Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Higher Education, Stratification, and Workforce Development pp 59–79Cite as

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

The author thanks Sheila Slaughter and Brendan Cantwell for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To be sure, the embrace of neoliberal policies on campuses has not been whoesale, as indicated by counter-movements such as “law and society” (Silbey 2002) and “saltwater” economics (e.g., Akerlof 2003), See also Pusser’s chapter in this volume.

  2. 2.

    The US federal governments “IPEDS” database engaged in a substantial transformation of variable definitions in the late 1990s. Resulting confusion made it difficult to extend the present analysis backward beyond 2000.

  3. 3.

    As Cantwell details in his chapter in this volume, public universities also hold endowments. However, these funds are often allocated for the support of a multi-campus university system, and so are not directly comparable to private endowments for the purpose of the present analysis.

  4. 4.

    Syracuse withdrew from the association in 2011.

References

  • Akerlof, G. A. (2003). Behavioral macroeconomics and macroeconomic behavior. American Economist, 47(1), 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Archibald, R. N., & Feldman, D. H. (2011). Why does college cost so much? New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education, Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. (1945). Science, the endless frontier. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Desrochers, D. M., & Wellman, J. V. (2011). Trends in college spending, 1999–2009. Washington, DC: The Delta Cost Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N., & Dauter, L. (2007). The sociology of markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 105–128.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 1–26.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. New York: Oxford University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, J. A., & Useem, B. (2012). Putting values and institutions back into the theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 30(1), 37–47.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holm, P. (1995). The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 398–422.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, C. (2001). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeGrand, J., & Bartlett, W. (1993). Quasi-markets and social policy: The way forward? Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher Education, 52(1), 1–39.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2013). The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 28(3), 353–570.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, W. W. (2009). Higher learning, greater good. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mettler, S. (2011). The submerged state. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mettler, S. (2014). Degrees of inequality: How the politics of higher education sabotaged the American dream. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2011). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles: Muthen and Muthen.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Science Board. (2014). Science and engineering indicators. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. (trans: Goldhammer, A.). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (2013). University rankings in critical perspective. Journal of Higher Education, 84(4), 544–568.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Sachs, F. (2007). Is the NIH budget saturated? The Scientist, 19 Nov.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898–920.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Slaughter, S., & Cantwell, B. (2012). Transatlantic moves to the market. Higher Education, 63(5), 583–606.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 13–36.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

    Barrett J. Taylor

Authors
  1. Barrett J. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barrett J. Taylor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Higher Education, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA

    Sheila Slaughter

  2. College of Education, University of North Texas, Denton, Texas, USA

    Barrett Jay Taylor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Taylor, B.J. (2016). The Field Dynamics of Stratification Among US Research Universities: The Expansion of Federal Support for Academic Research, 2000–2008. In: Slaughter, S., Taylor, B. (eds) Higher Education, Stratification, and Workforce Development. Higher Education Dynamics, vol 45. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21512-9_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21512-9_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-21511-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-21512-9

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

search

Navigation