Abstract
This study is based on analysis of copyright policies and 26 interviews with science and engineering faculty at three research universities on the topic of copyright beliefs, values, and practices, with emphasis on copyright of instructional materials, courseware, tools, and texts. Given that research universities now emphasize increasing external revenue flows through marketing of intellectual property, we expected copyright to follow the path of patents and lead to institutional emphasis of policies and practices that enhanced universities’ intellectual property portfolios, accompanied by an increase in copyrighting by professors. Although this pattern occurred with regard to institutions, professors offered a more varied pattern, with some fully participating in commercialization of copyright and embracing entrepreneurial values, while others resisted or subverted commercial activity in favor of traditional science and engineering values.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For example, in some countries universities are public and part of the state civil service as in Norway and Germany, although increasingly universities are being granted more autonomy and incorporated as private foundations, as just occurred in Finland. In the United States, universities are public but not part of a state civil service or private non-profit organizations, such as Harvard and Yale.
For an exception to this view, see Noble (1998) history of correspondence courses, which he likens to digital diploma mills, and he sees as little different than instruction via the internet.
Research universities in the United States are doctoral granting institutions that award at least 20 doctoral degrees (excluding doctoral-level degrees that qualify recipients for entry into professional practice, such as the JD, MD, PharmD, etc.) Within the doctoral granting universities are Research universities with very high research activity as measured by grants and contracts and publications, research universities with high research activity, and doctoral research universities, which grant the Ph.D., but are not deeply involved in research activity. http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/classifications/index.asp?key=791. Retrieved August 2, 2009.
Merton (1942) is generally regarded as offering an early and enduring formulation of scientific norms and values with his conception of science as open, communistic (later changed to communal), universal, disinterested, and characterized by a skeptical habit of mind. Openness spoke to the nonsecret character of science. Communistic or communal meant noncommercial. Universal referred to the idea that there was no national cast to science and that knowledge flowed freely across borders. Disinterestedness addressed the objective nonpartisan stance of the scientist toward knowledge. Maintaining a skeptical habit of mind challenged scientists to always question results. In the 1950s, and 1960s, Merton’s values were compressed into “basic” or “fundamental” science, and the value of science was that it was “value-free” or “objective.” These properties were often conceived as embedded in science itself and separate from the scientist, who nonetheless was value-free and objective because “he” served science. There is also a values literature approaches science from a different direction, that of the public good. Scholars like Heller and Eisenberg (Noble 1998) and Bollier (Kromery et al. 2005) make the case that science is an “intellectual commons” that must not be appropriated by the corporate or economic sector because to do is against the interest of the public good or commonweal. The intellectual commons is sustained by an academic “gift economy” which is open, free, nonalienable (and very Mertonian). These very properties allow science to flourish. To enclose the intellectual commons is to destroy it, wreaking havoc on the very system that created the science and technology that gave rise to the new/knowledge/information economy. Corporate values are understood as opposed to the public good because they stress profit for individual firms rather then the well being of society as a whole. There are many critiques of Mertonian work on scientific values. Critics of corporate America and Marxists, neo-Marxists, and post-Marxists have seen close connections between science and business, with the result that science often served commercial values (Veblen 1918; Noble 1976; Soley 1995). Opponents of the Vietnam War saw science as the servant of war, the capitalist state, and the imperial ambitions of U.S. leaders (Clark 1998; Foreman 1987). Social constructionists challenge the notion that science is separate from the scientist or that it embodies pure and noble ideas (Latour and Woolgar 1979; Dasgupta and David 1987). Much social constructionist work focuses on laboratory life and the values and practices that animate and characterize it, such as competition for discovery, status, and resources. Actor-network theory explores the agency of individual actors and groups, who through various complex networks are engaged in the social construction of practice, reality, and policy (Callon 1986; Latour 1987; Law and Callon 1992; Mulcahy 1999). Some scholars do not critique Merton, but argue that Mertonian values and market values are not in opposition. They argue that the connection between science and business should not necessarily be viewed critically (Stokes 1997; Branscomb and Hart 1997; Branscomb 1997) and see science not as serving the (unspecified) public good but rather as serving (unspecified) economic prosperity, redefined as the public good, which more easily enables the coexistence of market and academic values. They value market capabilities of science.
