Many research-intensive universities have moved into the business of promoting technology development that promises revenue, impact, and legitimacy. While the scholarship on academic capitalism has documented the general dynamics of this institutional shift, we know less about the ground-level challenges of research priority and scientific problem choice. This paper unites the practice tradition in science and technology studies with an organizational analysis of decision-making to compare how two university artificial intelligence labs manage ambiguities at the edge of scientific knowledge. One lab focuses on garnering funding through commercialization schemes, while the other is oriented to federal science agencies. The ethnographic comparison identifies the mechanisms through which an industry-oriented lab can be highly adventurous yet produce a research program that is thin and erratic due to a priority placed on commercialization. However, the comparison does not yield an implicit nostalgia for federalized science; it reveals the mechanisms through which agency-oriented labs can pursue a thick and consistent research portfolio but in a strikingly myopic fashion.
AbrahamJohnBallingerRachel. 2012. “The Neoliberal Regulatory State, Industry Interests, and the Ideological Penetration of Scientific Knowledge: Deconstructing the Redefininition of Carcinogens in Pharmaceuticals.” Science, Technology, & Human Values37 (5): 443–77.
2.
AgrePhilip E.1995. “The Soul Gained and Lost: Artificial Intelligence as a Philosophical Project.” Stanford Humanities Review4 (2): 1–19.
3.
AzoulayPierreDingWaverlyStuartToby. 2009. “The Impact of Academic Patenting on the Rate, Quality, and Direction of (Public) Research Output “The Journal of Industrial Economics57 (4): 637–76.
4.
BobrowD. G.BradyJ. M.. 1998. “Artificial Intelligence 40 Years Later.” Artificial Intelligence103 (1-2): 1–4.
5.
BoggioAndreaBallabeniAndreaHemenwayDavid. 2016. “Basic Research and Knowledge Production Modes: A View from the Harvard Medical School.” Science, Technology, & Human Values41 (2): 163–93.
6.
BrintSteve. 2005. “Creating the Future: ‘New Directions’ in American Research Universities.” Minerva43(1): 23–50.
7.
ByersWilliam. 2010. How Mathematicians Think: Using Ambiguity, Contradiction, and Paradox to Create Mathematics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
CamicCharles. 1995. “Three Departments in Search of a Discipline: Localism and Interdisciplinary Interaction in American Sociology, 1890-1940.” Social Research62 (4): 1003–33.
CohenMichael D.MarchJames G.OlsenJohan P.. 1972. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly17 (1): 1–25.
11.
CollinsHarry M.1974. “The TEA Set: Tacit Knowledge and Scientific Networks.” Science Studies4 (2): 165–85.
12.
CollinsH. M.1990. Artificial Experts: Social Knowledge and Intelligent Machines. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
13.
CollinsH. M.KuschMartin. 1998. The Shape of Actions: What Humans and Machines Can Do. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
CollinsH. M.EvansRobert. 2002. “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Social Studies of Science32 (2): 235–96.
15.
ColyvasJeanettePowellW. W.. 2007. “From Vulnerable to Venerated: The Institutionalization of Academic Entrepreneurship in the Life Sciences.” Research in the Sociology of Organization25 (1): 219–59.
16.
CooperMark H.2009. “Commericalization of the University and Problem Choice by Academic Biological Scientists.” Science, Technology, & Human Values34 (5): 629–53.
17.
CrevierDaniel. 1993. AI: The Tumultuous History of the Search for Artificial Intelligence. New York, NY: Basic Books.
18.
D’AdderioLuciana. 2008. “The Performativity of Routines: Theorising the Influence of Artefacts and Distributed Agencies on Routines Dynamics.” Research Policy37 (5): 769–89. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.012.
19.
DownerJohn. 2007. “When the Chick Hits the Fan Representativeness and Reproducibility in Technological Tests.” Social Studies of Science37 (1): 7–26.
20.
DreyfusHerbert. 1992. What Computers Still Can’t Do: A Critique of Artificial Reason. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
21.
EdwardsPaul. 1996. The Closed World: Computers and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
22.
EtzkowitzHenry. 2008. The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. New York, NY: Routledge.
23.
EtzkowitzHenryWebsterAndrewGebhardtChristianeTerraBranca Regina Cantisano. 2000. “The Future of the University and the University of the Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm.” Research Policy29 (2): 313–30.
24.
EvansJames A.2010. “Industry Induces Academic Science to Know Less about More.” American Journal of Sociology116 (2): 389–452.
25.
FeldmanMartha S.PentlandBrian T.. 2003. “Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change.” Administrative Science Quarterly48 (1): 94–118.
26.
ForsytheDiana E.1993. “Engineering Knowledge: The Construction of Knowledge in Artificial Intelligence.” Social Studies of Science23 (3): 445–77.
27.
FreudSigmund. (1930) 2005. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
28.
FujimuraJoan H.1987. “Constructing ‘Do-able’ Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment.” Social Studies of Science (Sage)17 (2): 257–93.
29.
GalisonPeter. 1996. “Computer Simulations and the Trading Zone.” In The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power, edited by GailsonP.StumpD., 118–57. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
30.
GeigerRoger L.CresoM. Sá. 2008. Tapping the Riches of Science: Universities and the Promise of Economic Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
GibbonsMichaelLimogesCamilleNowotnyHelgaSchwartzmanSimonScottPeterTrowMartin. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
GierynThomas F.1978. “Problem Retention and Problem Choice in Science.” Sociological Inquiry48 (3-4): 96–115.
33.
GierynThomas F.1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
GierynThomas F.2006. “City as Truth-spot: Laboratories and Field-sites in Urban Studies.” Social Studies of Science36 (5): 5–38.
35.
GlaserBarney G.AnselmL. Strauss. (1967) 2009. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
36.
GlennaLeland L.LacyWilliam B.WelshRickBiscottiDina. 2007. “University Administrators, Agricultural Biotechnology, and Academic Capitalism: Defining the Public Good to Promote University “Äìindustry Relationships.” The Sociological Quarterly48 (1): 141–63.
37.
GraubardStephen R.1988. The Artificial Intelligence Debate: False Starts, Real Foundations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
GrinnellFrederick. 2000. “The Practice of Science at the Edge of Knowledge.” The Chronicle of Higher Education46 (29): B11–B12.
39.
GrinnellFrederick. 2009. Everyday Practice of Science: Where Intuition and Passion Meet Objectivity and Logic. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
40.
GrintKeithWoolgarSteve. 1997. The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
41.
GuiceJon. 1998. “Controversy and the State: Lord ARPA and Intelligent Computing.” Social Studies of Science28 (1): 103–38.
42.
HackettEdward J.1990. “Science as a Vocation in the 1990s: The Changing Organizational Culture of Academic Science.” The Journal of Higher Education61 (3): 241–79.
43.
HackettEdward J.2005. “Essential Tensions: Identity, Control, and Risk in Research.” Social Studies of Science35 (5): 787–826.
HackneySheldon. 1986. “The University and Its Community: Past and Present.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science488 (1): 135–47.
46.
HoffmanSteve G.2011. “The New Tools of the Science Trade: Contested Knowledge Production and the Conceptual Vocabularies of Academic Capitalism.” Social Anthropology19 (4): 439–62.
47.
HoffmanSteve G.2015. “Thinking Science with Thinking Machines: The Multiple Realities of Basic and Applied Knowledge in a Research Border Zone.” Social Studies of Science45 (2): 242–69.
48.
HofstadterDouglas R. (1979) 1999. Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. New York: Basic Books.
49.
HollowayKelly Joslin. 2015. “Normalizing Complaint Scientists and the Challenge of Commercialization.” Science, Technology, & Human Values. doi:10.1177/0162243915576004.
50.
HuangKenneth G.MurrayFiona E.. 2009. “Does Patent Strategy Shape the Long-run Supply of Public Knowledge? Evidence from Human Genetics.” Academy of Management Journal52 (6): 1193–221.
51.
JönsHeikeHoylerMichael. 2013. “Global Geographies of Higher Education: The Perspective of World University Rankings.” Geoforum46:45–59
52.
KleinmanDaniel Lee. 2003. Impure Cultures: University Biology and the World of Commerce. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
53.
KleinmanDaniel Lee. 2010. “The Commercialization of Academic Culture and the Future of the University.” In The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University, edited by RadderHans, 24–64. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
54.
KleinmanDaniel LeeVallasSteven P.. 2001. “Science, Capitalism, and the Rise of the “Knowledge Worker”: The Changing Structure of Knowledge Production in the United States.” Theory and Society30 (4): 451–92.
KnorrKarin D.1979. “Tinkering toward Success.” Theory and Society8 (3): 347–76.
57.
Knorr CetinaKarin. 1981. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the Constructivist and contextual Nature of Science. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
58.
LamA.2010. “From ‘Ivory Tower Traditionalists’ to ‘Entrepreneurial Scientists’? Academic Scientists in Fuzzy University-Industry Boundaries.” Social Studies of Science40 (2): 307–40. doi:10.1177/0306312709349963.
59.
LatimerJoannaFeatherstoneKatieAtkinsonPaulClarkeAngusPilzDaniela T.ShawAlison. 2006. “Rebirthing the Clinic The Interaction of Clinical Judgment and Genetic Technology in the Production of Medical Science.” Science, Technology, & Human Values31 (5): 599–630.
60.
LatourBruno. 1987. Science in Action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
61.
LatourBrunoWoolgarSteve. (1979) 1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
62.
