Skip to main content

Academic Capitalism, Conceptual Issues

Introduction

A number of theories speak to the increasing alignment between science and engineering, universities, and the economy. Among the more prominent are the triple helix (Etzkowitz et al. 1998), Mode 2 (Gibbons et al. 1994), and entrepreneurial universities (Clark 1998). The triple helix (science, government, industry) is in many cases a descriptive, win–win narrative that celebrates the decontextualized emergence of university-industry partnerships that are assumed to be engines of economic development and prosperity. Universities win because they claim intellectual property that leads to income for research; industries win because they gain access to the scientific and technological creativity of university-based discoveries. However, the theory leaves universities as institutions relatively unexamined beyond technology transfer activities. Nor is government analyzed, other than in its provision of funds for research, while industry is usually focused upon in its capacity as...

Keywords

  • Academic Capitalism
  • Sheila Slaughter
  • Irradiated Milk
  • University-industry Partnerships
  • Interstitial Organization

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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

References

  • Ball, S.J. 2012. Global Education, Inc.: New policy networks and the neoliberal imaginary. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branscomb, L. et al. 1997a. Technology politics to technology policy. Issues in Science and Technology. 13 (Spring): 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Branscomb, L. et. al. 1997b. Investing in innovation, toward a consensus strategy for federal technology policy. Cambridge: Harvard University, Center for Science and International Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braverman, H. 1975. Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. New York: Monthly Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush, V. 1945. Science–the endless frontier: A report to the president on a program for postwar scientific research. Reprint, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantwell, B., and I. Kauppinen. eds. 2014. Academic capitalism in the age of globalization. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B. 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, J., A. Webster, and P. Healey. 1998. Capitalizing knowledge: New interactions of industry and academe. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., and A. Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. xi, 47(1), 93–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, S. Schwartzman, H. Nowotny, M. Trow, and P. Scott. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R., K. 1942. The normative structure of science. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Reprint, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, J. 1973. The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martin’s.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. 2003. Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2005. From endless frontier to basic science for use: Social contracts between science and society. Science, Technology and Human Values 30 (4): 1–37.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., and B. Cantwell. 2012. Transatlantic moves to the market: Academic capitalism in the US & EU. Higher Education 63 (5): 583–606.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., and L.L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1990. Renorming the social relations of academic science: Technology transfer. Educational Policy 4 (4): 341–361.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter, S., and B. Taylor, eds. 2016. Higher education, stratification, and workforce development: Competitive advantage in Europe the US, and Canada. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. 1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, F.Q. 1992. The commercialisation of university research in Australia: Issues and problems. Comparative Education 28: 293–313.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sheila Slaughter .

Section Editor information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Slaughter, S. (2018). Academic Capitalism, Conceptual Issues. In: Encyclopedia of International Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_100-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9553-1_100-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9553-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9553-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social Sciences