Deviance to What ?Faculty Perspectives on Academic

and Commercial Science

THOMAS E. PERORAZIOAmerican Educational Research Association

San Diego, CAApril 15, 2009

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

tperoraz@umich.edu

2

Context for Topic

◦ Literature on Globalization Framework for focus on political, economic, social

changes

◦ Research Enterprise, Knowledge Production

Lens for studying changing expectations, government demands

Research Policy (Metcalfe, 2008)

◦ Sociology of Science Science studies

3

The Scientific EthosSociology of

Science

Concerned with rules governing scientific practice

Institutional perspective

Merton◦ Norms of Science◦ Define and protect

science

“Institutional Imperatives”◦ Value-based◦ Internalized◦ Enforced by

sanctions

4

Research as an Institution

Issue:Was it possible to compare traditional

vs. modern ideas of academic research ?

Originally conceived as dichotomy Later expanded to 4 categories via typology

Question:Is there evidence of different value

systems for academic science among faculty?

5

Merton’s Norms (Mertonian Science)

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

Critiques of Mertonian ScienceMerton

◦ Sociological ambivalence

◦ Cognitive dissonance of competing demands

◦ Scientists will deviate from ideals to adapt

Black box-ism◦ Rules for practice

divorced from process

Technical norms◦ Socialization by

Discipline

Counter-norms◦ Opposing ideas to

balance, complement

Ideology◦ Vocabularies of

justification

7

Deviation to What ?Critiques of

Merton◦ Norms are an ideal

(myth?)◦ Do not reflect

practice◦ Widespread

deviation

Is a new value system, or more than one, guiding scientific inquiry?

Science StudiesSociology of

Scientific Knowledge◦ Attempting to

answer ◦ Moving beyond

context◦ Focusing on

content, process

8

Transformation of Academic Science

Entrepreneurial Science Organizational changes

Mode 2 Knowledge Socially distributed knowledge,

Transdisciplinary, Research teams, Context of application

Triple Helix Government, university, industry partnerships Intersection of spheres; Quasi-public

Pasteur’s Quadrant Use-inspired research to solve real problems

9

Transformation of Academic ScienceConceive of science as a social

activityStructural changes reflect altered

views of facultyFaculty integrating conflicting

values of academic and commercial science

Participants in science re-writing norms

10

InstitutionalismPersistence of social institutions

vs. change

“Choice within Constraints” From Determinism to Divergence Inst. have an internal, meaningful order Institutions perpetuated by individuals

11

Institutionalism

People have agency Roles not just played; Can be created,

changed Structuration; reflexivity In conflicting or ill-defined situations, there

is choice Duality of structure

People can choose to enact existing structures or new ones that are available

12

New Institutional Forms for Research

As structures endure stress, faculty have some freedom to adapt

Commercial science introduces stress, conflict

New theories assert that participants create new structures

QUESTION:

Is there evidence of new value systems or institutional logics for academic science?

13

Typology of Faculty Views on Academy-Industry Relations

Source: Owen-Smith & Powell, 2001

14

Faculty Typology2 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

15

Common Issues

1. Funding2. Basic/ Applied Research3. Publishing/ Patenting4. Conflicts of Interest/

Commitment5. Criteria for Good Science

Matched with types to create 20 questions

16

Study

Sample of 1,210 faculty nationwide◦250 Doctoral, Research universities

◦Online survey

◦5 disciplinary areas Engineering, Medical, Biological, Physical,

& Social Sciences

17

Frequency Valid PercentOld School 332 28.8Engaged Traditionalist 407 35.3Reluctant Entrepreneur 139 12.1New School 274 23.8Total 1,152 100.0

Self Placement on 2 Primary Dimensions

18

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 Distribution

• 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—movement towards less Threat and more Overlap

19

INDEX PREFERENCE

SELF-PLACEMENTOld School

Engaged Traditionalis

t

Reluctant Entreprene

urNew

SchoolTOTAL

Old School

N 143 54 45 68 310%Self-rating, 2 dim

46.1% 17.4% 14.5% 21.9% 100.0%

% Index Preference

49.3% 21.2% 37.2% 16.8% 29.0%

Engaged Traditionalist

N 90 106 44 137 377%Self-rating, 2 dim

23.9% 28.1% 11.7% 36.3% 100.0%

% Index Preference

31.0% 41.6% 36.4% 33.9% 35.2%

Reluctant Entrepreneur

N 34 25 15 56 130%Self-rating, 2 dim

26.2% 19.2% 11.5% 43.1% 100.0%

% Index Preference

11.7% 9.8% 12.4% 13.9% 12.1%

New School

N 23 70 17 143 253%Self-rating, 2 dim

9.1% 27.7% 6.7% 56.5% 100.0%

% Index Preference

7.9% 27.5% 14.0% 35.4% 23.6%

N 290 255 121 404 1070

TOTAL%Self-rating, 2 dim

27.1% 23.8% 11.3% 37.8% 100.0%

% Index Preference

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

20

Type Preference OrdersNew School 1st = 37.9 % of the faculty; 22%

more as 2nd

Old School 1st = 26.9%; another 15.9% have Old School 2nd ◦ OS values still very much present but not dominant

 3 highest freq for New School and Engaged

Traditionalist in the top 2= 33.9% ◦ Faculty who share a belief that commercial science is

not a threat to the academy

Old School and Reluctant Entrepreneur (12.4%) = those who preferred the positions that do view commercial science as a threat

21

Type Preference OrdersHaving one of the two hybrid positions in the top two is

less frequent.

Engaged Traditionalist 1st = 23.7% 11.4% prefer Reluctant Entrepreneur 1st   11 of the bottom 13 have hybrid positions first, and four

of these have both   Reluctant Entrepreneur is the least preferred; all 6 1st

places occur in bottom 7   10 of the first 12 combinations have hybrid in top two;

just 3 =1st

One of the hybrid positions = 1st for (35%) of faculty

22

Academic Rank/ Type

    FacType5

Total   

Old SchoolEngaged

TraditionalistReluctant

Entrepreneur New SchoolAcademic Rank

Professor 131 87 44 171 433

30.3% 20.1% 10.2% 39.5% 100.0%

Associate Prof

90 100 42 122 354

25.4% 28.2% 11.9% 34.5% 100.0%

Assistant/ Res Scientist

71 67 37 111 286

24.8% 23.4% 12.9% 38.8% 100.0%

Total 292 254 123 404 1073

27.2% 23.7% 11.5% 37.7% 100.0%

No significant association between Rank and Type (χ2= 10.65, p= .10)

23

Tenure Status/ Type

No significant association between Tenure and Type (χ2= 4.26, p= .64)

    FacType5

Total   

Old SchoolEngaged

TraditionalistReluctant

Entrepreneur New SchoolTenure Status

Tenured 207 177 82 264 730

28.4% 24.2% 11.2% 36.2% 100.0%

On tenure track

64 59 30 100 253

25.3% 23.3% 11.9% 39.5% 100.0%

Not tenured 20 20 10 42 92

21.7% 21.7% 10.9% 45.7% 100.0%

Total 291 256 122 406 1075

27.1% 23.8% 11.3% 37.8% 100.0%

24

Industry Experience / Type

    FacType5

Total   

Old SchoolEngaged

TraditionalistReluctant

Entrepreneur New SchoolYears Worked in

IndustryNever

worked in Industry

195 128 94 203 62031.5% 20.6% 15.2% 32.7% 100.0%

Worked less than 1 year

31 31 6 29 9732.0% 32.0% 6.2% 29.9% 100.0%

1- 5 years 49 52 13 84 198

24.7% 26.3% 6.6% 42.4% 100.0%6 years or

more15 45 9 90 159

9.4% 28.3% 5.7% 56.6% 100.0%Total 290 256 122 406 1074

27.0% 23.8% 11.4% 37.8% 100.0%

A significant association between Industry Work and Type (χ2= 71.65, p< .001)

25

Academic Discipline / Type    FacType5

Total   

Old SchoolEngaged

TraditionalistReluctant

Entrepreneur New SchoolAcademic Discipline Area

Engineering (all types)

31 44 6 72 153

20.3% 28.8% 3.9% 47.1% 100.0%Medical/ Health Sciences

35 60 37 117 249

14.1% 24.1% 14.9% 47.0% 100.0%

Physical Sciences

68 52 17 65 202

33.7% 25.7% 8.4% 32.2% 100.0%Biological Sciences

92 47 21 77 237

38.8% 19.8% 8.9% 32.5% 100.0%Social Sciences

66 53 42 75 236

28.0% 22.5% 17.8% 31.8% 100.0%Total 292 256 123 406 1077

27.1% 23.8% 11.4% 37.7% 100.0%

A significant association between Discipline and Type (χ2= 73.46, p< .001)

26

Discussion & Conclusions

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

Strong support for New School as legitimate; ◦ Acceptance of transformed values

Engaged Traditionalist = the stronger hybrid position

Relative lack of preference for Reluctant Entrepreneur type

27

Discussion & Conclusions

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

28

Questions ?????

THOMAS E. PERORAZIO

Center for the Study of Higher & Postsecondary Education

The University of Michigan

tperoraz@umich.edu