LaveRebeccaMirowskiPhilipRandallsSamuel. 2010. “Introduction: STS and Neoliberal Science.” Social Studies of Science40 (5): 659–75.
63.
MarchJames G.1994. Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: Free Press.
64.
MarchJames G.OlsenJohan P.. (1976) 1987. Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
65.
MarickBrian. 2008. “A Manglish Way of Working: Agile Software Development.” In The Mangle in Practice: Sciene, Society, and Becoming, edited by PickeringAndrewGuzikKeith, 185–201. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
66.
MautnerGerlinde. 2005. “The Entrepreneurial University: A Discursive Profile of a Higher Education Buzzword.” Critical Discourse Studies2 (2): 95–120.
67.
McCorduckPamela. 2004. Machines Who Think: A Personal Inquiry into the History and Prospects of Artificial Intelligence, 2nd ed. Natick, MA: A K Peters, Ltd.
MendozaPilar. 2012. “The Role of Context in Academic Capitalism: The Industry-friendly Department Case.” The Journal of Higher Education83 (1): 26–48.
70.
MendozaPilarBergerJoseph B.. 2008. “Academic Capitalism and Academic Culture: A Case Study.” Education Policy Analysis Archives16 (23): 1–24.
71.
MinerAnne S.1987. “Idiosyncratic Jobs in Formalized Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly32 (3): 327–51.
72.
MinerAnne S.1990. “Structural Evolution through Idiosyncratic Jobs: The Potential for Unplanned Learning.” Organization Science1 (2): 195–210.
73.
MinskyMarvin. 1975. “A Framework for Representing Knowledge.” In The Psychology for Computer Vision, edited by WinstonPatrick Henry, 211–77. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
74.
MirowskiPhilip. 2011. Science-Mart: Privatizing American Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
75.
MooreKellyKleinmanDaniel LeeHessDavidFrickelScott. 2011. “Science and Neoliberal Globalization: A Political Sociological Approach.” Theory and Society40 (5): 505–32.
76.
MoweryDavid C.NelsonRichard R.SampatBhaven N.ZiedonisArvids A.. 2001. “The Growth of Patenting and Licensing by U.S. Universities: An Assessment of the Effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980.” Research Policy30 (1): 99–119.
77.
NegrottiMassimo. 2008. “Why the Future Doesn’t Come from Machines: Unfounded Prophecies and the Design of Naturoids.” Bulletin of Science, Technology, & Society28 (4): 289–98.
78.
NewfieldChristopher. 2008. Unmaking the Public University: The Forty-year Assault on the Middle Class. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
79.
NowotnyHelgaScottPeterGibbonsMichael. 2001. Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
80.
OlazaranMikel. 1996. “A Sociological Study of the Official History of the Perceptrons Controversy.” Social Studies of Science26 (3): 611–59.
81.
Owen-SmithJason. 2003. “From Separate Systems to a Hybrid Order: Accumulative Advantage across Public and Private Science at Research One universities.” Research Policy32 (6): 1081–104. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00111-7.
82.
ParkerLee D.2013. “Contemporary University Strategising: The Financial Imperative.” Financial Accountability & Management29 (1): 1–25.
83.
ParthaDasguptaDavidPaul A. 1994. “Toward a New Economics of Science.” Research Policy23 (5): 487–521.
84.
PeirceCharles Sanders. 1932. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Volumes I and II: Principles of Philosophy and Elements of Logic, edited by HartshorneCharlesWeissPaul. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
85.
PenroseRoger. 1999. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
86.
PerrowCharles19721979. Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
87.
PickeringAndrew. 1993. “The Mangle of Practice: Agency and Emergence in the Sociology of Science.” American Journal of Sociology99 (3): 559–89.
88.
PickeringAndrew. 1995. The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
89.
Popp BermanElizabeth. 2008. “Why Did Universities Start Patenting?: Institution-building and the Road to the Bayh-dole Act.” Social Studies of Science38 (6): 835–71. doi:10.1177/0306312708098605.
90.
Popp BermanElizabeth. 2011. Creating the Market University: How Academic Science Became an Economic Engine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
91.
Popp BermanElizabeth. 2014. “Not Just Neoliberalism: Economization in US Science and Technology Policy.” Science, Technology & Human Values39 (3): 397–431.
92.
PowellWalter W.KoputKenneth W.Smith-DoerrLaurel. 1996. “Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology.” Administrative Science Quarterly41 (1): 116–45.
93.
PowellW. W.SnellmanK.. 2004. “The Knowledge Economy.” Annual Review of Sociology30 (1): 199–220. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100037.
94.
PowellWalter W.SandholtzKurt W.. 2012. “Amphibious Entrepreneurs and the Emergence of Organizational Forms.” Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal6 (2): 94–115.
95.
RasmussenEinarMoseySimonWrightMike. 2014. “The Influence of University Departments on the Evolution of Entrepreneurial Competencies in Spin-off Ventures.” Research Policy43 (1): 92–106.
96.
RerupClausFeldmanMartha S.. 2011. “Routines as a Source of Change in Organizational Schemata: The Role of Trial-and-error Learning.” Academy of Management Journal54 (3): 577–610.
97.
RhotenDianaPowellW. W.. 2010. “Public Research Universities: From Land Grant to Federal Grant to Patent Grant Institutions.” In Knowledge Matters, edited by RhotenD.CalhounCraig, 319–45. New York City, NY: Columbia University Press.
98.
RiskinJessica. 2003. “The Defecating Duck, Or, The Ambiguous Origins of Artificial Life.” Critical Inquiry20 (4): 599–633.
99.
Rodríguez-MuñizMichael. 2015. “Intellectual Inheritances: Cultural Diagnostics and the State of Poverty Knowledge.” American Journal of Cultural Sociology3 (1): 89–122.
100.
RosentalClaude. 2008. Weaving Self Evidence: A Sociology of Logic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
101.
SawyerSteve. 2004. “Software Development Teams: Three Archetypes and their Differences.” Communications of the ACM17 (12): 92–97.
102.
SchankRoger C.AbelsonRobert P.. 1975. Scripts, Plans, and Knowledge. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
103.
SchankRoger C.ColbyKenneth M.. 1973. Computer Models of Thought and Language. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co.
104.
SearleJohn R.1980. “Minds, Brains, and Programs.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences3 (3): 417–57.
105.
ShapinSteven. 2008. The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
106.
ShoreCris. 2010. “Beyond the Multiversity: Neoliberalism and the Rise of the Schizophrenic University.” Social Anthropology18 (1): 15–29. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8676.2009.00094.x.
107.
ShoreCrisWrightSusan. 2000. “Coercive Accountability: The Rise of Audit Culture in Higher Education.” In Audit Cultures, edited by StrathernM., 57–89. London, UK: Routledge.
108.
SismondoSergio. 2009. “Ghosts in the Machine Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences.” Social Studies of Science39 (2): 171–98.
109.
SlaughterSheilaArcherdCynthia JoanCampbellTeresa I. D.. 2004. “Boundaries and Quandaries: How Professors Negotiate Market Relations.” The Review of Higher Education28 (1): 129–65.
110.
SlaughterSheilaLeslieLarry. 1997. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
111.
SlaughterSheilaRhoadesGary. 2004. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
112.
Smith-DoerrLaurelVardiItai. 2014. “Mind the Gap Formal Ethics Policies and Chemical Scientists’ Everyday Practices in Academia and Industry.” Science, Technology, & Human Values40 (2): 176–98.
StraussAnselm L.CorbinJuliet. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research, Vol. 15. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
115.
SubramaniamMangalaPerrucciRobertWhitlockDavid. 2014. “Intellectual Closure: A Theoretical Framework Linking Knowledge, Power, and the Corporate University.” Critical Sociology40 (3): 411–30. doi:10.1177/0896920512463412.
116.
SzelényiKatalinBresonisKate. 2014. “The Public Good and Academic Capitalism: Science and Engineering Doctoral Students and Faculty on the Boundary of Knowledge Regimes.” Journal of Higher Education85 (1): 126–53.
117.
ThursbyMarieThursbyJerryMukherjeeSwastika. 2005. “Are There Real Effects of Licensing on Academic Research? A Life Cycle View.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization63 (4): 577–98.
118.
TimmermansStefanTavoryIddo. 2012. “Theory Construction in Qualitative Research from Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis.” Sociological Theory30 (3): 167–86.
119.
TraweekSharon. 1988. Beamtimes and Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
120.
TuringAlan M.1950. “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” Mind59 (236): 433–60.
121.
VoskuhlAdelheid. 2004. “Humans, Machines, and Conversations An Ethnographic Study of the Making of Automatic Speech Recognition Technologies.” Social Studies of Science34 (3): 393–421.
122.
WebsterAndrew. 1994. “University-corporate Ties and the Construction of Research Agendas.” Sociology28 (1): 123–42.
123.
WeizenbaumJoseph. 1976. Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment To Calculation. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman & Co.
124.
WelshRickGlennaLelandLacyWilliamBiscottiDina. 2008. “Close Enough But Not Too Far: Assessing the Effects of University–Industry Research Relationships and the Rise of Academic Capitalism.” Research Policy37 (10): 1854–64.
125.
WinsbergEric. 2010. Science in the Age of Computer Simulation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
126.
ZimanJohn. 1981. “What Are the Options? Social Determinants of Personal Research Plants.” Minerva19 (1): 1–42.
127.
ZuckermanHarriet. 1978. “Theory Choice and Problem Choice in Science.” Sociological Inquiry48 (3, 4): 65–95.
