In their 2001 article published in
Theory in Society, Kleinman and Vallas argue it’s time to refocus our concerns
over the influence of industry on academic institutions. They say the
conventional concern that an increasing commercialization of academic institutions
is threatening autonomy of scientific researchers distracts us from more
central problems raised by the blurring boundaries between industry and
academic institutions.
They say convergence of norms is
occurring whereby both industry and universities are influencing the codes and
the practices of the other and that it is the change of these norms that is at
the heart of the problem. The convergence is asymmetrical, with industrial
norms having a greater impact on universities and resulting in new disparities
in workforces and in the production of knowledge. They build their argument
first by debunking myths about academic research and describing the normative
changes occurring in academia. They also discuss what they argue is an
overoptimistic view of recent changes in industry, consequences of the
convergence, apparent contradictions characteristic of the convergence and
finally how we should respond.
Myths about research in academia:
Kleinman and Vallas say corporate investment is not a novel
threat to disinterested science, autonomous research or a novel obstruction to
the free flow of ideas among researchers. Instead they say the idea that
science is disinterested and that academic researchers have ever enjoyed
complete autonomy is a romantic myth. They say “science is always interested”
with non-technical considerations continually coming into play. Similarly, they
say there are few instances in which academic faculty autonomy in research has high.
And in the university, the free flow of ideas can be impeded by inter-lab competition,
the reluctance on the part of researchers to voice unpopular ideas in fear of
alienation and group affiliation. They say what is really threatened by
academic relationships with industry is the myth of disinterested science.
Academic adoption of industrial norms & consequences:
Kleinman and Vallas describe four ways in which industrial
norms are emerging in the university setting. First, administrators increasingly
tend to treat departments like profit centers and invest in each accordingly.
As a consequence, support for research with uncertain economic rewards in the
market is dwindling. Second, more contingent forms of employment are being
adopted, resulting in more adjuncts, contracts or part-time instructors. Third,
more proprietary thinking ways of thinking have emerged, with universities
becoming more concerned with patents. Finally, work performance assessments are
becoming more quantitative, with appraisals increasingly based on things like
number of publications and revenue generated. In response, researchers may be
producing shorter and more fragmented studies.
The industrial fairytale
The romanticized story of change in industry, paints a
picture of a more egalitarian present compared to a more hierarchical past,
providing a greater level of autonomy for workers. Kleinman and Vallas say
knowledge workers do indeed appear to be enjoying greater levels of autonomy,
but counter that it is a trend that is unlikely to benefit the workforce as a
whole. Instead they propose autonomy is increasing for only a select few—the
technical intelligentsia. Meanwhile, workers holding more traditional skills
are marginalized and devalued. So this industrial fairytale misses the bigger
picture.
Dualism & stratification
As a result of asymmetrical convergence the economic and
social position of a limited segment of technical intelligentsia has become
much stronger. Kleinman and Vallas say convergence is creating patterns of
dualism, disparity and contradiction. So in the academic setting, we get dual
systems of employment, with tenured staff representing “core” faculty and adjunct,
contracted, and part-time instructors representing marginal faculty. Additional
stratification occurs among the core faculty based on relationships with the
market. In this case, faculty engaged in more commercially relevant work occupy
the top of the hierarchy, while faculty whose work is distant from the market
become marginalized.
Contradictions in convergence
A couple of seeming contradictions emerge in the convergence
as described by Kleinman and Vallas. For example, while the university uses
commercialization of scientific research to boost it’s own legitimacy, it may
at the same time be delegitimizing science in the public eye. Another possible
irony they mention is that as convergence progresses, autonomy may remain
stronger in academic market-distant disciplines like the humanities and
sociology. Finally, as they conclude their paper they note that it is worth
pondering whether there be growing satisfaction with research in industry,
while satisfaction with research in the university declines.
What to do?
Kleinman and Vallas say that while it’s unlikely that we
will halt convergence, policy interventions might change its nature. To
determine the appropriate interventions they suggest probing several questions
such as, what do changing administrative conceptions mean for knowledge
production? What does asymmetric convergence mean for scientific work? The
quality of academic production? Finally, they also suggest we challenge
common-sense notions that innovation requires proprietary knowledge with experiments.
Academic duty not to take it all at face value
Throughout this piece, Kleinman and Vallas repeatedly say one
of the factors propelling academic adoption of industrial norms is the
universities’ sagging legitimacy in the public eye. I can’t help but wonder if this
sagging legitimacy is a reality, or based on yet another romanticized myth of
the academic past. I think it’s likely there has always been public skepticism
over whether academic researchers do anything worthwhile in the ivory tower on
the public dollar. I’m inclined to think this has not changed a great deal in
recent years. I could more easily accept the idea that public skepticism may be
growing over the value of higher education as tuition costs climb and things
like MOOCs erode university monopolies on education. But I think that the
legitimacy of the university as an educational institution is a separate
question from the legitimacy of the university as a research institution.
Questions:
How well do you suppose the ideas Kleinman and Vallas present might translate to other countries?
On a scale of 1 – 10 how would you rate the market-proximity
of your graduate work?
On a scale of 1 – 10 how well does your confidence in
(anxiety over) your future job prospects correspond with your response to the
last question?
About the authors:
Daniel Kleinman, lead author on this paper, is not a British
TV and music video director, as Google might suggest. He is the associate dean for social studies in the
Graduate School at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and professor in the
Department of Community and Environmental Sociology. He also has a
long history of studying commercialization of university science, starting with
an ethnographic research project he began in the mid 1990s involving the
practices of people working in a biology laboratory. Steven Vallas is professor
and chair, in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Northeastern
University. His areas of research specialization include the sociology of work
and inequality, contemporary social theory and the sociology of
culture/knowledge/economic institutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment