This study analyzes interview data from 37 science and engineering faculty involved in university-industry relations. Faculty are particularly concerned about how these relations affect their work with graduate students. Our analysis is guided by ritual exchange theory and network theory. First, we explore the ways faculty define and redefine what makes industrial or corporate research appropriate or inappropriate for training graduates. Second, we examine difficulties and tensions faculty face when they work with students on industrial or corporate projects. These difficulties and tensions center on intellectual property and we look at how faculty negotiate with industry over restrictions on publication of graduate student and faculty research results, on faculty and graduate student involvement in start-up companies, and on faculty and graduate student ownership of intellectual property.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, M. S.1996a. Collaboration, the doctoral experience, and the departmental environment. The Review of Higher Education, 19 (3): 305-326.
2.
Anderson, M. S.1996b. Misconduct and departmental context: Evidence from the Acadia Institute’s Graduate Education Project. Journal of Information Ethics5 (1): 15-33.
3.
Anderson, M. S., and K. S. Louis. 1994. The graduate student experience and subscription to the norms of science. Research in Higher Education35 (3): 273-299.
4.
Anderson, M. S., K. S. Louis, and J. Earle. 1994. Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. Journal of Higher Education65 (3): 330-350.
5.
Baez, B., and S. Slaughter. 2001. Academic freedom and federal courts in the 1990s: The legitimation of the conservative entrepreneurial state. In Handbook of theory and research in higher education, edited by J. Smart and W. Tierney, 73-118. Bronx, NY: Agathon.
6.
Blumenthal, D., E. G. Campbell, M. S. Anderson, N. Causino, and K. S. Louis. 1997. With-holding research results in academic life science: Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association277 (15): 1224-1228.
7.
Blumenthal, D., M. Gluck, K. Seashore Louis, M. Soto, and D. Wise. 1986. Industrial support of university research in biotechnology. Science231:242-246.
8.
Branscomb, L. M.1991. Toward a U.S. technology policy. Issues in Science and Technology, summer, 50-55.
9.
Branscomb, L. M.1997. From technology politics to technology policy. Issues in Science and Technology13 (spring): 41-48.
10.
Branscomb, L. M., R. Florida, et al.1997. Investing in innovation: Toward a consensus strategy for federal technology policy. Washington, DC: Competitiveness Policy Council.
11.
Brooks, H.1996. Evolution of U.S. science policy. In Technology, R&D, and the economy, edited by B.L.R. Smith and C. Barfield, 15-48. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
12.
Campbell, T., and D. DeToro. Forthcoming. Sustaining research groups and industrial partnerships: Creating and leveraging a funding whirlpool. Research Policy.
13.
Campbell, T.I.D. 1995. Protecting the public’s trust: A search for balance among benefits and conflicts in university-industry relationships. Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona, 1995. Abstract in Dissertation Abstracts International, 56-05A; 1672.
14.
Campbell, T.I. D.1997. Public policy for the 21st century: Addressing potential conflicts in university-industry collaboration. The Review of Higher Education, 20 (4): 357-379.
15.
Chew, P. K.1992. Faculty-generated inventions: Who owns the golden egg?Wisconsin Law Review, 259: 259-314.
16.
Cohen, W., R. Florida, and W. R. Goe. 1994. University-industry research centers in the United States. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University, Center for Economic Development.
17.
Collins, R.1988. Theoretical sociology. New York: Harcourt Brace.
18.
Council on Competitiveness. 1996. Endless frontier, limited resources: U.S. R&D policy for competitiveness. Washington, DC: Council on Competitiveness.
19.
Croissant, J., and S. Restivo. 2000. Degrees of compromise: Industrial interests and academic values. Albany: State University of New York Press.
20.
Dasgupta, P., and P. David. 1987. Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology. In Arrow and the ascent of modern economic theory, edited by G. R. Feiwel. New York: New York University Press.
21.
Dasgupta, P., and P. David. 1992. Toward a new economics of science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Center for Economic Policy Research.
22.
Fairclough, N.1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. White Plains, NY: Longman.
23.
Feller, I.1993. Universities as engines of economic growth: They think they can. Research Policy19 (4): 335-348.
24.
Feller, I.1996. The university as an instrument of state and a regional economic development—The rhetoric and reality of the U.S. experience. In A productive tension: University-industry research collaborations, edited by P. David and W. E. Steinmueller. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25.
Feller, I.1997. Federal and state government roles in science and technology. Economic Development Quarterly11 (4): 283-295.
26.
Gluck, M., D. Blumenthal, and M. Stoto. 1987. University-industry relations in the life sciences: Implications for students and post-doctoral fellows. Research Policy16:327-336.
27.
Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable and Industrial Research Institute. 1988. Simplified and standardized model agreements for university-industry cooperative research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28.
Johnson, D. G.2001. Conflicts of interest and industry-funded research: Changing norms for professional practice in the academy. In J. Croissant and S. Restivo (Eds.). Degrees of compromise: Industrial interests and academic values. Albany: SUNY Press.
29.
Lambright, W. H., and D. Rahm. 1991. Science, technology and the states. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy6 (3): 49-60.
30.
Lee, Y.1998. University-industry collaboration on technology transfer: Views from the ivory tower. The Policy Studies Journal26 (spring): 69-84.
31.
Lévi-Strauss, C.1969. The elementary structures of kinship. Boston: Beacon.
32.
Louis, K. S., M. S. Anderson, and L. Rosenberg. 1995. Academic misconduct and values: The departments’ influence. The Review of Higher Education18 (4): 393-422.
33.
Louis, K. S.et al.1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: An explanation of behaviors among life scientists. Administration Science Quarterly4:110-131.
34.
Mauss, M.1954. The gift. New York: Free Press.
35.
Merton, R. K., G. Reader, and P. L. Kendall (Eds.). 1957. The student-physician: Introducing studies in the sociology of medical education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
Mulkay, M.1976. Norms and ideology in science. Social Science Information15 (4-5): 637-656.
37.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies. 1999. National patterns of R&D resources: 1998. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
38.
Powell, W. W., K. W. Koput, and L. Smith-Doerr. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly41 (1): 116-145.
39.
Powell, W. W., and J. Owen-Smith. 1998. Universities and the market for intellectual property in the life sciences. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management17 (2): 253-277.
40.
Readings, B.1996. The university in ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
Rhoades, G., and S. Slaughter. 1991. Professors, administrators and patents: The negotiation of technology transfer. Sociology of Education64 (2): 65-77.
42.
Rosenberg, N., and R. Nelson. 1994. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy23:323-348.
43.
Rubin, G.1975. Traffic in women: Notes on the political economy of sex. In R. R. Recter (Ed.), Toward an anthropology of women, 157-201. New York: Monthly Review Press.
44.
Slaughter, S., and L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
45.
Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1993. Changes in intellectual property statutes and policies at a public university: Revising the terms of professional labor. Higher Education26:287-312.
46.
Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1990. Renorming the social relations of academic science: Technology transfer. Educational Policy4 (4): 341-361.
47.
Slaughter, S., and G. Rhoades. 1996. The emergence of a competitiveness research and development policy coalition and the commercialization of academic science and technology. Science, Technology, & Human Value21:303-339.
48.
Soley, L. C.1995. Leasing the ivory tower: The corporate takeover of academia. Boston: South End.
49.
Steigler, S. M.1993. Competition and the research universities. Daedalus122 (4): 157-178.
50.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
51.
Stokes, D. E.1997. Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
52.
Traweek, S.1988. Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
