Advertisement

Higher Education

, Volume 62, Issue 6, pp 721–740 | Cite as

Different research markets: a disciplinary perspective

  • Oili-Helena YlijokiEmail author
  • Anu Lyytinen
  • Liisa Marttila
Article

Abstract

Drawing upon the notions of academic capitalism and the transformation of academic research from traditional academic orientation into market orientation, the paper sets out to empirically scrutinize the changing nature of academic research, focusing especially on disciplinary differences. The paper is based on a survey of heads of departments and research units at Finnish universities representing all disciplinary groups (n = 255) and on in-depth interviews with Finnish academics (n = 31) in the fields of humanities, social sciences, technology and natural sciences. Based on the survey data, the funding, selection of research topics, collaboration partners, audiences and publication forums in research are analysed. Following this, five research markets are discerned: academic, corporate, policy, professional and public market, each characterized by its own values and rationality as to what is considered the reference group, basic objective and outcome of research. The paper concludes that the transformation thesis needs to be revisited and specified since on the one hand, academic orientation still remains crucially important in all disciplinary groups, and on the other hand, market orientation entails several kinds of markets, pointing to the versatility of the university–society relationship.

Keywords

Academic capitalism Academic research Commercialisation Disciplinary differences University–society relationship 

References

  1. Aittola, H., & Marttila, L. (Eds.). (2010). Yliopistojen rakenteellinen kehittäminen, akateemiset yhteisöt ja muutos [Universities’ structural development, academic communities and change] (Vol. 5). Finland: Publications of the Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  2. Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories. Milton Keynes: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories (2nd ed.). Milton Keynes: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Guildford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  5. Crespo, M., & Dridi, H. (2007). Intensification of university–industry relationships and its impact on academic research. Higher Education, 54, 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Croissant, J. L., & Smith-Doerr, L. (2000). Organizational contexts of science: Boundaries and relationships between university and industry. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, M. Lynch, & J. Wajcman (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 691–718). Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Deem, R. (1998). ‘New managerialism’ and higher education: the management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1997). Universities and the global knowledge economy. A triple helix of university–industry–government. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  9. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Gulbrandsen, M., & Kyvik, S. (2010). Are the concepts basic research, applied research and experimental development still useful? An empirical investigation among Norwegian academics. Science and Public Policy, 37(5), 343–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gulbrandsen, M., & Smeby, J.-C. (2005). Industry funding and university professors’ research performance. Research Policy, 34, 932–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hakala, J. (2009). Academic cultures in the Finnish mass research university. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1400. Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hakala, J., & Ylijoki, O.-H. (2001). Research for whom? Research orientations in three academic cultures. Organization, 8, 373–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Häyrinen-Alestalo, M., & Peltola, U. (2006). The problem of a market-oriented university. Higher Education, 52, 251–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hessels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37(4), 740–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kaukonen, E., & Nieminen, M. (1999). Modelling the triple helix from a small country perspective: The case of Finland. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24, 173–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kutinlahti, P. (2005). Universities approaching market. Intertwining scientific and entrepreneurial goals. VTT publications 589. Espoo: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland.Google Scholar
  19. Kyvik, S. (2007). Changes in funding university research: Consequences for problem choice and research output of academic staff. In J. Enders & B. Jongbloed (Eds.), Public–private dynamics in higher education (pp. 387–411). Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.Google Scholar
  20. Löppönen, P., Lehvo, A., Vaahtera K., & Nuutinen, A. (Eds.). (2009). The state and quality of scientific research in Finland 2009. Publications of the Academy of Finland 10.Google Scholar
  21. Lyytinen, A., Marttila, L., Ylijoki, O.-H., & Kaukonen, E. (2010). Rakenteet muuttuvat—muuttuuko tutkimus? [Structures are changing—What about research?]. In H. Aittola & L. Marttila (Eds.), Yliopistojen rakenteellinen kehittäminen, akateemiset yhteisöt ja muutos [Universities’ structural development, academic communities and change] (Vol. 5, pp. 23–49). Finland: Reports of the Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  22. Martin, B. R., & Etzkowitz, H. (2000). The origin and evolution of the university species. Vest, 13(3–4), 9–34.Google Scholar
  23. Marttila, L., Lyytinen, A., & Ylijoki, O.-H. (2010). Tutkimusyhteisöjen ja akateemisen työn muutos. Laitosjohtajakyselyn tulokset [The transformation of research communities and academic work. The survey results]. Working papers 5. The Unit for Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, University of Tampere.Google Scholar
  24. Massy, W. F. (2009). Academic values in the marketplace. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21(3), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Merton, R. (1968). Science and democratic social structure. In R. K. Merton (Ed.), Social theory and social structure. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  26. Metcalfe, A. S., & Fenwick, T. (2009). Knowledge for whose society? Knowledge production, higher education, and federal policy in Canada. Higher Education, 57, 209–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, P. N. (2005). Universities in national innovation systems. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation (pp. 209–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Nieminen, M. (2005). Academic research in change. Transformation of Finnish university policies and university research during the 1990s. Helsinki: The Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters.Google Scholar
  29. Nieminen, M., & Kaukonen, E. (2004). Universities and science–industry relationships: Making a virtue out of necessity? In G. Schienstock (Ed.), Embracing the knowledge economy (pp. 196–218). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  30. Pelkonen, A. (2008). The Finnish competition state and entrepreneurial policies in the Helsinki region. Research reports 254. Department of Sociology, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  31. Puuska, H.-M. (2010). Effects of scholar’s gender and professional position on publishing productivity in different publication types. Analysis of a Finnish university. Scientometrics, 82, 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Puuska, H.-M., & Miettinen, M. (2008). Julkaisukäytännöt eri tieteenaloilla [Publication patterns in different disciplines] (Vol. 33). Finland: Publications of the Ministry of Education.Google Scholar
  33. Shinn, T. (2002). The triple helix and new production of knowledge: Prepackaged thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science, 32, 599–614.Google Scholar
  34. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Statistics Finland. (2007). Research and development. http://www.stat.fi/til/tkke/index_en.html.
  36. Tuunainen, J. (2005). Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university. Higher Education, 50, 275–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tuunainen, J., & Knuuttila, T. (2008). Determining the norms of science: From epistemological criteria to local struggle on organizational rules? In J. Välimaa & O.-H. Ylijoki (Eds.), Cultural perspectives on higher education (pp. 67–80). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Välimaa, J., & Hoffman, D. (2008). Knowledge society discourse and higher education. Higher Education, 56, 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ylijoki, O.-H. (2003). Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing ideals and practices of university research. Higher Education, 45, 307–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ylijoki, O.-H. (2008). A clash of academic cultures: The case of Dr. X. In J. Välimaa & O.-H. Ylijoki (Eds.), Cultural perspectives on higher education (pp. 75–89). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ziman, J. (1996). Post-academic science: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies, 9, 67–80.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oili-Helena Ylijoki
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anu Lyytinen
    • 2
  • Liisa Marttila
    • 3
  1. 1.Unit for Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, School of Social Sciences and HumanitiesUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  2. 2.Higher Education Group, School of ManagementUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  3. 3.Development UnitTampere University of Applied SciencesTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations