Advertisement

Higher Education

, Volume 70, Issue 6, pp 987–1002 | Cite as

Academic freedom: a lawyer’s perspective

  • Mark DaviesEmail author
Article

Abstract

Academic freedom is central to ideas of higher education, yet in the United Kingdom it is facing challenges from changing managerial approaches within some  universities and changing governmental expectations. Universities are increasingly expected to focus upon knowledge which can be shown to have value and to exploit the results of academic enterprise. Resulting constraints on teaching and research by incessant market-driven demands have the potential to compromise academic freedom. This article considers aspects of academic freedom in an increasingly market-driven environment from a lawyer’s perspective. The legal protections for academic freedom in the UK are minimal, and consideration of the intellectual property policies of a significant number of UK universities suggests that, in many, academic outputs, especially those relating to teaching, have become subject to more entrepreneurial models of higher education, becoming potentially saleable products to be owned and exploited by universities as they see fit. The position is exacerbated by increasing developments in the use of technology as part of the teaching process. Academics who lose ownership of aspects of their intellectual output risk the undermining of their position and academic freedom with a current employer and limiting their opportunities to change employer.

Keywords

Academic freedom Law Intellectual property Copyright 

References

  1. Abbott, A. (2002). The disciplines and the future. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect: The changing American University (pp. 205–230). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Altbach, P. G. (2001). Academic freedom: International realities and challenges. Higher Education, 41, 205–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Association of University Professors (AAUP), Academic freedom and electronic communications. http://www.aaup.org/report/academic-freedom-and-electronic-communications-2014
  4. Andreescu, L. (2009). Individual academic freedom and aprofessional acts. Educational Theory, 59(5), 562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argyres, N. & Liebeskind, J. (1998). Privatizing the intellectual commons: Universities and the commercialization of biotechnology. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organisation, 35, 427–454.Google Scholar
  6. Badley, G. (2003). Integrating culture and higher education: A pragmatist approach. European Educational Research Journal, 2(4), 477–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Badley, G. (2009). A place from where to speak: The university and academic freedom. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(2), 146–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barendt, E. (2010). Academic freedom and the law: A comparative study. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Barrow, R. (2009). Academic freedom: Its nature, extent and value. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(2), 178–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beloff, M. Q. C. (2010). Academic freedom—Rhetoric or reality? Denning Law Journal, 22(1), 117–141.Google Scholar
  11. Birtwistle, T. (2004). Academic freedom and complacency: The possible effects if “good men do nothing”. Education and the Law, 16(4), 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowie, N. E. (1993). The clash between academic values and business values. Business & Professional Ethics Journal, 12(4), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ch’ang, S. (1994). Confidentiality in collaborative research and its impact on the commercialisation of research and development. Australian Intellectual Property Journal, 5(3), 133–151.Google Scholar
  14. Crequer, N. (1989). The passing of the education reform act. Higher Education Quarterly, 43(1), 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crespi, S. (1997). Intellectual property and the academic community. European Intellectual Property Review, 19, 6.Google Scholar
  16. Elmes, J. (2014). Q&A with Margaret Archer. Times higher education, 22 May (online edition).Google Scholar
  17. Enders, J., de Boer, H., & Weyer, E. (2013). Regulatory autonomy and performance: The reform of higher education re-visited. Higher Education, 65(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Farrington, D., & Palfreyman, D. (2012). The law of higher education (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fichte, J.G. (1793). Proof of the Unlawfulness of Reprinting. Beweis von der Unrechtmäßigkeit des.Google Scholar
  20. Fuller, S. (2000). The governance of science. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fuller, S. (2009). The genealogy of judgement: Towards a deep history of academic freedom. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(2), 164–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gill, J. (2014). The right to be unpopular. Times higher, 10 July (online edition).Google Scholar
  23. Gillon, B. & Henderson, I. (2012). What is academic freedom? University world news, 28 October, Issue 245.Google Scholar