Merton (1942) associated science with democracy and wrote to challenge the rise of nationalistic, Fascistic Nazi science, much of which was secret because associated with weapons research or the concentration camps. He did not anticipate the rise of secret or classified science, justified in the name of national security that developed with the advent of World War II.
See footnote 4 for a definition of U.S. research universities based on the Carnegie classification. The Association of American Universities s (AAU) is an association of 62 leading public and private research universities in the United States and Canada. Membership in AAU is by invitation and is based on the high quality of programs of academic research and scholarship and undergraduate, graduate, and professional education in a number of fields, as well as general recognition that a university is outstanding by reason of the excellence of its research and education program. The AAU was started in 1900. http://www.aau.edu/about/default.aspx?id=4020.
We also studied anthropologists, but have not included them in this paper because they are not physical scientists or engineers.
See Weil (2002) on culture of credit, where she analyzes the ethics of citation and attribution.
We are aware that the public good knowledge/learning regime was not without its dark side—despite postulation of Mertonian values, secrecy and exclusion from knowledge, expressed as classified knowledge, were the norm in U.S. science and engineering research funded by the Department of Defense, which accounted for the lion’s share of all U.S. university funded research until 2001. See Slaughter and Leslie (1997, Chap. 2), and Slaughter and Rhoades (2004, Chap. 3) for the nuances of the two regimes and the shift to academic capitalism.
Thus far, the faculty associations that have directly addressed issues of ownership are organizations such as the National Education Association, the American Association of University Professors, and the American Federation of Teachers. All these groups take the position that faculty, as the author of copyrightable intellectual property, are its owners. Generally, they do not address the more complex ethics and values issues addressed by professors in our sample. Perhaps that is because there are few faculty from research universities among their membership, and even fewer unionized research university faculty. Nor are there heavy concentrations of scientists and engineers.
References
Aghion, P., Diwatripont, M., Hoxby, C., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2008). Higher aspirations: A blueprint for reforming European universities. Belgium: Bruegel.
Altbach, P. (2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3–25.
Altbach, P. (2005, May). The political economy of international higher education cooperation: Structural realities and global inequalities. Paper presented at Nuffic Conference ‘A changing landscape,’ The Hague. Retrieved August 1, 2009 from http://www/nuffic.nl/pdf.os/em/altbach.pdf.
Association of University Technology Managers. (2008). AUTM licensing surveys. Deerfield, IL: AUTM.
Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. M. (2003). Unethical practices of authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15(3), 263–270.
Bollier, D. (2002a). Silent theft: The private plunder of our common wealth. New York: Routledge.
Bollier, D. (2002b). The enclosure of the academic commons. Academe, 88(5), 19.
Branscomb, L. M. (1997). From technology politics to technology policy. Issues in Science and Technology, 13(3), 41–48.
Branscomb, L. M., & Hart, D. (1997). Investing in innovation, toward a consensus strategy for federal technology policy. Cambridge: Harvard University, Center for Science and International Affairs.
Callon, M. (1986). The sociology of an actor-network: The case of the electric vehicle. In M. Callon, J. Law, & A. Rip (Eds.), Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
Clark, B. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: IAU Press and Pergamon.
Commission. (2004). Science and technology, the key to Europe’s future—guidelines for future European Union policy to support research. Brussels, 16.6.2004, COM(2004) 353 final.
Commission of the European Communities. (2008). Green paper. Copyright in the knowledge economy. Retrieved July 24, 2009 from http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/copyright/docs/copyright-infso/greenpaper_en.pdf.
Coombe, R. (1998). The cultural life of intellectual property: Authorship, appropriation and the law. Durham: Duke University Press.
Dasgupta, P., & David, P. (1987). Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology. In G. Feiwel (Ed.), Arrow and the ascent of modern economic theory. New York: New York University Press.
