Abstract
In this article, we apply Max Weber’s ideal types of fief and benefice feudalism to elite and non-elite chemistry departments in the USA. We develop a theoretical analogy of academic feudalism in regard to three dimensions: power relations, engagement with companies, and the impact of structural changes on the autonomy of scholars. We use a mixed methods approach to track changes in productivity and industrial collaboration on a departmental level and the researcher’s understanding of research autonomy on the individual level. On the departmental level, our findings suggest that scholars located at elite departments are able to utilize federal and industrial resources to increase publications over time. On the individual level, we establish that researchers in both segments perceive their autonomy as being very high, whereas practical autonomy differs according to department. While scholars at elite departments remain relatively autonomous in practice, scholars at non-elite departments often tend to tailor their research to specific requirements to receive funding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
The patent categories are attached in Appendix A.
These sub-categories are Analytical Chemistry, Applied Chemistry, Inorganic and Nuclear Chemistry, Interdisciplinary Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, and Physical Chemistry, including 60 journals in total.
References
Allison, P. (2009). Fixed effects regression models. London: SAGE.
Austin, A. (2011). The socialization of future faculty in a changing context: traditions, challenges, and possibilities. In J. C. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The American Academic Profession: Transformation in Contemporary Higher Education (pp. 145–167). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Boardman, C. (2009). Government centrality to university–industry interactions: university research centers and the industry involvement of academic researchers. Res Policy, 38(10), 1505–1516.
Bollen, K., & Brand, J. (2010). A general panel model with random and fixed effects: a structural equations approach. Social Forces, 89(1), 1–34.
Brint, S. (2005). Creating the future: ‘new directions’ in American research universities. Minerva, 43(1), 23–50.
Burris, V. (2004). The academic caste system: prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. Am Sociol Rev, 69(2), 239–264.
Cole, J. (1967). Patterns of intellectual influence in scientific research. Sociol Educ, 43(4), 377–403.
Cole, S. (1970). Professional standing and the reception of scientific discoveries. Am J Sociol, 76(2), 286–306.
Cole, J. (2009). The Great American University, its rise to preeminence, its indispensable national role, why it must Be preserved. New York: PublicAffairs.
Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative approaches to research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Merrill/Pearson Education.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Etzkowitz, H., & Viale, R. (2010). Polyvalent knowledge and the entrepreneurial university: a third academic revolution? Crit Sociol, 36(4), 595–609.
Evans, J. (2010). Industry induces academic science to know less about more. Am J Sociol, 116(2), 389–452.
Gianfranco, P. (1988). Max Weber’s conceptual portrait of feudalism. Br J Sociol, 39(2), 211–227.
Ginsberg, B. (2011). The fall of the faculty: the rise of the all-administrative university. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Hong, W., & Walsh, J. (2009). For money or glory? Commercialization, competition, and secrecy in the entrepreneurial university. Sociol Q, 50(2), 145–171.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res, 15(9), 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.
Kleinman, D. L., & Vallas, S. (2001). Science, capitalism, and the rise of the knowledge worker: the changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society, 30(4), 451–492.
Kleinman, D. L., Habinek, J., & Vallas, S. (2011). Codes of commerce: the uses of business rhetoric in the American Academy, 1960–2000. In J. C. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The American academic profession: transformation in contemporary higher education (pp. 274–294). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Leahey, E., & Montgomery, K. (2011). The meaning of regulation in a changing academic profession. In J. C. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The American academic profession: transformation in contemporary higher education (pp. 295–311). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education. A global revision. In: Higher Education, 53(3), 307–333.
Mars, M., Bresonis, K., & Szelényi, K. (2014). Science and engineering doctoral student socialization, logics, and the National Economic Agenda: alignment or disconnect? Minerva, 52(3), 351–379.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2).
Mendoza, P. (2012). The role of context in academic capitalism: the industry-friendly department case. The Journal of Higher Education, 83(1), 26–48.
Merton, R. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.
Münch, R. (2014). Academic capitalism. Universities in the global struggle for excellence. New York, London: Routledge.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Optimizing the nation’s investment in academic research: a new regulatory framework for the twenty-first century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/21824.
Nelkin, D., Nelson, R., & Kiernan, C. (1987). Commentary: university–industry alliances. Sci Technol Hum Values, 12(1), 65–74.
Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: accumulative advantage across public and private science at research one universities. Res Policy, 32(6), 1081–1104.
Powell, W., Owen-Smith, J., & Colyvas, J. (2007). Innovation and emulation: lessons from American universities in selling private rights to public knowledge. Minerva, 45(2), 121–142.
Pusser, B., Slaughter, S., & Thomas, S. (2006). Playing the board game: an empirical analysis of university trustee and corporate board interlocks. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 747–775.
Rhoades, G. (2005). Capitalism, academic style, and shared governance. Academe, 91(3), 38–42.
Rhoades, G. (2012). Bargaining quality in part-time faculty working conditions: beyond just-In-time employment and just-at-will non renewal. Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy, 4(1), 1–14.
Schäfer, L. O. (2016). Performance assessment in science and academia. Effects of the RAE/REF on academic life. CGHE working papers. London: UCL Institute of Education.
Schuster, J. H. (2011). The Professoriate’s perilous path. In J. C. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The American Academic Profession. Transformation in Contemporary Higher Education (pp. 1–17). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Shibayama. (2012). Conflict between entrepreneurship and open science, and the transition of scientific norms. J Technol Transfer, 37(4), 508–531.
Slaughter, S. (2011). Academic freedom, professional autonomy, and the state. In J. C. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The American Academic Profession: Transformation in Contemporary Higher Education (pp. 241–273). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Cantwell, B. (2012). Transatlantic moves to the market: the United States and the European Union. High Educ, 63(4), 583–606.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., Campbell, T., Holleman, M., & Morgan, E. (2002). The “traffic” in graduate students: graduate students as tokens of exchange between academe and industry. Sci Technol Hum Values, 27(2), 282–312.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
Taylor, B., Cantwell, B., & Slaughter, S. (2013). Quasi Markets in U.S. higher education: the humanities and institutional revenues. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(5), 675–707.
Thelin, J. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tuchman, G. (2009). Wannabe U. Inside the corporate university. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
Vallas, S., & Kleinman, D. (2008). Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: the confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Soc Econ Rev, 6(2), 283–311.
Volkmann, U., Schimank, U., & Rost, M. (2014). Two worlds of academic publishing: chemistry and German sociology in comparison. Minerva, 52(2), 187–212.
Wadmann, S. (2014). Physician–industry collaboration: conflicts of interest and the imputation of motive. Soc Stud Sci, 44(4), 531–554.
Weber, M. (2008[1922]). Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Frankfurt a.M: Zweitausendeins.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
These patents included the following applications: Chemistry of Inorganic Compounds, Hazardous or Toxic Waste Destruction or Containment, Solid Anti-Friction Devices, Fertilizers, Explosive and Thermic Compositions or Charges, Organic Compounds, Chemistry of Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Bleaching and Dyeing, Gas Separation, Chemistry of Physical Processes, Chemistry of Carbon Compounds, Analytical and Immunological Testing, Electrical and Wave Energy, Electrical Current Producing Apparatus, Radiation Imagery, Hydrocarbon Compounds, and Fisher-Tropsch Processes.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wieczorek, O., Beyer, S. & Münch, R. Fief and benefice feudalism. Two types of academic autonomy in US chemistry. High Educ 73, 887–907 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0116-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0116-2