Understanding change in academic knowledge production in a neoliberal era

Political Power and Social Theory

Volumn 27, Issue , 2014, Pages 33-57

  Albert, Mathieu ^a   McGuire, Wendy ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84904813004     PISSN: 01988719     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1108/S0198-871920140000027009     Document Type: Article

References (68)

1. Albert, M. (2003). Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on knowledge production in sociology and economics. Higher Education, 45(2), 147-182.
2. Albert, M., Hodges, B. D., & Regehr, G. (2007). Research in medical education: Balancing service and science. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 12(1), 103-115.
3. Albert, M., L aberge, S., & McGuire, W. (2012). Criteria for assessing quality in academic research: The views of biomedical scientists, clinical scientists and social scientists. Higher Education, 64(5), 661-676.
4. Ambos, T. C., Mä kelä , K., Birkinshaw, J., & D'Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424-1447.
5. Biotechno logy Council of Ontario. (2003). Getting OnTRAC: Benchmarking Ontario's biotechnology sector. Prepared for the Biotechnology Council of Ontario by K. Gautam & B. Gordon, BCO.
6. Berman, E. P. (2012). Cre ating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7. Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Louis, K. S., Stoto, M. A., & Wise, D. (1986). University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: Implications for the university. Science, 232(4756), 1361-136 6.
8. Bourdieu, P. (1971). Le marché des biens symboliques. L'Année sociologique, 22, 49-126.
9. Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 6, 19-47.
10. Bourdieu, P. (1984 [1979]). In Richard Nice (Trans.), Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11. Bourdieu, P. (1988 [1984]). In Peter Collier (Trans.), Homo academicus. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
12. Bourdieu, P. (1993). Sociology in question. London: Sage.
13. Bourdieu P. (1996). In Susan Emanuel (Trans.), The rules of art: Genesis and structure of the literary field. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14. Bourdieu, P. (1996 b [1989]). In Lauretta C. Clough (Trans.), The state nobi lity: Elite schools in the field of power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
15. Bourdieu, P. (2004 [2001]). In Richard Nice (Trans.), Science of science and reflexivity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
16. Ca lvert, J. (2004). The idea of ?basic research' in language and practice. Minerva, 42(3), 251-268.
17. Calvert, J. (2006). What's special about basic research? Science, Technology and Human Values, 31(2), 199-220.
18. Cameron, D. M. (2004). Collaborative federalism and post-secondary education: Be careful what you wish for. Kingston, ON: John Deutsch Institute for the study of economic policy, Queen's University.
19. Canadian Foundation for Innovation. (2008). CFI funded projects. Retrieved from https://www2.innovation.ca/pls/fci/fcienrep.base. Accessed on January 16, 2008.
20. Carroll, W. K., & Little, W. (2001). N eoliberal transformation and antiglobalization politics in Canada: Transition, consolidation, resistance. International Journal of Political Economy, 31(3), 33-66.
21. Crowe, J. A. , & Goldberger, J. R. (2009). University-industry relationships in colleges of agriculture and life sciences: The role of women faculty. Rural Sociology, 74(4), 498-524.
22. Edquist, C. (1997). Sy stems of innovation, Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter.
23. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: A triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Minerva, 36(3), 203-208.
24. Fisher, D., Atkinson-Grosjean, J., & House, D. (2001). Changes in academy/industry/state relations in Canada: The creation and development of the networks of centres of excellence. Minerva, 39(3), 299-325.
25. Fisher, D., Rubenson, K., Clift, R., Lee, J., MacIvor, M., Meredith, J., ? Bernatchez, J. (2006). Canadian federal policy and post-secondary education: Case rep ort. New York, NY: Alliance for International Higher Education Policy Studies.
26. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynam ics of science and research in contemporary societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Glaser, B. E., & Bero, L. A. (2005). Attitudes of academic and clinical researchers toward financial ties in research: A systematic r eview. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(4), 553-573.
28. Godin, B. (1998). Writing performative history: The new new Atlantis? Social Studies of Science, 28(30), 465-483.
29. Govern ment of Canada. (2000). Bill C-13. An act to establish the Canadian institutes of health research. Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/About/Parliament/LegislativeSummaries/ bills-ls.asp?lang=E&ls=c13&Parl=3 6&Ses=2& source=library-prb
30. Gulbrandsen, M. A., & Langfeldt, L. (2004). In search of ?Mode 2': The nature of knowledge production in Norway. Minerva, 42(3), 237-250.
31. Henkel, M. ( 2005). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49(1- 2), 155-176.
32. Hermanowicz, J. C. (2009). Lives in science: How institutions affect academic careers? Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33. Hess, D. J. (2007). Alternatives pathways in science and industry: Activism, innovation, and the environment in an era of globalization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Hes sels, L. K., & van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 28(4), 740-760.
35. Hessels L.K.,Van Lente H. (2011). Practical applications as a source of credibility: A comparison of three fields of Dutch academic chemistry. Minerva. 49 (2) 215-240.
36. Industry Canada. (2001). Ach ieving excellence: Investing in people, knowledge and opportunity. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada.
37. Kinchy, A. J., & Kleinman, D. L. (2003). Organizing credibility: Discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the borde rs of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science, 33(6), 869-896.
38. Kleinman, D. L., & Vallas, S. P. (2001). Science, capitalism, and the rise of the ?knowledge worker': The changing structure of kn owledge production in the United States. Theory and Society, 30(4), 451-492.
39. KPMG. (2002). Evaluation of the networks of centres of excellence: Final report. Project No. 34725. Prepared by D. Rank. KPMG Consulting LP. Retrieved from http://www.nce-rce.gc.ca/-docs/reports/eval2002.pdf. Accessed on November 20, 2013.
40. KPMG. (2009). Evaluation of genome Canada - Final report. Prepared for Genome Canada. KPMP, Ottawa, ON. Retrieved from http://www.genomecanada.ca/ medias/PDF/EN/Five-year-Evaluation.pdf. Accessed on November 20, 2013.
41. Kropp, K., & Blok, A. (2011). Mode-2 social science knowledge production? The case of Danis h sociology between institutional crisis and new welfare stabilizations. Science and Public Policy, 38(3), 213-224.
42. Lee, Y. S. (2000). The sustainability of university-industry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 25(2), 111-133.
43. McGuire, W. L. (2011). Constructing quality in academic science: How basic scientists respond to Canadian market-oriented science policy - A Bourdieusian anal ysis. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Toronto.
44. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Mirowski, P., & Sent, E.-M. (2007). The commercialization of science and the response of STS. In E. J. Hackett, O. Amsterdamska, & M. Lynch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 635-689). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46. Morris, N., & Rip, A. (2006). Scientists' coping strategies in an evolving research system: The case of life scientists in the UK. Science and Public Policy, 33(4), 253-263.
47. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Introduction. ?Mode 2' revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41(3), 179-194.
48. Owen-Smith, J. (2003). From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across public and private science at research one universities. Research Policy, 32(6), 1081-1104.
49. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2003). The expanding role of university patenting in the sciences: Assessing the importance of experience and connectivity. Research Policy, 32(9), 1695-1711.
50. Pat ton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51. Pestre, D. (2000). The production of knowledge between academies and markets: A historical reading of the book ?The New Pro duction of Knowledge'. Science, Technology & Society, 5(2), 169-181.
52. Pestre, D. (2003). Regimes of knowledge production in society: Toward a more political and social reading. Minerva, 41(3), 245-261.
53. Polster, C. (2002). A break from the past: Impacts and implications of the Canada foundation for innovation and the Canada research chairs initiative. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 3 9(3), 275-299.
54. Shinn, T. (2002). The triple helix and new production of knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 32(4), 599-614.
55. Slaughter, S., Archerd, C. J., & Campbell, T. I. D. (2004). Boundaries and quandaries: How professors negotiate market relations. Review of Higher Education, 28(1), 129-165.
56. Slaughter S.,Leslie L.L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
57. Snowdon, K. (2005). Without a road map: Government funding and regulation of Canadian universities and colleges. Research Report W |31Work Network. Canadian Policy Research Networks. Retrieved from http://www.cprn.org/documents/ 40773-en.pdf. Accessed on November 20, 2013.
58. Statistics Canada. (1999). Survey of intellectual property commerci alization in the higher education sector, 1998. Catalogue No. 88F0006XIE - No. 018. Prepared by M. Bordt & C. Read, Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON. Retrieved from http://publications. gc.ca/collections/Collection/Statcan/ 88F0006X/88F0006XIE2005018.pdf. Accessed on November 20, 2013.
59. Statistics Canada. (2010). Survey of intellectual property commercialization in the higher education sector, 2008. Catalogue No. 88-2220X. Government of Canada, Otta wa, ON. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/ 88-222-x/88-222-x2010000-eng.pdf. Accessed on November 20, 2013.
60. Tuunainen, J. (2005). Hybrid practices? Contributions to the debate on the mutation of science and university. Higher Education, 50(2), 275-298.
61. Vallas, S. P., & Kleinman, D. L. (2008). Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: The confluence of academic and commercial biotechnolo gy. Socioeconomic Review, 6(2), 283-311.
62. Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co -existing? Research Policy, 35(4), 596-608.
63. Van Looy, B., Ranga, M., Calla ert, J., Debackere, K., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Combining entrepreneurial and scientific performance in academia: Towards a compounded and reciprocal Matthew-effect? Research Policy, 33(3), 425-441.
64. Wei ngart, P. (1997). From ?finalization' to ?Mode 2': Old wine in new bottles? Social Science Information, 36(4), 591-613.
65. Wolfe, D. (2002). Innovation policy for the knowledge-based economy: From the red boo k to the white paper. In G. B. Doern (Ed.), How Ottawa spends 2002-2003 (pp. 137-156). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
66. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research, design and methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
67. Ylijoki, O.-H. (2003). Entangled in academic capitalism? A case-study on changing ideals and practices of university research. Higher Education, 45(3), 307-335.
68. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.