DuBoff, L. (1985). An academic’s copyright: Publish and perish. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 32, 17–38.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., & Healey, P. (1998). Capitalizing knowledge: New interactions of industry and academe. Albany: SUNY Press.
Feldman, M., Feller, I., Bercovitz, J., & Burton, R. (2002). Equity and technology transfer strategies of American research universities. Management Science, 48(1), 105–121.
Foreman, P. (1987). Behind quantum electronics: National security as a basis for physical research in the United States, 1940-1960. Part 1. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 18, 149–229.
Gibbons, M., et al. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Gornitzka, A. (2008). Research policy and the European Union—sketching a process of policy change. Draft ms. University of Oslo.
Gurry, F. (2005a). The growing complexity of international policy in intellectual property. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 16.
Gurry, F. (2005b). The growing complexity of international policy in intellectual property. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11, 13–20.
Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(5364), 698–701.
Krimsky, S. (2003). Science in the private interest: Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research? (Vol. 2, pp. 395–410). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kromery, J., Barron, A., Hogarty, K., Hohlfeld, T., Loggie, K., Schullo, S., et al. (2005, June). Intellectual property and online courses: Policies at major research universities. National educational computing conference, Philadelphia, PA.
Kwiek, M. (2002). The social functions of the university in the context of the changing state/market relations (the global, European Union and accession countries’ perspectives). Issue paper for the European Commission, Research Directorates General, High Level Expert Group, STRATA Project, “Developing foresight for higher education/research relations developing in the perspective the European Research Area (ERA)”.
Lape, L. (1992). Ownership of copyrightable works of university professors: The interplay between the copyright act and university copyright policies. Villanova Law Review, 37, 223–271. Details the increase in copyright policies in U.S. institutions.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Law, J., & Callon, M. (1992). The life and death of an aircraft: A network analysis of technological change. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology, building society. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Loggie, K. A., Barron, A. E., Gultiz, E., Hohlfeld, T. N., Kromrey, J. D., & Venable, M. (2006). An analysis of copyright policies for distance learning materials at major research universities. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(3), 224–241.
McCarthy, C. (1912). The Wisconsin Idea. New York: The MacMillan Company.
McConnell, G. (1953). Political prairie fire: The decline of agrarian democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press.
McSherry, C. (2001). Who owns academic work? Battling for control of intellectual property. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Merton, R. K. (1942). The normative structure of science. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Mowery, D. C., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2002). Academic patent quality and quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Research Policy, 31, 399–418.
Mulcahy, D. (1999). (actor-net) Working bodies and representations: Tales from a training field. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 24(1), 80–104.
Noble, D. F. (1976). America by design: Science, technology and the rise of corporate capitalism. New York: Knopf.
Noble, D. (1998). Digital Diploma mills: the automation of higher education. First Monday 3(1). Retrieved January 3, 2004 from http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3.1/noble/index.html.
Packard, A. (2002). Copyright or copywrong: An analysis of university claims to faculty work. Communications Law and Policy, 7, 275–315.
Riesenberg, D., & Lundberg, G. D. (1990). The order of authorship: Who’s on first? JAMA, 264(14), 1857.
Singleton, R., & Straights, B. C. (1999). Approaches to social research (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (1996). The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology and Human Value, 21(3), 303–339.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Soley, L. (1995). Leasing the ivory tower: The corporate takeover of academia. Boston: South End Press.
Stokes, D. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Veblen, T. (1918). The higher learning in America: A memorandum on the conduct of universities by business men. New York: Viking.
Washburn, J. (2005). University Inc.: The corporate corruption of higher education. NY: Basic Books.
Weil, V. (2002). Making sense of scientists’ responsibilities at the interface of science and society. Science and Engineering Ethics, 8(2), 223–227.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the National Science Foundation Information Technology Research Program for their support of our research, Jennifer Croissant and Gary Rhoades and Sheila Slaughter. “Virtual Values: Information Technology, Distance Learning and Higher Education.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Slaughter, S., Rhoades, G. The Social Construction of Copyright Ethics and Values. Sci Eng Ethics 16, 263–293 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9162-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-009-9162-1