Academic Capitalism - Research Paper Example

? Academic Capitalism Introduction In the present times, most of the universities are observed to be focused towards involving themselves in ‘market-like’ activities which are often referred as academic capitalism. The colleges as well as universities have been involving themselves in activities through which they can earn revenues through their core educational, research as well as service functions. It might range from production of knowledge that has been prepared by the teachers to the teachers’ curriculum as well as instruction (Rhoades & Sluaghter, n.d.). Hereby, the main objective of the paper is to understand the meaning of the term ‘academic capitalism’, theories related to academic capitalism, history of academic capitalism and its impact upon the teachers, students as well as the general US people. What is Academic Capitalism? Academic capitalism can be comprehended as the contribution of both college as well as faculties in ‘market-like behaviours’ which has gradually become one of the main characteristics of higher education in the United States. In the current day context, it has often been observed that colleges as well as universities, especially in the public sector, have not been capable of gaining adequate support from the side of the government. It is because of this reason that public colleges and universities are trying to prepare their targeted market and sell numerous products in the private sector as one of the main source of income with the motive of increasing the profit margin. In the present times, the higher-educational institutions such as colleges and universities are observed to be intended towards earning revenues by means of their core educational, research as well as service functions. Such developments are often perceived as the emergence of an academic capitalist knowledge regime. By the term regime, it can be comprehended that within each of these realms there is a methodical revision as well as generation of the strategies so that these activities can be made possible (Rhoades & Sluaghter, n.d.). In the context of higher education, the revenue seeking activities tends to take numerous forms (Hearn, 2003). Academic capitalism is as far-reaching as that of globalization to which it has been a required response. The term intends to demonstrate the phenomenon of universities’ as well as the teachers’ high attention to market potential as a research momentum (Mazzolini, 1997). In this regards, academic capitalism has often been defined by the academicians as a philosophy that follows profit-generating attempts. While focusing upon marketplace and associating with the government, business, and industry, the profit earning initiative of the academic institutions can comprise of technical services along with personnel exchanges (Gumport, 2000). Academic capitalism is also defined as a systematic procedure which focuses on yielding the benefits of high quality training, the growth of e-learning offerings, rental facilities along with space, and the shifting of the resources from inactive tasks to ones which is more productive as well as efficient. It is in this context that by means of academic capitalism, the decision makers of academic institutions are endorsed to become more conscious towards the market. Another virtue of academic capitalism is that it motivates the academicians to be more careful while allocating the resources ranging from traditional instructional tasks to the task of revenue generation (Tarance, 2002). The concept of capitalist academy seems to be quite contentious in nature since it is viewed as demanding conventional academic leadership forwarding the institutional resources towards the task of revenue generation and thereby shifting the institutional focus and leveraging the characteristic of academic work (Hanley, 2005). In the context of academic capitalism, students are the customers and colleges have become merchants. Along with it, the research conducted by them is being commercialised in various fields leading to new age in the academic fields as an entrepreneurial institution (Chait, 2002). The expressions related to academic capitalism are various. For instance, it has been observed in the modern trend that high competition persists in campus outsourcing, student commercialisation, rise in the number of part-time faculty members, vocationalization of the curriculum, and the implementation of the privatised models of internal financing. Examples of academic capitalism can be regarded as the pharmaceutical patenting and the generation of spin-off companies and also the commercialisation of university logos as well as sports paraphernalia. University-industry partnerships, rise in student tuition as well as fees and removal of those programs which are of little or no significance to the current employment market can also be comprehended as a few instances of academic capitalism (Chait, 2002). Academic capitalism is basically related to the faculty and can be best comprehended as a context where the academic staffs belonging to the universities that are funded publicly, work in stiff competitive environment, making use of their academic capital that may consists of teaching skills, consultancy skills, as well as research or other applications of academic knowledge (Deem, 2001). In more basic terms, the concept of academic capitalism can be comprehended as a professorial market or effort which is ‘market-like’ in its nature so that money can be earned (Awbery, 2002). In this regard, Ylijoki (2003) stated the fact that involving oneself in the process of academic capitalism is not simple occurrence but it can be in numerous forms and in various areas as well as organizational locations. History of Academic Capitalism The concept related to academic capitalism has its roots in labour economics in the sense that those recognising an alteration towards academic capitalism view rise in the participation of academia in the free market. In the period of industrial revolution, the faculty members were capable of placing themselves between the forces of labour as well as capital. The role of the faculty members was to act like the gatekeepers of knowledge. They were also responsible to prepare those individuals who desire to enter into market with the human capital so that they can be successful. Although they assisted other members in gaining the complete virtues of the academics, they themselves remained as an isolated entity in the sector. It was because of this isolation that kept the faculty members away from the market place (Powell & Snellman, 2004). In the period of 1980s, there was significant alteration in the economy along with high competition from the Pacific Rim. For the purpose of recompensing, the economy of United States looked for development in research and technology. It was because of this phenomenon that there was an emergence of knowledge economy or new economy which was contended by Powell and Snellman (2004) as “production and services based on knowledge-intensive activities that contribute to an accelerated pace of technological and scientific advance as well as equally rapid obsolescence”. The scholars also intended to pay due attention towards the participation of academia in the knowledge industry during the period of 1980s as well as 1990s. By means of conducting extensive literature reviews, Fairweather (1988), identified the fact that the compensating activities for the colleges as well as the universities on the whole were conducted for the deteriorating governmental revenues by means of connection with business and via marketing of educational services (Fairweather, 1988). On the other hand, Massy & Zemsky (1990) depicted the efforts of the faculty members to conduct extensive studies basically in the area of research and development centers on the edge of various universities so that they can bring in increasing external revenues. It was in the year 1993, when Breneman made his contribution to the funding literature by illustrating one convincing case which focused on a significant decline in public financial endorsement for higher education. This fact was further endorsed on the basis of influence of declining funds for higher education on teaching as well as upon research (Rhoades, 1998). It was further noted by Rhoades (1998) that there was movement in allocation of the resources from instruction to entrepreneurialism through rise in the funding for the purpose of administration that helped in grand-sponsored research. Rhoades also stated that because of the legal as well as economic changes there has been improvement in the management styles in the context of higher education, generally decline in the power of unionised faculty who has viewed greater supervision as well as control from the administrative departments. It is these studies that have demonstrated the initiation of significant attention towards the perception of what has been referred to as academic capitalism or academic entrepreneurialism and has further assisted to create a scene for what is considered to be foundational in relation to the phenomenon of academic capitalism (Park, 2010). Theories of academic capitalist There are numerous theories related to academic capitalism. Academic capitalism can be utilised as a gender theory as well. The reason behind this is that it intends to explain how patriarchy is getting involved in the context of higher education institutions such as universities by a rational economic agenda, despite the important benefits of individual women. Furthermore, it can be observed that the theory related to academic capitalism illustrates the studies of those theorists who have been influenced by the economic inequality theories as given by Karl Marx and also pays due concentration at the role of power in organisations as well as societies. However, they do not focus upon what was the significance of social change for Marx. The focus is also not much upon the struggle between capital as well as labour, where labour is generally comprehended as working class. Instead of these, the theories views organisations as one of the significant players in the power alterations that are again influenced by the society. Views of different authors There have been various discussions regarding the term academic capitalism. While few authors found the term to be appropriate, others contended that it too strongly denoted a Faustian bargain along with the business class in relation to academics. In Australia, social democratic colleges viewed academic capitalism as summoning up of the stronger images related to exploitation of the academic labour force than were permitted by the recent practices in the colleges and universities (Slaughter & Leslie, n.d.). By the term capitalism, the private ownership related to factors of production can be understood. It is in this context that taking into account employees of public research universities as capitalists at first sight seems an obvious contradiction with the public. Capitalism can be described as an economic system where the decision related to allocation can be driven by the forces of market. By making use of the academic capitalism as the main theme, several authors have intended to demonstrate the reality related to challenging environment of public research universities, an ambience which has many disagreements, in which both the faculty as well as professional staffs use their human capital stocks progressively more in a competitive context. They are referred as academics acting as capitalists from within the public sector. They are also referred to as state-subsidised entrepreneurs (Slaughter & Leslie, n.d.). One of the significant explanations regarding the altering characteristics of higher education as well as faculty work can be found in academic capitalism. Slaughter & Rhoades (2004) recognized the theory related to academic capitalism as a collection of actors such as faculty, students, academic professionals as well as administrators making use of numerous resources in order to generate new routes of knowledge that can connect higher education with the new economic structures. In simple words, academic capitalism can be defined as search of market as well as ‘market-like’ activities so that external revenues can be generated (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). It has further been observed that universities are forced to pursue revenue-generating practices in order to increase the financial resources of the institutions as well as to enhance the image of the organization in the market and also to stimulate their presence in the competitive global environment. However, Slaughter & Rhoades (2004) view academic capitalism as one of the significant methods of connecting individuals with the world as social beings. With this concern, universities are observed to be developing the new economy with their human capital along with well-prepared systems in order to conduct researches. This phenomenon has been best described as university entrepreneurship, academic entrepreneurship, capitalizing knowledge, academy industry relations, technology transfer, and commercialization of the academic institutes (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). The main concept remains the same where the universities as well as their faculties involve in behaviors that connect to industry in order to create wealth and prestige. The theory related to academic capitalism has been recognized in the work of Sluaghter & Rhoades (2004) that has enlarged the work conducted by Slaughter & Leslie (1997). Academic capitalism expands further than the study conducted by the faculty and comprises of the influence of state as well as federal policies to a certain extent. It also comprises of the impact of entanglement of students, trustees, administrators as well as other stakeholders in the field of education. Therefore, the new economy considers advanced knowledge as a raw material that can be claimed by means of legal device which is possessed and promoted as commodities in the current market context. These raw materials can be protected by means of patents along with copyrights as well as trademarks. The objective of the university possessing trade secrets is to be sold in the market with the main motive of earning profits. Concurrently, the university directs the work of the faculty towards earning profits from various external sources. In reality, it has been found that most of the research universities have prepared formal mission statements and created technology transfer offices so that they can attain this objective (Slaughter & Leslie (1997). Impact of Academic Capitalism on Sub-Groups of Faculty and Students Academic capitalism may have a tremendous influence upon the various group of faculty in distinct ways. A study that was conducted by Metcalfe & Slaughter (2008) comprehended the manner in which genders might be impacted differently by academic capitalism. In this regards, they assert a differential success related to women in the academy where there have been major growth in professional services and administrative positions. However, it has been observed that women have not been capable of gaining equality in the faculty positions. When women have been capable of gaining more significance in comparison to men in context of number of positions as well as salary, there is rise in an alternative hierarchy that tends to be subjugated by men in the society. It has been further been observed that men are trying to move towards entrepreneurial units in order to recapture their previous positions in the field of academy. It is because of this activities that places the men closer to university technical as well as financial resources that helps them in availing several advantages such as summer salaries, consulting scope, educational (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). It has further been stated by the authors such as Metcalfe & Slaughter (2008) that women may not involve themselves in the process of academic commercialization process. However, this may be because of choice where women might refuse academic capitalism while favoring teaching and research as a way to attain work-life balance. This choice is basically impacted by social as well as ethical obligation to add to the public good and prevent the network of public policies as well as agencies from being closed down so that women can easily enter into the academy (Metcalfe & Slaughter, 2008). With the extension in the reach of the academic capitalist knowledge regime, the creation of the new roles perceived by the students is expected not only regarding the selection of post-secondary institution along with buying of the goods and services within the college or universities, but also in relation to the procedure of interchange of knowledge between professors and students occurring in and outside of the classrooms (Mars, Slaughter & Rhoades, 2007). There are many other groups who are not immune with the influence of academic capitalism in the higher education. One such results of the academic capitalism may be the utilization of the graduate students considering them as ‘token of exchange’ within the education sector. Moreover, contribution of the graduate students in academic capitalism can also lead to hindrances in publishing of research. Although the students belonging to research universities are impacted by academic capitalism by means of relation good connection with the faculty, it can be stated that there are many other institutions along with the research universities that can avail the benefits offered by academic capitalism. A study has also been conducted by Levin (2006) regarding the faculties at community colleges and demonstrated that there is high tension between educational as well as economic values. In such type of contexts, it has been noted that the faculties intends to improve their institutions closer to the market by placing greater emphasis upon the business rather than upon students (Jacobs & Dougherty, 2006). Most of the authors agree to the fact that the entrepreneurial functions of the faculty members initiated with the Bayh-Dole Act of the year 1980 assisted the universities as well as small businesses to gain ownership of intellectual property and earn profits from it as well (Brannock & Denny, 1998). One of the significant manner in which the faculty members place themselves into an ambience of academic capitalism is by means of technology transfer and also by means of gaining patents as well as licences for their developments. Some authors state the fact that getting involved in academic capitalism is not only advantageous but quite necessary for the faculty members (Lee, 2000). On the contrary, others release academic capitalism as only an unimportant part of university work and thus pinpoints to the dangers that has been associated with it (Agrawal & Henderson, 2002; Giroux, H. A., 2002). Endowing the neoliberal university Remarkably, absent from the growing and influential literature on academic capitalism, the conversation regarding the oldest as well as the most explicit form of university profit-making has been demonstrated in entrepreneurial university. It is because of the neoliberal conditions that the chances of profiting in the neoliberal markets have enhanced. This has led to an outburst in the significance of endowment wealth to both the private as well as public universities. It has been identified that endowment investing has not been the prime business of the universities but it has been playing a significant role in the financing the higher education in the present times. Benefits from the endowment comprise the most quickly rising source of revenues at most of the wealthy private universities. This concept is aligned with the shifts in the neoliberal university, which engrave to public endorsement aimed at attaining more financial assistance from the private sources which may be corporate-university partnerships, higher fee-paying students, entrepreneurial research as well as patenting or investment portfolios (Ciafone, 2005). Does Academic Capitalism Affect The Values and Standards of Higher Education? There have been alterations in the institutional revenue structures in the United States over a decade. This pattern has not been unique to the United States. In Australia, it was found that the federal government was forcing the universities to play a greater role in the promotion of national economic growth. This was done by offering incentive to the universities to associate themselves with the industry and with numerous branches of the government (Leslie, Oaxaca & Rhoades, 2009). Later, it was realized that these patterns were not unique to any of the country. It has been further identified that the presence of external grants or contract funding tends to have a favorable and statistically important influence on the probability of involving in joint production. It has been identified that the educational institutions do not appear to be moving their emphasis from the core tasks such as teaching and towards the research. However, where these institutions do not get any support from the states, the departments, colleges as well as institutions are pressurized to cross-subsidize tasks from other sources. This can be considered as an unhealthy situation for the research as well as for the instruction functions. Notably, in the long run such practices tend to compromise the quality as well as integrity of research and instruction in the public universities (Leslie, Oaxaca & Rhoades, 2009). There is a major alteration in the manner through which the university governance is being practiced in the United States having a tremendous influence on the educational products and processes. The American Universities are struggling hard to identify certain ways in order to resolve these issues. The universities are trying to balance their examination of financial support along with their conventional core principles of teaching and hunt for knowledge (Cyert, 1979). Slaughter & Rhoades (2007) state the fact that American colleges as well as universities are changing from the concept of public good knowledge regime to the concept of academic capitalist knowledge regime. The public knowledge regime is featured by considering knowledge as a public good which is claimed by the general citizens. The basis of the public good knowledge regime is that science leads to the detection of new knowledge within the context of academic disciplines leading to the benefits of the public. On the other hand, unlike public good knowledge rule, the academic capitalization knowledge regime places more emphasis upon the knowledge privatization along with profit taking where the institutions, sponsoring institution and faculties have prior claims (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2007). Academic Capitalism Impacting the Literary Value According to Fromm (1991), the most fake academic capitalists tend to be those individuals who insist themselves of being radicals or Marxists. Their plan is similar to that of others in the academia and they aim at attaining power and success within the systems. In order to attain these objectives, they make use of the material resources similar to the capitalists. Commodification of scholarships as well as careers tends to take place among such learners and they are found selling themselves in the academic marketplace. Fromm (1991) further states the fact that the academic scholarly institutions are trying to become “philistine”, just like any other money-grubbing enterprises in the society. However, it should prosper on the basis of moral superiority. Fromm (1991) also tends to be apprehensive by what the professionalization of literary disparagement has done to the notion of literature itself. The critics justified the study as well as teaching of the literary works on the basis that they contained connotation, emotional as well as aesthetic values along with enduring cultural as well as social benefits. However, in most of the literatures of the recent times, these concepts are found to be disgraceful (Fromm, 1991). Conclusion Academic capitalism has been one of the significant topics of debate in the recent times with regards to the activity of the universities as well as colleges in the ‘market-like’ behavior. By involving themselves in the market-like behavior, they aim at earning revenues. Therefore, academic capitalism can be explained as the collection of the actors such as faculties, universities, colleges and other stakeholders, who work together for the betterment of knowledge and thus aim at earning revenues along with transferring knowledge amid the population effectively. Academic capitalism has a strong impact upon the teachers, students as well as the people of the United States. It is altering the way teachers impart knowledge because the universities are more focused on earning money rather than focusing upon their core competencies. Conclusively, it can be stated that the universities must not deviate from their main objectives that is to fairly impart knowledge among the populace. References Agrawal, A. & Henderson, R. (2002). Putting patents in context: Exploring knowledge transfer at MIT. Management Science. 48(1): 44-60. Awbery, S. M. (2002). Making the “invisible hand” visible: The case for dialogue about academic capitalism. ERIC. Bolman, F. (1979). Disorders in higher education. N J: Prentice-Hall. Brannock, J. C. & Denny, A. M. (1998). Basic guidelines for university-industry research relationships. SRA Journal, 30(1/2): 57-62. Chait, R. P. (2002). The Questions of Tenure. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cyert, R. M. (1979). Governance and administration of the university. United States: Walton & F. D. Ciafone, A. (2005). Work &culture: endowing the neoliberal university. Work and Culture. 7: 1-26. Deem, R. (2001). Globalization, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in university: is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education, 37(1): 7-20. Fromm, H. (1991). Academic capitalism & literary value. Retrieved from http://mtprof.msun.edu/Spr1993/TrtRev.html Fairweather, J.S. (1988). Entrepreneurship and higher education: lessons for colleges, universities, and industry. ERIC Higher Education Report. Giroux, H.A. (2002). Neoliberalism, corporate culture, and the promise of higher education: The University as democratic public sphere. Harvard Educational Review. 72(4): 424-463. Gumport, P. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education. 39: 67-91. Hearn, J. C. (2003). Diversifying campus revenue streams. Washington, DC: American Council on Education. Hanley, L. (2005). Academic capitalism in the new university. Radical Teacher. 73: 3-7. Jacobs, J., & Dougherty, K. J. (2006). The uncertain future of the community college workforce development mission. New Directions for Community Colleges. 136: 53-62. Levin, J. S. (2006). Faculty work: Tensions between educational and economic values. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(1): 62-88. Lee, Y.S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111-133. Leslie, L. L., Oaxaca, R. L. & Rhoades, G. (2009). Technology transfer and academic capitalism. Retrieved from http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ch23.pdf Mars, M. M., Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. (2007). The diverse agendas of faculty within an institutionalized model of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. Metcalfe, A. & Slaughter, S. (2008). The differential effects of academic capitalism on women in the academy. United Kingdom: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Mazzolini, E., 1997. Academic capitalism: politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Retrieved from http://louisville.edu/journal/workplace/issue5p2/mazzolini.html Park, T. (2010). Academic capitalism and its impact on the American professoriate. Journal of the Professoriate. 6(1): 84-99. Powell, W. W., & Snellman, K. (2004).The knowledge economy. Annual Review of Sociology. 30:199-200. Rhoades, G. & Sluaghter, S. (n.d.). Academic capitalism in the new economy: challenges and choices. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/academic/june04/Rhoades.qxp.pdf Rhoades, G. (1998). Managed professionals: Unionized faculty and restructuring academic labor. Albany, N Y: State University of New York Press. Slaughter, S. & Leslie, L. L. (n.d.). Academic Capitalism. United Kingdom: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Tarance, Z. (2002). A view from the outside in: Community colleges as entrepreneurial community learning centers. Retrieved from http://www.league.org/publication/abstracts/leadership/labs1102.html Ylijoki, O. (2003). Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing ideals and practices of university research. Higher Education. 45: 307-335. Bibliography Dougherty, K. J. (1994). The contradictory college: The conflicting origins, outcomes, and futures of the community college. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Dougherty, K. J. & Bakia, M. F. (2000). Community colleges and contract training: Content, origins, and impact. Teachers College Record, 102(1):197-243. Dougherty, K. J. & Townsend, B. K. (2006). Community college missions: A theoretical and historical perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges, 136: 5-13. Dowd, A. C. (2004). Community college revenue disparities: What accounts for an urban college deficit? The Urban Review, 36(4): 251-270. Dowd, A. C. & Grant, J. L. (2007). Equity effects of entrepreneurial community college revenues. Community College Journal of Research and Practice. 31:231-244. Fisher, J. L. (1984). Power of the presidency. New York: Macmillan. Fisher, J. L. (1997). Who will lead higher education’s transformation? Planning for Higher Education, 26(1): 50-54. Fisher, J. L. & Koch, J. V. (2004). The entrepreneurial college president. Westport, CT: Praeger. Fliegler, C. M. (2007). The right stuff. University Business, 10(9): 39-43. Greer, T. V., Chuchinprakarn, R. & Seshadri, S. (2000). Likelihood of participating in mail survey research: Business respondents’ perspectives. Industrial Marketing Management, 29: 97-109. Grubb, W. N. (1996). Working in the middle: Strengthening education and training for the midskilled labor force. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grubb, W. N. & Associates. (1999). Honored but invisible: An inside look at teaching in community colleges. New York: Routledge. Grubb, W. N., Badway, N., Bell, D., Bragg, D. D. & Russman, M. (1997). Workforce, economic, and community development: The changing landscape of the “entrepreneurial” community college. Berkeley, CA: University of California, National Center for Research in Vocational Education. Johnstone, D. B. (1998). The financing and management of higher education: A status report on worldwide reforms. Washington, DC: World Bank. Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon and Schuster. Tolbert, P. S. (1985). Institutional environments and resource dependence: Sources of administrative structure in institutions of higher education. Administrative Quarterly. 30(1): 1-13. Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R. & Armstrong, J. S. (2002). Commercializing knowledge University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science. 48(1): 138-153. Read More