  24. Gray, J. (2012). Post legislative scrutiny and the changes that may lie ahead. Freedom of Information, 9(1), 3–6.Google Scholar
  25. Hayes, D. (2009). Academic freedom and the diminished subject. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(2), 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hill, D. (2011). A contentious triangle: Grading and academic freedom in the academy. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. House of Commons. (2012). In Report of the Justice Committee undertaking post legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Google Scholar
  28. Howell, C. (2011). Extra compensation for inventive employees: Is our system equitable, unbiased and motivating? Intellectual Property Quarterly, 4, 371.Google Scholar
  29. Karran, T. (2009). Academic freedom in Europe: Reviewing UNESCO’S recommendation. British Journal of Educational Studies, 57(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kretschmer, M., & Kawohl, F. (2009). Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and the trap of inhalt (content) and form: An information perspective on music copyright. Information, Communication and Society, 12(2), 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Langford, J. (1991). Secrecy, partnership and the ownership of knowledge in the university. Intellectual Property Journal, 6, 155–169.Google Scholar
  32. Loughlan, P. (1996). Of patents and professors: Intellectual property, research workers and universities. European Intellectual Property Review, 6, 345.Google Scholar
  33. Macdonald, S. (2011). Seducing the goose: A review of patenting by UK universities. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 4, 323–344.Google Scholar
  34. National Academies Policy Advisory Group. (1995). Intellectual property and the academic community. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
  35. Nixon, J., Beattie, M., Challis, M., & Walker, M. (1998). What does it mean to be an academic? A colloquium. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(3), 277–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Hear, A. (1988). Academic freedom and the university. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 22(1), 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Neil, R. (2008). Academic freedom in the wired world: Political extremism, corporate power, and the university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Palfreyman, D. (2006, 2007). Is academic freedom under threat in UK and US Higher Education? OxCHEPS Occasional Paper No. 23.Google Scholar
  39. Parr, C. (2014a). Lawyer compares Suarez bite to academic ‘outspoken opinion. Times higher. 7 July (online edition).Google Scholar
  40. Parr, C. (2014b). UCU presses Warwick to sever ties with SGH Martineau after blog post. Times higher. 10 July (online edition).Google Scholar
  41. Pila, J. (2010a). Who owns the intellectual property rights in academic work? EIPR, 32(12), 609.Google Scholar
  42. Pila, J. (2010b). Academic freedom and the courts. Law Quarterly Review, 126, 347–351.Google Scholar
  43. Reisz, M. (2013). Academic freedom ‘doesn’t really exist? Times Higher Education. 12 November (online edition).Google Scholar
  44. Richards, G. (ed.) Reviewed by Tessensohn, J. A. (2013). University intellectual property: A source of finance and impact. European Intellectual Property Review, 35(8), 493–494.Google Scholar
  45. Russell, C. (1993). Academic freedom. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Shattock, M. (2001). The academic profession in Britain: A study in the failure to adapt to change. Higher Education, 41(1–2), 27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shepherd, J. (2006). Staff are silenced by fear of reprisals. Times Higher Education Supplement, 4 August (online edition).Google Scholar
  48. Stallberg, C. G. (2007). The legal status of academic employees’ inventions in Britain and Germany and its consequences for R&D agreements. Intellectual Property Quarterly, 4, 489–530.Google Scholar
  49. UNESCO (1997). Recommendation concerning the status of higher-education teaching personnel, 11 November, 28. http://www.unesco.org/education/docs/recom_e.html. Accessed 4 June 2014.
  50. United Kingdom Cabinet Office. (1992). Intellectual property in the public sector research base. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  51. Van Alstyne, W. (1975). The specific theory of academic freedom and the general issue of civil liberty. In E. Pincoffs (Ed.), The concept of academic freedom. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wang, W.-L. (2012). A study on conflicts of interest in academia-industry cooperation: The defence for and modifications to the Bayh-Dole Act: Part 1. European Intellectual Property Review, 34(12), 834–846.Google Scholar
  53. Watson, C. (2011). Accountability, transparency, redundancy: academic identities in an era of “excellence”. British Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 955–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Williams, K. (2008). Troubling the concept of the “academic profession” in 21st century higher education. High Education, 56(5), 533–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sussex Law SchoolUniversity of SussexFalmer, BrightonUK

Personalised recommendations