Advertisement

The Field Dynamics of Stratification Among US Research Universities: The Expansion of Federal Support for Academic Research, 2000–2008

Chapter
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 45)

Abstract

This chapter applies Mettler’s (2011) concept of the “submerged state” to understand the role of competition for research and development (R&D) funding in the stratification of universities in the US. Universities are conceptualized as members of a field whose contours are shaped by R&D policy. Analysis of data from 2000-2008 shows that, as the research policy environment has changed, patterns of stratification among public universities have shifted. The number of “middle class” public universities declined, while the “striving” group grew slightly and the lowest-resource group expanded notably. The group of elite public universities and all groups of private universities changed minimally. While policy changes appear associated with increased stratification, then, this association seems more pronounced for some (e.g., low- and moderate-resource public) universities than for others. Elite universities may use other resource bases – such as endowments – to maintain positions in evolving status hierarchies.

Keywords

Stratification Competition Fields Research policy United States 

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (2003). Behavioral macroeconomics and macroeconomic behavior. American Economist, 47(1), 25–47.Google Scholar
  2. Alvaredo, F., Atkinson, A. B., Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2013). The top one percent in international and historical perspective. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(3), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archibald, R. N., & Feldman, D. H. (2011). Why does college cost so much? New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education, Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bush, V. (1945). Science, the endless frontier. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  6. Cantwell, B., & Taylor, B. J. (2013). Global status, inter-institutional stratification, and organizational segmentation: A time-dynamic Tobit analysis of ARWU position among US Universities. Minerva, 51(2), 195–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cantwell, B., & Taylor, B. J. (2015). The rise of the postdoctorate and the restructuring of academic research. The Journal of Higher Education, 86(5).Google Scholar
  8. Desrochers, D. M., & Wellman, J. V. (2011). Trends in college spending, 1999–2009. Washington, DC: The Delta Cost Project.Google Scholar
  9. Douglass, J. A. (2010). Higher education budgets and the global recession: Tracking varied national responses and their consequences. Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California.Google Scholar
  10. Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fligstein, N., & Dauter, L. (2007). The sociology of markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fourcade, M., & Khurana, R. (2013). From social control to financial economics: The linked ecologies of economics and business in twentieth century America. Theory and Society, 42, 121–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldstone, J. A., & Useem, B. (2012). Putting values and institutions back into the theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 30(1), 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grewal, D. S., & Purdy, J. S. (2014). Introduction: Law and neoliberalism. Law and contemporary problems, forthcoming; Yale Law School, Public law research paper #313. Available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2341068
  17. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 398–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. LeGrand, J., & Bartlett, W. (1993). Quasi-markets and social policy: The way forward? Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  21. Leslie, L. L., Slaughter, S., Taylor, B. J., & Zhang, L. (2012). How do revenue variations affect expenditures within research universities? Research in Higher Education, 53(6), 614–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marginson, S. (2013). The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 28(3), 353–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mathies, C., & Slaughter, S. (2013). University trustees as channels between academe and industry: Toward an understanding of the executive science network. Research Policy, 42(6), 1286–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. McMahon, W. W. (2009). Higher learning, greater good. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Mettler, S. (2011). The submerged state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mettler, S. (2014). Degrees of inequality: How the politics of higher education sabotaged the American dream. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Morphew, C. C., & Taylor, B. J. (2010). Markets in the U.S. higher education system: Imperfect competition for undergraduates. In R. Brown (Ed.), Higher education and the market (pp. 53–62). New York: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  30. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2011). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthen and Muthen.Google Scholar
  31. National Science Board. (2014). Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  32. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. (trans: Goldhammer, A.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  33. Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2012). The elephant in the room: Power, politics, and global rankings in higher education. In M. N. Bastedo (Ed.), The organization of higher education (pp. 86–117). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2013). University rankings in critical perspective. Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 544–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richardson, R. C., Bracco, K. R., Callan, P. M., & Finney, J. E. (1999). Designing state higher education systems for a new century. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
  36. Sachs, F. (2007). Is the NIH budget saturated? The Scientist, 19 Nov.Google Scholar
  37. Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Silbey, S. S. (2002). Law and society movement. In H. M. Kritzer (Ed.), Legal systems of the world: A political, social, and cultural encyclopedia (pp. 860–863). Santa Barbara: CLIO.Google Scholar
  39. Slaughter, S., & Cantwell, B. (2012). Transatlantic moves to the market. Higher Education, 63(5), 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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 & Human Values, 21(3), 303–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Slaughter, S., Taylor, B. J., & Rosinger, K. O. (2015). A critical reframing of human capital theory in higher education. In A. M. Martinez-Aleman, E. M. Bensimon, & B. Pusser (Eds.), Critical approaches to the study of higher education (pp. 80–102). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Slaughter, S., Thomas, S. L., Johnson, D. R., & Barringer, S. N. (2014). Institutional conflicts of interest: The role of interlocking directorates in the scientific relationships between universities and the corporate sector. The Journal of Higher Education, 85(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taylor, B. J., & Cantwell, B. (2015). Global competition, US research universities, and international doctoral education: Growth and consolidation of an organizational field. Research in Higher Education, 56(5), 411–441.Google Scholar
  46. Taylor, B. J., & Morphew, C. C. (2014). Trends in cost-sharing among US public universities and their international implications. Higher Education Policy, 27(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Taylor, B. J., Cantwell, B., & Slaughter, S. (2013). Quasi-markets in US higher education: Humanities emphasis and institutional revenues. Journal of Higher Education, 84(5), 675–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Wijk, J., Stam, W., Elfring, T., Zietsma, C., & den Hond, F. (2013). Activitists and incumbents structuring change: The interplay of agency, culture, and networks in field evolution. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 358–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. B. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 189–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of EducationUniversity of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations