Table of Contents:

Final remarks

In this chapter, we argued that research universities integrate global innovation networks led by intellectual monopolies in different positions. While a few can bargain with intellectual monopolies, most of them subordinate. Moreover, researching is becoming a more precarious and stressful job driven by the introduction of quantitative metrics and fix-term positions.

Quantification - as in the case of world rankings - evidences the attempt to homogenize academic work. However, universities are more heterogeneous than ever before, their ability as almost private firms to keep their profits and start an amplified accumulation process depends on their role in capitalist dynamics. Here, our distinction between the academic intellectual monopoly and the subordinate research univeristy sheds light. Their differences arise from the capacity of the former to control and organize innovation networks, thus profiting from their results. At the same time, the latter participates in those networks but, like innovating companies, it does not collect rents from its creative endeavour. It sells its research as a one-time product where the price is determined by adding measurable costs, thus not considering a an additional ammount (i.e., an intellectual rent) for the required creativity.

Participating in innovation circuits and networks curtails academic freedom for both research-university types. Although the academic intellectual monopoly has its own resources to balance capital accumulation needs with its internal academic demands, in order to keep its leadership, research tends to be steered towards the interests of corporate intellectual monopolies.

Nonetheless, this is not a unilateral trend. Research universities continue to serve their communities, which is an example of how they fulfil social demands and contribute in a non-commodified way to social and economic development (Arocena et al., 2015). Furthermore, students and faculty in many universities resist and suggest alternative agendas. In the case of quantification, it is noteworthy that some universities - like the University of Hamburg in Germany - have refused to provide their data to be ranked, as an attempt to undermine rankings’ power. In Latin America, CLACSO is piloting an initiative called FOLEC aimed at transforming evaluation criteria, deprioritizing papers and acknowledging different research profiles.

The rest of this book will illustrate the framework anticipated in this first part. In every chapter, research universities will be a central player but generallyjoining intellectual monopolies’ innovation networks in subordinated places.

Notes

  • 1 Some sections of this chapter are partially based on the paper “The direct subordination of universities to the accumulation of capital” published by Capital & Class (doi:10.1177/0309816819852761).
  • 2 https://www.microscope.healthcare.nikon.com/imaging-centers.
  • 3 https://new.siemens.com/global/en/company/innovation/collaborations- partnerships.html.
  • 4 https://www.startups.com/community/questions/396/for-every-success-story-in- silicon-valley-how-many-are-there-that-fail.
  • 5 That fixed percentage was dubbed the Bengen rule. Bengen was a financial adviser who estimated that spending around 4% of an endowment or pension fund market value made it sustainable in the long run (Haskel & Westlake, 2018).
  • 6 Please note that, as we previously remarked, we are focusing on the enterprise traits adopted by universities. We are not considering its surviving autonomy, Humboldtian or Mertonian ways of producing knowledge. These features highlight cooperation and the global nature of knowledge, detached from national or any other boundaries.
  • 7 It also harms students, turning them into mere passive consumers instead of active, critical and engaged humans in a continuous learning process.
  • 8 Of course, in countries where scholars are public servants, like France, their working conditions remain more protected. However, even this is changing with the introduction of bonuses for those who excel in their quantitative evaluations.
  • 9 https://www.counterfire.org/news/20841-soas-just-effectively-sacked-all-of-its- casualised-academic-staff-in-one-go.

References

Altbach, P. G. (2013). The international imperative in higher education. Springer Science & Business Media.

Anderson, R. D. (2004). European universities from the enlightenment to 1914. OUP Oxford.

Arocena, R., Goransson, B., & Sutz, J. (2015). Knowledge policies and universities in developing countries: Inclusive development and the “developmental university.” Technology in Society, 41, 10-20.

Barringer, S. N., & Slaughter, S. (2016). University trustees and the entrepreneurial university: Inner circles, interlocks, and exchanges. In Slaughter, S. and Taylor, B. (Eds.) Higher education, stratification, and workforce development (pp. 151-71). Springer, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-21512-9_8

Beigel, F. (2010). Autonomia у dependencia academica: Universidad e investigacion cientifica en un circuito periferico: Chile у Argentina, 1950-1980. Editorial Biblos.

Beigel, F. (2017). Cientificos Perifericos, entre Ariel у Caliban. Saberes Institucion- ales у Circuitos de Consagracion en Argentina. Las publicaciones de los Investi- gadores del CONICET. Dados, 60(3), 825-65.

Bermejo Castrillo, M. A. (2008). La universidad europea entre ilustracion у liber- alismo: Eclosion у difusion del modelo aleman у evolucion de otros sistemas na- cionales. In F. Oncina Coves (Ed.), Filosofiapara la universidad, filosofia contra la universidad:(de Kant a Nietzsche) (pp. 49-165). Dykinson. https://dialnet.unirioja. es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2945241

Birch, K. (2017). Rethinking value in the bio-economy: Finance, assetization, and the management of value. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 42(3), 460-90.

Braverman, H. (1998). Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. Monthly Review Press.

Bruno, I. (2009). The “indefinite discipline” of competitiveness benchmarking as a neoliberal technology of government. Minerva, 47(3), 261. doi: 10.1007/ si 1024-009-9128-0

Cantwell, B. (2016). The new prudent man: Financial-academic capitalism and inequality in higher education. In Slaughter, S. and Taylor, B. (Eds.) Higher education, stratification, and workforce development (pp. 173-92). Springer.

Comin, D., Licht, G., Pellens, M., & Schubert, T. (2019). Do companies benefit from public research organizations? The impact of the Fraunhofer Society in Germany. The Impact of the Fraunhofer Society in Germany, SSRN Electronic Journal 19- 006. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3354365

Currie, J., & Vidovich, L. (2009). The changing nature of academic work. In Tight, M., Мок, K., Huisman, J. and Morphew, C. (Eds.) The Routledge international handbook of higher education (pp. 441-52). Routledge.

De Angelis, M., & Harvie, D. (2009). “Cognitive capitalism” and the rat-race: How capital measures immaterial labour in British universities. Historical Materialism, /7(3), 3-30.

Desrosieres, A. (2003). Managing the economy. In T. M. Porter & D. Ross (Eds.), The modern social sciences (pp. 553-64). Cambridge University Press.

Desrosieres, A. (2008). L’argument statistique; 2: Gouverner par les nombres. Mines ParisTech-Les Presses.

Enders, J., & De Weert, E. (2004). Science, training and career: Changing modes of knowledge production and labour markets. Higher Education Policy, 17(2), 135-52.

Endnotes. (2010). The history of subsumption. Endnotes, 2, 144-52.

Faure, S., Millet, M., & Soulic, C. (2005). Enqueue exploratoire sur le travail des en- seignants chercheurs. Vers un bouleversement de la ‘table des valeurs academiques'? https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00602398/document

Godin, B. (2014). Innovation and science: When science had nothing to do with innovation, and vice-versa. Project on the Intellectual History of Innovation, Montreal: INRS, Forthcoming.

Gregory, K. L., & Winn, J. (2016). Marx, Engels and the critique of academic labor. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 0(28). http://ices.library.ubc.ca/index. php/workplace/article/view/186209

Hall, R., & Bowles, K. (2016). Re-engineering higher education: The subsumption of academic labour and the exploitation of anxiety. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labor, 28, 30-47. doi:10.14288/workplace.v0i28.186211

Harvie, D. (2006). Value production and struggle in the classroom: Teachers within, against and beyond capital. Capital & Class, 30(1), 1-32.

Haskel. J., & Westlake, S. (2018). Capitalism without capital: The rise of the intangible economy. Princeton University Press.

Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. Palgrave

von Humboldt, W. (1810). Sobre la organization interna у externa de los estableci- mientos cientificos superiores en Berlin. In von Humboldt, W. Escritos Politicos (pp. 165-75). Fondo de Cultura Economica.

Jany-Catrice, F. (2012). La performance totale: Nouvel esprit du capitalisme? Presses Univ. Septentrion.

Kantor, S., & Whalley, A. (2014). Knowledge spillovers from research universities: Evidence from endowment value shocks. Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(1), 171-88.

Kauppinen, I., Coco, L., Choi, H., & Brajkovic, L. (2016). Blurring boundaries and borders: Interlocks between AAU institutions and transnational corporations. In Slaughter, S. and Taylor, B. (Eds.) Higher education, stratification, and workforce development (pp. 35-57). Springer.

Kreimer, P. (2006). Dependientes о integrados?: La ciencia latinoamericana у la nueva division internacional del trabajo. Nomadas, 24, 199-212.

Kreimer, P. (2014). “Citizen of the world” or a local producer of useful knowledge? That’s the question. In H. Sabea & F. Beigel (Eds.), Academic dependency and professionalization in the south: Perspectives from the periphery (pp. 151-66). EDIUNC- Sephis.

Link, A. N. (2015). Capturing knowledge: Private gains and public gains from university research partnerships. Foundations and Trends® in Entrepreneurship, IК 3), 139-206.

Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education in East Asia and Singapore: Rise of the con- fucian model. Higher Education, 6/(5), 587-611.

Marginson, S. (2016). Global stratification in higher education. In Slaughter, S. and Taylor, B. (Eds.) Higher education, stratification, and workforce development (pp. 13-34). Springer, http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-21512-9_2

Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.

Morgan, K. J. (2011). Where is von Humboldt’s University now? Research in Higher Education, 42, 325-44.

Miinch, R. (2014). Academic capitalism: Universities in the global struggle for excellence. Routledge.

Miinch, R., & Baier, C. (2012). Institutional struggles for recognition in the academic field: The case of university departments in German chemistry. Minerva, 50(1), 97-126.

Neave, G. (1988). On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: An overview of recent trends in higher education in Western Europe, 1986-1988. European Journal of Education, 23(1/2), 7-23.

Neave, G. (1998). The evaluative state reconsidered. European Journal of Education, 33(3), 265-84.

Neave, G. (2012). The evaluative state, institutional autonomy and re-engineering higher education in Western Europe: The prince and his pleasure. Palgrave Macmillan.

Pavlidis, P. (2012). The antinomic condition of the University: “universal labour” beyond “academic capitalism.” The Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 10(2), 139 59.

Pestre, D. (2003). Science, argent etpolitique: Un essaicl'interpretation: une conference- debat orgnanisee par la groupe Sciences en questions, Paris, INRA, 22 novembre 2001. Editions Quae.

Rikap, C. (2016). Heterogeneidades у condiciones de trabajo de los docentes universitarios en la Universidad de Buenos Aires: Un estudio comparado de las Facultades de Farmacia у Bioquimica, у Ciencias Economicas. Trabajo у Socie- dad, 27, 109-37.

Rikap, C. (2017a). The differentiated market-university. Structural differences among university’s commodification processes. In M. Tight & J. Huisman (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (Vol. 3, pp. 179-96). Emerald Group Publishing.

Rikap, C. (2017b). The meanings of university’s autonomy in Western history as a clue to understand the consequences of universities’ differentiated adoption of enterprise features. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS), /5(3), 266-304.

Roggero, G. (2011). The production of living knowledge: The crisis of the university and the transformation of labor in Europe and North America. Temple University Press.

Rose, H., & Rose, S. P. R. (2014). Genes, cells, and brains: The promethean promises of the new biology. Verso Trade.

Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities. World Bank Publications.

Schapper, J., & Mayson, S. (2005). Managerialism, internationalization, Tayloriza- tion and the deskilling of academic work: Evidence from an Australian university. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellsten (Eds.), Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and policy (Springer, pp. 181-97). Springer. http://link. springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/l-4020-3784-8_10.pdf

Schleiermacher, F. (1808). Pensamientos ocasionales sobre universidades en sentido alemctn, con un Apendice sobre la ereccion de una nueva. De Gruyter.

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. ERIC, http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED409816

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. JHU Press.

Steiber, A. (2014). The Google model: Managing continuous innovation in a rapidly changing world. Springer Science & Business Media.

Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings.

Taylor, B. J. (2016). The field dynamics of stratification among US research universities: The expansion of federal support for academic research, 2000- 2008. In Slaughter, S. and Taylor, B. (Eds.) Higher Education, Stratification, and Workforce Development (pp. 59-79). Springer, http://link.springer.com/ chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-21512-9_4

Taylor, B. J., Cantwell, B., & Slaughter, S. (2013). Quasi-markets in US higher education: The humanities and institutional revenues. The Journal of Higher Education, 84(5), 675-707.

The Fraunhofer Society. (2019). Annual Report 2018: 70 years of Fraunhofer, 70 years of future. What’s next. The Fraunhofer Society.

Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2006). What is changing in academic research? Trends and futures scenarios. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 169-202.

Ziguras, C. (2016). Globalization and the transformation of Asian higher education. In C. Collins, M. Lee, J. Hawkins, & D. Neubauer (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of Asia Pacific higher education (pp. 73-88). Springer, http://link.springer.com/ chapter/10.1057/978-1 -137-48739-1 _5

 
Source
< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >