CURIOSITY AND COMMERCIALIZATION:

Faculty Perspectives On Sponsored Research, Academic Science and Research Agendas

THOMAS E. PERORAZIO

Center for the Study of Higher & Postsecondary EducationThe University of Michigan

August 21, 2009

2

Context for Topic•Literature on Globalization

•Research Enterprise, Knowledge Production

•Science Studies; Science & Technology Studies

FUNDAMENTAL UNDERSTANDING OF KNOWLEDGE CREATION

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF SCIENCE POLICY

▫ This study addresses both areas

3

2 Primary Research Questions

1. To what extent do university faculty feel the process for obtaining research sponsorship is compromising their ability to control their own research agenda?

________________________________________

2. Is there evidence to suggest the existence of alternate normative/value systems among faculty regarding what constitutes academic science that differ from traditional ones?

4

Study

•Original Survey Instrument; Online Admin.

•Sample of 4,540 faculty nationwide▫Pool of 252 Doctoral, Research universities

▫5 disciplinary areas Engineering, Medical/Health, Biological,

Physical, & Social Sciences

•1,210 responses

5

Merton’s Norms (Mertonian Science) 1942• Universalism

▫ No bias RE: personal attributes of scientists

• Communality▫ Findings belong to all; No secrecy

• Disinterestedness▫ No exploitation of work for personal gain

• Organized Skepticism▫ Detachment, suspension of judgment

6

Deviation to What ?Merton’s Change

• Sociological ambivalence

▫Cognitive dissonance of competing demands

▫Scientists will deviate from ideals to adapt

•Critiques of Merton

▫Norms are an ideal (myth?)

▫Do not reflect practice

▫Widespread deviation

7

Research as an InstitutionIssue:

•Was it possible to compare traditional vs. modern ideas of academic science?

•Look for evidence of difference

Assumptions:

•Conceive of science as a social activity

•As structures endure stress, faculty have some freedom to adapt

•Participants in science re-writing norms

8

Typology of Faculty Views on Academy-Industry Relations

Source: Owen-Smith & Powell, 2001

9

Faculty Typology• 2 Dimensions

Overlap of Academy-Industry Threat of Commercial Science

OLD SCHOOL Distinct, Threat Traditional, Mertonian Science

NEW SCHOOL Overlap, No Threat (Post)Modern, Integrates Commercialism

ENGAGED TRADITIONALIST Distinct, No Threat Faculty can be commercial without threat to

academy

RELUCTANT ENTREPRENEUR Overlap, Threat Pragmatic; Do enough commercialism to protect

research

10

Self-placement, 2 dimensions Index Preference

Frequency Valid Percent Frequency Valid PercentOld School 332 28.8 292 27.1

Engaged Traditionalist 407 35.3 256 23.8

Reluctant Entrepreneur 139 12.1 123 11.4

New School 274 23.8 406 37.7

Total 1,152 100.0 1077 100.0

Comparison of Type Distributions

•New School shows the biggest gain (13.9%)

•Old School still 2nd ; loses some

•Engaged Traditionalist goes from 1st to 3rd

•Reluctant Entrepreneur about the same

•OVERALL—less Threat and more Overlap

11

Typology/ Value Findings (1)

• Mertonian science persists as ideal; Old School position prominent, but not dominant

• Strong support for alternate systems; New School as legitimate▫ Acceptance of transformed values

• Engaged Traditionalist = the stronger hybrid position

• Relative lack of preference for Reluctant Entrepreneur type

12

Typology/ Value Findings (2)

•Typology as classification scheme not supported

•Preference orders indicate faculty use multiple value systems▫Simultaneously, or context-dependent________________________________________

Transformed academic science

Sociological ambivalence of faculty

Adaptive institutional forms; New norms

13

Control Over Research Agendas

EXAMINED TWO WAYS

•Control ‘Scenarios’

•Scale for ‘Self-Directed Research’

14

Control: Theoretical Scenarios

Perception of Sponsors

Cooperative Coercive

Ability to Secure Sponsored Funding

High Curiosity Compromise

Low Collaboration Concession

15

Control Scenarios

•Few high scores overall

•Means for freedom from interference measures higher than those for autonomy

•3 of 4 paired t-tests reveal funding from government has higher control scores

16

Self-Directed ResearchItem #

Factor Loading Communalities

Factor 1: Self-directed Research α = 0.86

6Researching topics of interest to my research sponsors keeps me from studying topics important to me 0.84 0.70

9I have to compromise my research interests in order to secure funding for any research 0.83 0.69

5I alter the focus of my research to accommodate the project goals of my research sponsors 0.77 0.59

2Sponsors of research actively attempt to influence my choice of research topics 0.71 0.51

7My research sponsors have specific problems they want me to research for them 0.70 0.50

3Inability to find funding keeps me from pursuing the problems of greatest interest to me 0.67 0.45

12I am restricted from conducting basic research with the funding I am able to raise 0.65 0.42

Mean SD

FactorSelf-Directed Research (Composite: Original code;

1=Always, 5=Never)3.57 0.83

17

Analytical Model

18

Regression 1: Self-Directed Research

• Significant Predictors▫ Knowledge of/Involvement in CS (-, -)▫ Pressure to produce CS outcomes (-)▫ Req. to offset salary w/ external funds (-)▫ Univ offers financial support for research (+)▫ Industry funding sources (-)▫ Discipline: Engineering (ref: Soc Sci) (-)▫ Type: RE (-)▫ Private institution (+)

R2 0.359Adjusted R2 0.334

Standard Error 0.643F 14.47 p< .001

19

Control (Findings)1. Control as complete autonomy

(Curiosity-based research) was NOT the prevailing definition

2. No difference in control based on typology index preference

3. Control not a “steady-state.” Overcoming hindrances most important; context matters

20

Implications, Policy & Practice

•Faculty have strong tolerance for ambiguity

•Faculty have facility with alternate normative structures

•Faculty seek healthy engagement with sponsors

•Control is moderate overall

•Networks of collaboration matter

21

Implications, Theory & Research

•Social relations of knowledge production critical

•Should seek evidence of reflexive adaptation

•Move beyond “heroic” view of science

•More complex construct for control is required

22

More Complex Representation of ‘Control’

23

Limitations/ Suggestions

•Need a more complicated construct for control in quantitative studies

•Qualitative studies could examine constructs in more depth; case studies of collaborations

•Potential measurement error corrected with refinement of value statements

•Could have respondents rank types for different contexts

•Seek evidence of institutionalization of alternate value systems

24

Questions ?????

THOMAS E. PERORAZIO

Center for the Study of Higher & Postsecondary Education

The University of Michigan

tperoraz@umich.edu