corporation shall receive and where the seats will be located All schools except Louisville and USAFA Not all admissions marketing practices work more clearly in the interests of higher education institutions than in those of prospective students There may be cases in which (and select bodies of students for whom) the practices work to the benefit of both “sellers” (colleges and universities) and “buyers” (prospective students and their parents) of educational services Interestingly, much of the student affairs budget is outside state monies, derived from entrepreneurial auxiliaries and student fees Institutional support and public service have also increased as a share of overall expenditures Unfortunately, the data are so aggregated that we cannot separate out expenditures for marketing or for particular areas of noninstructional expenditures Nevertheless, the general pattern is striking .. .ACADEMIC CAPITALISM AND THE NEW ECONOMY ACADEMIC CAPITALISM and the NEW ECONOMY Markets, State, and Higher Education Sheila Slaughter and Gary Rhoades © 2004 The Johns Hopkins... profession The Scope and Analytical Focus of Academic Capitalism and the New Economy Academic Capitalism and the New Economy differs not only from the literature on higher education and research; it... and affectionately, Chief ACADEMIC CAPITALISM AND THE NEW ECONOMY THE THEORY OF ACADEMIC CAPITALISM AT THE TURN OF the twenty-first century, the rise of the new, ” global knowledge or information