TOWARDS THE ‘NEOLIBERAL’ UNIVERSITY i
By Sandra T. Roorda I6044731
MA: Arts and Culture
Arts and Heritage: Policy, Management, and Education Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Maastricht University August 2013
Towards the ‘Neoliberal’ University
S u p e r v i s o r : P h i l i p L a w t o n
Higher Education and Innovation in the Knowledge Economy
W o r d C o u n t : 1 8 6 1 9
ii
Towards the ‘Neoliberal’ University
Towards the ‘Neoliberal’ University
Higher Education and Innovation in the Knowledge Economy
ABSTRACT
Recent decades have seen significant changes within the realm of academia, as universities and similar public institutions of higher education become steadily linked to economic development. These changes can be understood as occurring within a complex set of dialectical processes, inextricably intertwined, in part, with neoliberal discourse and the development of the knowledge economy and knowledge capitalism. Certainly, as a facet of globalization, the ascendancy of neoliberalism in particular has proven catalytic in the paradigmatic shift towards a knowledge-‐based economy, wherein knowledge and information effectively function as the new capital. In turn, universities are thus regarded as veritable bases of knowledge at the heart of this economy and are therefore increasingly justified within economic terms. Moreover, policy communities at both national and transnational levels of government are recognizing an integral role in universities to potentially act as powerful drivers of innovation and economic change. Naturally, this raises questions concerning the role of the university and its function for modern society within the context of the developing knowledge economy. In this case, we aim to explore the role of the university within the framework of recent policy touting the importance of knowledge and innovation and advocating the alignment between academia and industry. Of course, this is not to depreciate either the current or future capacities in which universities and institutions of higher education can act as economic drivers and play an important role in fostering economic growth. Rather, it is the fundamental shift in the way that universities are redefining this role that deems closer scrutiny. To be sure, the attempt to align academia with business can have profound implications for the roles such institutions play in our society. Our goal is to adopt an exploratory approach in examining these roles and the various issues and challenges—both existing and potential—that universities face within the context of the developing knowledge economy and within an environment increasingly shaped by neoliberal discourse. By evaluating the wide range of these perspectives regarding the role of the university, we aim to synthesize an instrumentalist approach in looking forward towards the changing nature of higher education and the future role of the university.
Keywords: Higher Education, Neoliberalism, Knowledge Economy, Knowledge Capitalism, Innovation
iii
Towards the ‘Neoliberal’ University
Higher Education and Innovation in the Knowledge Economy by
Sandra T. Roorda
A Thesis presented to the
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of
Maastricht University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts and Culture
in the subject of
Arts and Heritage: Policy, Management, and Education
Maastricht University Maastricht, the Netherlands
August 2013
iv
A university is not outside, but inside the general social fabric of a given era. It is not something apart, something historic, something that yields as little as possible to
forces and influences that are more or less new. It is on the contrary... an expression of the age, as well as an influence operating upon both present and future.
-‐ Abraham Flexner (1930, p. 3)
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 1
CHAPTER II: ON NEOLIBERALISM AND PROCESSES OF NEOLIBERALIZATION 7
CONCEPTUALIZING NEOLIBERALISM: TOWARDS A CONTEXTUAL DEFINITION 8 NEW INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS AND NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT 11
CHAPTER III: ON THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY AND KNOWLEDGE CAPITALISM 14
NEW GROWTH THEORY: KNOWLEDGE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 15 CONCEPTUALIZING KNOWLEDGE: KNOWLEDGE AS CAPITAL 16 TYPOLOGIES OF KNOWLEDGE AND MODES OF KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION 18
CHAPTER IV: ON PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS OF INNOVATION 22
CONCEPTUALIZING INNOVATION: AN OUTCOME OF KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION 22 NATIONAL SYSTEMS OF INNOVATION 25 OPEN MODELS OF INNOVATION 26
CHAPTER V: ON UNIVERSITIES AND HIGHER EDUCATION 30
THE ROLE OF ORGANIZED EDUCATION: A BRIEF HISTORY 31 RECENT CHANGES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: TOWARDS A METHODOLOGY 33 ACADEMIA AND BUSINESS: PROCESSES OF CONVERGENCE 35 THE ECONOMIC ROLE OF THE UNIVERSITY: BENEFITS AND CONTRIBUTIONS 38 INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL RESTRUCTURING: CHALLENGES AND ISSUES 45 PERSONAL AND SUBJECTIVE CHANGES: CHALLENGES AND ISSUES 50
CHAPTER VI: CRITICAL DISCUSSION AND DEBATE: FUTURE OUTLOOKS 55
BIBLIOGRAPHY: WORKS CITED 62
1
CHAPTER I
Introduction and Methodology
Recent decades have seen significant changes within the realm of academia,
as universities and similar public institutions higher education become steadily
linked to economic development. These changes can be understood as occurring
within a complex set of dialectical processes, inextricably intertwined, in part, with
neoliberal discourse and the development of the knowledge economy and
knowledge capitalism. Certainly, as a facet of globalization, the ascendancy of
neoliberalism in particular has proven catalytic in the paradigmatic shift towards a
knowledge-‐based economy, wherein knowledge and information effectively
function as the new capital. In turn, universities are thus regarded as veritable bases
of knowledge at the heart of this economy (Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development, 1996; Porter and Ketels, 2003; Kitagawa, 2004) and are therefore
increasingly justified within economic terms. Moreover, policy communities at both
national and transnational levels of government are recognizing an integral role in
universities to potentially act as powerful drivers of innovation and economic
change: These discussions are taking place against the backdrop that knowledge production and the contribution of higher education to the economies, prestige, and standing of nations are rapidly transforming the once benign higher education system into a competitive market place. (Kitagawa, 2004, p. 54)
Naturally, this raises questions concerning the role of the university and its function
for modern society; after all, schools and institutions of learning derive crucially
from the social, cultural, and political environments in which they are embedded
(Mautner, 2005). In this case, we aim to explore the role of the university within the
context of recent policy touting the importance of knowledge and innovation in the
current economy. There is certainly neither a lack of literature nor strong critique
surrounding what appears to be a polemical—if not polarizing—subject. Of course,
2
this is not to depreciate both the existing and the potential capacity for universities
and institutions of higher education to act as economic drivers and play an
important role in fostering economic growth. However, it is the fundamental shift in
the way that universities are redefining this role that deems closer scrutiny. Perhaps
at the ‘heart of the matter,’ as Clark (2001) states, is how universities are
responding to and shaping these many forces that play upon them (p. 8). To be sure,
within the framework of neoliberalism and the development of knowledge
capitalism, the various perspectives regarding the role and function of the university
are, in part, reflective of “a struggle, not only over the meaning and value of
knowledge both internationally and locally, but also over the public means of
knowledge production” (Olssen and Peters, 2005, p. 340). It is with this in mind, that
in order to examine the recent changes in higher education, we can look towards
how universities and similar public institutions are under increasing pressure to
adapt to these changing perceptions of the meaning and value of knowledge. Indeed,
“the different perspectives on how knowledge drives economic growth point to
different challenges for… education systems” (Rasmussen, Lorenz, and Lundvall,
2008, p. 681). Our aim is to adopt an exploratory approach in examining these
various challenges, at numerous levels, that universities currently face, as the
changes in higher education are assuredly steeped in a complex mesh of issues. It is
important for us to bear in mind that these issues arise within a set of manifold and
dialectical processes. As a consequence, a clear and developed methodology for our
examination is quite necessary.
Our examination—this thesis—consists of six chapters. While our ultimate
goal is to examine the recent changes in higher education resulting from the shifting
roles of the university, it is imperative that we first establish a conceptual
framework by which we may more fully comprehend them. As we have already
mentioned summarily, conceptualizing neoliberalism and understanding the
knowledge economy and knowledge capitalism will prove key. Further, analyzing
the concept of innovation within these parameters is similarly important. In effect,
our next three chapters following the introduction will subsequently discuss
3
neoliberalism and processes of neoliberalization, the knowledge economy and
knowledge capitalism, and processes and systems of innovation. After establishing
this conceptual framework, we may then continue on to our fifth chapter in looking
more closely towards the effects and potential challenges that this warrants
specifically for universities and institutions of higher education. Our fifth chapter
can be understood as a culmination of the former three, as it effectively builds on
the framework established in explaining neoliberalism and the importance of
innovation in the developing knowledge economy. Indeed, this integral chapter
serves as the crux of this thesis in understanding the recent changes affecting
universities and can provide us with an outlook towards the future. It is with this in
mind that we can then conclude with our sixth and final chapter, where we may
consider a broader perspective on the current state of higher education and engage
in a critical evaluation of the sum total of our research.
It is necessary for us to begin by first looking towards neoliberalism as one of
the underlying mechanisms driving the recent changes in higher education.
Understanding the discursive—and arguably normative—trends and practices
related to neoliberalism (Harvey, 2007; Peck and Tickell, 2002) can provide us with
the initial infrastructure from which we may then build our analysis. Certainly, the
development and the subsequent ascendancy of neoliberal policy in recent decades
have evolved to the point where neoliberalism has arguably become a hegemonic
discourse par excellence for many OECD countries. We may effectively conceptualize
the pervasive effects of neoliberalism for our purposes and then introduce the
relevant ideas behind new institutional economics (Williamson, 1975; Coase, 1992)
and new public management (Tolofari, 2005) as arising from processes of
neoliberalization (Foucault, Burchell, Gordon, and Miller, 1991; Klein, 1999; Olssen
and Peters, 2005; Geraldi, 2007). It is our goal to eventually examine the extent to
which current institutional behaviors in higher education are influenced by this
enterprising policy discourse.
4
We will then look towards understanding the development of the knowledge
economy. To be sure, one of the most critical concepts underpinning neoliberal
discourse of recent decades involves the paradigmatic transition towards a ‘new’
economy, in which knowledge and information effectively function as the new
global capital (Castells, 1996, 1997, 1998), hence the term, “knowledge capitalism”
(Burton-‐Jones, 1999, p. vi). New growth theory builds on this argument and explains
how the increasing importance of knowledge and technology act as key drivers for
economic development and how knowledge, in all its forms, currently plays a crucial
role in driving economic growth and productivity (Foray and Lundvall, 1996; Soete
and Ter Weel, 1999; Economics Online, n.d.). The idea of knowledge as an economic
good and further, the argument that economic growth stems more from such things
as knowledge and innovation and less from the acquistion of tangible capital, is
integral for our analysis (Stigler, 1961; M. Friedman and R. Friedman, 1962; Schultz,
1963; Machlup, 1967). Indeed, careful consideration must be given to how this
affects the meaning and value of knowledge; in particular, understanding the
various typologies of knowledge and modes of knowledge production prove useful
(Gibbons et al., 1994; David and Foray, 1995; Adler, 1996; Stiglitz, 1999;
Hargreaves, 2000). After all, in configuring knowledge as a means for economic
growth, education quickly enters the discussion as the potential means by which to
cultivate and facilitate such growth (Stiglitz, 1999; Florida, Gates, Knudsen, and
Stolarick, 2006). From a policy perspective, the subsequent implications for
universities and institutions of higher education could prove highly consequential
(Olssen and Peters, 2005; Bastalich, 2010).
Of course, if OECD economies are steadily driven by knowledge and
information, then the creation and production of new knowledge and information
become especially important and even more so integral as a source of competitive
advantage (Lundvall, 2003; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995; Foray and Lundvall, 1996);
in our case, this calls for a closer look at innovation and the importance of its role
within the knowledge economy. Specifically, we may examine innovation as an
important outcome of knowledge production and further, the favorable conditions
5
and environment that facilitate and effectively nurture such an outcome. This segues
into the concept of ‘national innovation systems’ as a premise to understanding the
linkages among the actors involved in innovation as a key to improving economic
performance. Naturally, universities and public institutions of higher education are
viewed as one of these key actors, in addition to those in government and industry
and the private sector, as comprised by the so-‐called ‘triple helix’ of university-‐
industry-‐government interactions (Etzkowitz, 2003; Leyesdorff and Meyer, 2007).
To be sure, “the configuration of national innovation systems, which consist of the
flows and relationships among industry, government, and academia in the
development of science and technology, is an important economic determinant”
(Foray and Lundvall, 1996, p. 7). Certainly, “in recent years, there has been
considerable interest in what are called the science-‐based industries… The claim is
that innovation and output in these industries depends heavily on very recent
advances in (university) basic research, and thus they provide the paradigm
example of how universities contribute to the innovation system” (Cowan, 2005, p.
6). In addition, we may argue that the very perception of the nature of innovation
processes has also changed significantly in recent history, in tandem—or perhaps as
a result—of implementing these systems of innovation. Broadly speaking,
innovation capability has moved away from previously linear and unidirectional
models of innovation and, instead, become a more open and interactive network-‐
based model in what Henry Chesbrough (2003) first termed as ‘open innovation.’
Such models effectively hinge on interaction across organizations and institutions in
both the private and public sectors (Lundvall, 2003). In terms of our research, this
implies closer interaction between academia and business and the general
alignment of universities and industry firms.
This leads us to our fifth and crucially important chapter on universities and
higher education, where we can examine more in depth the changing relationship
between academia and business and the emphasis on universities to contribute to
economic growth. Certainly, such an emphasis on the economic role of universities
may potentially detract from the more traditional notions concerning the cultural or
6
social justifications of these institutions. The subsequent developments and changes
that this brings to higher education are important for us to consider. We can begin
by briefly outlining the role of organized education from a historical and
chronological perspective. Establishing this initial framework may better lend us
insight into the current roles of universities today. We will then examine these
current roles as tied to the recent processes of ‘convergence’ between academia and
business: once both separate domains (Olssen and Peters, 2005), the two have been
steadily moving closer together and are now melding at various points of contact. Of
course, while relations between university and industry are not wholly
unprecedented (Romero, 2007), the extent to which business is now making inroads
into academe is quite unparalleled (Mautner, 2005). Indeed, of the various trends
and developments that characterize recent changes in higher education, it is this
‘incursion’ of the market (O’Neill and Solomon, 1996) that is perhaps one of the
most dominant forces. However, it is important for us to maintain a critical
approach to examining the changes that this can bring. As we have already
mentioned, it is not our aim to depreciate or denigrate the potential and the existing
merit good of universities in contributing to both the greater economy and society
at large. It is with this in mind that we can explore both these benefits and economic
contributions, in addition to the various challenges and issues, which may occur as a
result of placing universities at the forefront of neoliberal and knowledge economy
policy.
Our final and concluding chapter effectively adopts a broader outlook
towards the recent changes in higher education as the sum total of our corpus
research. Moreover, we can consider the wide range of critique—both positive and
negative—arising as a result of these changes. Of course, as we have repeatedly
emphasized, it is not our aim to support a singular point of view in particular.
Rather, our conclusion aims to evaluate the wide range of perspectives regarding
the role of the university and synthesize an instrumentalist approach in looking
forward towards the changing nature of higher education and the future role of the
university.
7
CHAPTER II
On Neoliberalism and Processes of Neoliberalization
In an effort to understand many of the recent changes within the realm of
higher education, it is necessary for us to begin by looking towards neoliberalism as
one of the underlying mechanisms driving these changes. Understanding the
discursive—and arguably normative—trends and practices related to neoliberalism
can provide us with the initial framework from which we may then build our
analysis. Certainly, the development and the subsequent ascendancy of
neoliberalism in recent decades have evolved to the point where it has arguably
become a hegemonic discourse par excellence for OECD countries. Indeed, acting as
one of the current cornerstones for many political and economic practices of
western nation-‐states, the pervasive effects of neoliberalism have effectively
become part of the ‘commonsense’ way in which we interpret, live in, and
understand the world (Harvey, 2007; Peck and Tickell, 2002). To be sure, these
widespread and normative effects are inextricably linked to globalization and the
paradigmatic shift away from Keynesian economics and traditionally Fordist
societies during the late twentieth century. Such a shift incorporates several key
concepts integral to neoliberalism, including the role of the state to create and
maintain an institutional framework largely characterized by open markets and free
trade, deregulation, and privatization in an effort to maximize entrepreneurial
freedoms and subsequently improve the economic wealth of a nation. Indeed,
globalization—certainly financial globalization—coupled with the advent of new
technologies and science, has proved catalytic for the super-‐power sponsorship of
neoliberalism. As a facet of globalization, neoliberalism is, similarly, like
globalization, often defined by reference to certain processes generally agreed to
exist (Germic, 2009), although, of course, queries as to whom or what is responsible
for such processes is very much up for debate (Ibid). With this in mind, and in
addition to the continually developing nature of neoliberalism, we may use the word
8
‘neoliberalization’ in describing these evolving processes in an effort to
subsequently examine the resulting implications that neoliberalism has for
institutions of higher education and universities.
Conceptualizing Neoliberalism: Towards a Contextual Definition
Of course, the key to beginning our examination lies with the issue of first
defining and conceptualizing the idea of neoliberalism itself—a task which proves to
be no small feat. For all its ubiquity and hegemonic status, neoliberalism is a concept
difficult to define. Much of this is due to the fact that neoliberalism—as per the
processes of neoliberalization—has undergone a striking historical and ideological
transformation from its initial conception as theorized by the German Freiberg
School to the so-‐called “‘deep neoliberalism’ of the past decade” (Peck and Tickell,
2002, p. 384). The disparities in defining neoliberalism are made further apparent
when looking towards the different explanations stemming from such veritable and
authoritative sources as Friedrich A. Hayek and the Mont Pelerin Society (Hayek,
1944, 1947, 1948, 1960, 1973, 1976, 1978), Milton Friedman and his acolytes and
collaborators at the University of Chicago (Friedman, 1962, 1963), the Marxist
geographer, David Harvey (Harvey, 2005a, 2005b, 2007, 2010), and notable Nobel
Memorial Prize winners, including James M. Buchanan (Buchanan and Tullock,
1962, Buchanan, 1975), Paul Krugman (Krugman, 1990, 2000, 2007), and Joseph
Stiglitz (Stiglitz, 2002, 2009)—the latter, also formerly of the World Bank.
“The valances of the term, ‘neoliberalism’ are multiple, to say the least”
(Germic, 2009, p. 127) and over time, have come to mean different things to and for
different groups and different people. While we may trace some of its initial roots
from the interwar years and the 1930s onwards (Stedman Jones, 2012), the general
idea of neoliberalism has evolved over the course of the twentieth century,
eventually taking semantic root within much more recent decades. Moreover, the
vast amount of literature—and thus the differing conceptions and the ensuing
9
debate—regarding neoliberalism has taken on a self-‐actualizing quality, in that the
definition of neoliberalism has practically come to include the fact that it is, ipso
facto, difficult to define. As “an academic catchphrase” (Boas and Gans-‐Morse, 2009)
and described anecdotally or through the use of such analogies as the “new
planetary vulgate” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2001, p. 2), or as “an ideological
‘thought virus’” (Beck, 2000, p. 122), Jamie Peck and Adam Tickell (2002) cite that
“it is revealing, perhaps, that such resorts to metaphor are not unusual in attempts
to develop proximate conceptualizations of neoliberalism, the power of which
would seem to have become as compelling as it is intangible” (p. 381).
It is essential for our purposes that we recognize and acknowledge these
inherent difficulties in defining and conceptualizing neoliberalism and its
association with modes of exogenized thinking. That is, our awareness of the
complexities surrounding neoliberalism and neoliberalization is key to examining
and understanding its political, economic, and ultimately societal impact towards
institutions of higher education and universities. Namely, of the many divergent
theories and applications regarding neoliberalism, we must aim to address and
examine those that are pointedly relevant to the current state of how universities
and similar institutions of higher education are defining or redefining their role and
purpose within this new institutional framework. We may therefore effectively
conceptualize neoliberalism for our intents and purposes by contextualizing our
scope to the neoliberal practices and the associated discourses of new institutional
economics and new public management consequently affecting universities and
policies regarding higher education. Specifically, our objective is to examine the
wider networks and basic structures of neoliberalism within recent history, and
then focus on the fundamental shifts and the dominant patterns of restructuring
that have led to public and institutional reform in many OECD countries, particularly
in North America and Western Europe—the self-‐styled nexus and “heartlands” of
neoliberal discursive production (Peck and Tickell, 2002, p. 380).
10
It is perhaps the lauded importance of free trade, deregulation, and open
markets that plays the central role in the economic and political theories
surrounding neoliberalism. Certainly, David Harvey (2007) posits that as a set of
political and economic practices, neoliberalism proposes the following: [H]uman well-being can best be advanced by the maximization of entrepreneurial freedoms within an institutional framework characterized by private property rights, individual liberty, unencumbered markets, and free trade [wherein] the role of the state is to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices… Furthermore, if markets do not exist (in areas such as education…), then they must be created, by state action if necessary. (p. 22-23)
These major characteristics emerged during the 1970s and 1980s as a forced
response to stagflation1 and became aggressively politicized throughout the Reagan-‐
Thatcher era. Emphasizing a profound antipathy towards Keynesian and collectivist
strategies, neoliberalism eventually acquired a more technocratic form committed
to the logics of competitive globalization, as evidenced by the so-‐called ‘Washington
Consensus’ of the 1990s. Further backed by the sponsorship of such powerful
financial organizations as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
and the World Trade Organization (WTO), neoliberalism has now become
transnational in its scope. Indeed, globalization, abetted by the rapid and
widespread diffusion of new science and information technologies, constitutes the
broader framework in which neoliberalism is purported as the key to economic
wealth in an environment marked by global competition, international trade and
exchange, and cross-‐border transactions in goods and services. Further, this belief in
the market and the emphasis on market values has been translated to other areas of
society previously viewed as typically being separate and independent—some
might even say protected, or at least, insulated (Olssen and Peters, 2005; Onsman,
2008)—from the demands and influences of the market. In particular, “under
neoliberalism, markets have become a new technology by which control can be
1 With simplicity and brevity in mind, the Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.) define stagflation as, “persistent high inflation combined with high unemployment and stagnant demand in a country’s economy.” As we can observe, ‘stagflation,’ is in effect, a blend of ‘stagnation’ and ‘inflation.’
11
effected and performance enhanced, in the public sector” (Olssen and Peters, 2005,
p. 316). This application and extension of the market to the public sector has
introduced a new mode of regulation and a new form of ‘governmentality’ (Foucault
in Foucault, Burchell, Gordon, and Miller, 1991) with certain implications for public
and societal institutions. To understand this ‘marketization’ of the public sector and
the subsequent impact for public and societal institutions like universities, we can
look towards the ideas behind new institutional economics and new public
management as emerging from neoliberalization.
New Institutional Economics and New Public Management
At its most fundamental, new institutional economics (NIE) acts as an
interdisciplinary and discursive framework (Geraldi, 2007) to understand political,
legal, and social institutions in economic terms, with a particular focus on
understanding the role of institutions in nurturing and stimulating economic
growth. The literature surrounding NIE2 aims to explain such basic queries as to
“what institutions are, how they arise, what purposes they serve, how they change,
and how—if at all—they should be reformed” (Klein, 1999, p. 1). These key ideas of
change, purpose, and reform will prove integral to our understanding of public
institutions within a neoliberal framework. Certainly, the neoliberal theories of
institutional redesign in recent decades have involved a shift wherein market
techniques are systematically developed as a technology for institutional
governance. Such a shift stresses the concept of ‘performativity’ and places an
emphasis towards an input-‐output system that effectively replaces central
regulation with a new mode of public management and administration (Olssen and
Peters, 2005, p. 322). The common language of these approaches further includes
such concepts as ‘outcomes’, ‘accountability’, ‘purchase’, ‘ownership’, ‘specification’,
2 For some of the basic literature regarding New Institutional Economics (NIE), we may refer to Oliver Williamson (1975), credited with first coining the term, and notable works by Coase (1992), Davis and North (1975), Eggertsson (1990), and Pejovich (1995).
12
‘contracts’, and ‘purchase agreements’ (Ibid). In effect, the application of market
logic to the public sector has rendered public institutions increasingly analogous to
companies in the private sector by demanding an increase in accountability and
efficiency.
New public management (NPM) can be understood as the means by which
such increased accountability and efficiency may be exacted from the public sector.
Coined in the early 1990s to describe the changing policies of the previous decade
and the application of market and business principles to the public sector, NPM is
characterized by marketization, performance measurement, and managerialized
accountability (Tolofari, 2005). Accordingly, its core dimensions emphasize a new
set of contractualist norms and rules, clearly defined objectives, hierarchical
relationships of management, and an overall orientation geared towards
measurable results.3
To be sure, the application of such techniques typically used in the private
sector towards the management of public sector organizations can prove
problematic. Complexities may arise when public institutions previously governed
“according to norms and values derived from assumptions about the ‘common good’
or ‘public interest’” are effectively replaced by a new governance model ruled by
“quasi market or private sector micro-‐techniques” (Olssen and Peters, 2005, p. 324).
Following this logic, such a model reconfigures universities and institutions of
higher education as part of an input-‐output system with an institutional stress on
performativity, which can be reduced to an economic production function (Ibid.) Of
course, this is not to depreciate both the existing and the potential capacity for
universities and institutions of higher education to act as economic drivers and play
3 Several important, discursive practices are associated with new institutional economics and new public management, including transaction cost economics (TCE) or transaction cost analysis, agency theory (AT), also known as principal-‐agent theory, property rights theory (PRT), and public choice theory (PCT.) While these theories are often collectively represented as part and parcel of NIE or NPM, they will not be discussed here in detail.
13
an important role in fostering economic growth. However, it is the fundamental shift
in the way that universities are redefining this role that deem closer scrutiny.
Namely, it is the effects and the potential ramifications that neoliberalization and
the associated discourses of new institutional economics and new public
management bear for universities and other institutions of higher education that we
aim to examine and analyze critically in the forthcoming chapters.
14
CHAPTER III
On the Knowledge Economy and Knowledge Capitalism
One of the most critical concepts underpinning neoliberal discourse of recent
decades involves the paradigmatic transition towards a ‘new’ economy, in which
knowledge and information effectively function as the new global capital (Castells,
1996, 1997, 1998), hence the term, “knowledge capitalism” (Burton-‐Jones, 1999, p.
vi). Indeed, the development of knowledge and the creation of new information is
seen as a key driver of economic development (Stigler, 1961; M. Friedman and R.
Friedman, 1962; Schultz, 1963; Machlup, 1967) within the framework of the so-‐
called ‘knowledge economy.’ The implications of such a profound economic
transformation are marked by a shift away from exclusive reliance on natural
resources and physical capital and, instead, focus on mobilizing and expanding
bases of knowledge and knowledge production (Florida, Gates, Knudsen, and
Stolarick, 2006). Additionally key for the success of the knowledge economy is a
highly trained labor force (Stiglitz, 1999), wherein new ‘knowledge workers’ act as
human capital (Becker, 1993) with the capacity for innovation and the potential to
produce new knowledge (Florida, 2005). While the role of knowledge and
information has always played an important role for economies, and while the
Schumpeterian idea of innovation (Schumpeter, 1954; Galbraith, 1952, 1958, 1967;
Hirschman, 1970) as a major economic driver is hardly new, capitalist societies are
currently in an era in which “the ability of labor, firms, regions, and nations to
produce, circulate, and apply knowledge are fundamental to economic growth and
competitiveness” (Henry & Pollard, 2000, p. v). “This is reflected in [such trends of]
OECD economies towards growth in high-‐technology investments, high-‐technology
industries, more highly-‐skilled labor, and associated productivity gains” (Foray and
Lundvall, 1996, p. 7). This increased importance of knowledge as capital propels
“‘the neoliberal project of globalization’—an outcome of the Washington consensus
and [is] modeled by world policy agencies such as the IMF and World Bank” (Olssen
15
and Peters, 2005, p. 330). The emergence of such a knowledge-‐based economy is
further allied to concepts of the ‘information society’ and the ‘network society,’ the
dynamics of which are reflected in part by new growth theory. Aligned with similar
world policy agencies, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
stresses the following: OECD analysis is increasingly directed to understanding the dynamics of the knowledge-based economy and its relationship to traditional economics, as reflected in ‘new growth theory.’ The growing codification of knowledge and its transmission through communications and computer networks has led to the emerging ‘information society.’ The need for workers to acquire a range of skills and to continuously adapt these skills underlies the ‘learning economy.’ The importance of knowledge and technology diffusion requires better understanding of knowledge networks and ‘national innovation systems.’ (Foray and Lundvall, 1996, p. 3)
With this in mind, we may look towards new growth theory in an effort to
understand the increasing importance of knowledge and technology as key drivers
for economic development and how knowledge, in all its forms, currently plays a
crucial role in driving economic growth and productivity.
New Growth Theory: Knowledge and Economic Development
New growth theory builds on the argument that, in advanced economies,
economic growth stems more from knowledge and innovation and less from the
acquisition of tangible capital; further, unlike natural resources and physical capital,
knowledge is not subject to diminishing returns (Soete and Ter Weel, 1999;
Economics Online, n.d.). To be sure, in positing that the investment in knowledge is
characterized by increasing, rather than decreasing, returns (Foray and Lundvall,
1996), education quickly enters the discussion as the potential means by which to
cultivate and facilitate such growth. Joseph Stiglitz, formerly Chief Economist of the
World Bank, posits that, “We now see economic development… more like education
in the broad and comprehensive sense that covers knowledge, institutions, and
culture” (Stiglitz, 1999, p. 5). Certainly, the possibilities of education-‐related
16
externalities are of key importance when considering the developing knowledge
economy. By highlighting the role of education in the creation of human capital and
in the production of new knowledge (Olssen and Peters, 2005), new growth theory
has effectively fixated policy gaze on “universities and their relations with other
knowledge producers within the wider economy” (Bastalich, 2010, p. 846). Indeed,
“in this view, investments in research and development, education and training, and
new managerial work structures are key” (Foray and Lundvall, 1996, p. 7); such
concepts will prove integral to our understanding of neoliberal globalization and its
effects on education policy. The transformation of knowledge production and its
“legitimation” (Olssen and Peters, 2005, p. 20) and the shift towards a knowledge-‐
based economy further necessitates “a profound rethinking of education as
emerging forms of knowledge capitalism, involving knowledge creation, acquisition,
transmission, and organization” (Ibid).
Conceptualizing Knowledge: Knowledge as Capital
Understanding the dynamics of knowledge capitalism requires
understanding some of the very fundamentals of knowledge itself and thus, by
extension, the nature of knowledge transfer and knowledge distribution. As one of
the premier forms of global capital, knowledge is paradoxically often one of the least
implicitly understood of economic resources (Burton-‐Jones, 1999). Indeed, the
concept of knowledge and its application within the field of economics by means of
the Schumpeterian framework so provided by new growth theory (Soete and Ter
Weel, 1999), renders some of the properties of knowledge as markedly different
from other market goods. While we have already introduced the idea that investing
in knowledge is typically characterized by increasing, rather than decreasing,
returns, there are additional characteristics specific to knowledge that we must
consider. For instance, the new global knowledge economy further differs from
traditional economies and models of neoclassic growth in terms of the “scarcity-‐
defying characteristics of ideas” (Stiglitz, 1999, p. 8), as knowledge is abundant and
17
exponentiates itself (A. Toffler and H. Toffler, 2006). Further, “knowledge can… spill
over from one firm or industry to another, with new ideas used repeatedly at little
extra cost. Such spillovers can ease the constraints placed on growth by scarcity of
capital” (Foray and Lundvall, 1996, p. 11). Knowledge also differs from many other
market goods, in that it has many of the central properties of a global public good
(Stiglitz, 1998, 1999) and, like a public good, is both non-‐excludable and non-‐
rivalrous—at least in theory. To be sure, in regards to non-‐rivalry, “knowledge in its
immaterial or conceptual forms—ideas, information, concepts, functions, and
abstract objects of thought—is purely non-‐rivalrous such that there are essentially
no marginal costs to adding more users” (Peters and Besley, 2006, p. 56). Rather, it
is only when materially embodied or codified that knowledge becomes costly in
terms of time and resources (Ibid). However, technically and practically speaking, it
is important for us to note that knowledge is not entirely non-‐excludable. At the
very least, it might be considered an impure public good, as knowledge, to some
extent, can be excluded from certain users (e.g. via the legal system and intellectual
property rights, etc.) Indeed, such excludabilities are representative of the
difficulties in transforming knowledge into the object of standard economic
transactions, namely due to the asymmetries of information in a knowledge-‐based
economy: To buy knowledge and information is difficult because by definition, information about the characteristics of what is sold is asymmetrically distributed between the seller and the buyer. Some kinds of knowledge can be easily reproduced and distributed at low cost to a broad set of users, which tends to undermine private ownership. Other kinds of knowledge cannot be transferred from one organization to another or between individuals without establishing intricate linkages in terms of network and apprentice relationships or investing substantial resources in the codification and transformation into information. (Foray and Lundvall, 1996, p. 11)
It is with this in mind that, in order to engage in an economic analysis of knowledge
as capital, distinctions may be made between different types of knowledge and how
knowledge, as a broader concept of information, is typically distributed and
transferred within the new economy.
18
Typologies of Knowledge and Modes of Knowledge Production
While knowledge can be conceptualized within a number of discursive
frameworks, it is for our intents and purposes that we may broadly define two types
of knowledge integral to understanding the dynamics of a knowledge-‐based
economy: ‘codified’ knowledge and ‘tacit’ knowledge. Similarly described by
Gibbons et al. (1994) as ‘Mode 1’ and ‘Mode 2’ typologies and by Hargreaves (2000)
as ‘declarative’ knowledge (‘knowing that’) versus ‘procedural’ knowledge’ (‘know-‐
how’), we may generalize knowledge production as occurring in these two main
forms. Put succinctly, codified, or formal, knowledge (associated with Mode 1
knowledge production and declarative knowledge) is explicit in the sense that it has
been articulated and stored in objective forms; it is easily transferred to others and
may be readily generated through logical deduction. “Explicit knowledge consists of
facts, theories, and principles that are codified in research journals, taught in
schools, and recorded in industry” (Adler, 1996, p. 2). It is also worth mentioning
that the development of information technologies and communication systems has
led to the increasing amount of codified knowledge being distributed through a vast
array of communication networks. In contrast, tacit knowledge (associated with
Mode 2 knowledge production and procedural knowledge), deriving from the
philosophy of Michael Polanyi (1958, 1966), typically represents knowledge as a set
of embodied skills or as a stock of competencies. Largely experiential in nature, the
production of tacit knowledge places an emphasis on practice and ‘learning by
doing’, while focusing less on theory; as a result, tacit knowledge often proves more
difficult than codified knowledge in its transfer and diffusion—an issue, which we
will later address in more detail. For now, it is important to establish that both
typologies of knowledge production play an interactive and integral role in terms of
knowledge capitalism. “The knowledge-‐based economy is characterized by the need
for continuous learning of both codified information and the competencies to use
this information” (Foray and Lundvall, 1996, p. 13). This implies that “the
accumulation of tacit knowledge needed to derive maximum benefits from
19
knowledge codified through information technologies can only be done through
learning” (Ibid). Indeed, “by means of education, the labor forces become more
productive because individuals obtain a higher skill level” (Soete and Ter Weel,
1999, p. 296). Successful knowledge workers become increasingly recognized as
possessing both codified and tacit knowledge skills; workers thus require formal
education in addition to the practical and analytical skills necessary to acquire,
process, and apply such codified and theoretical knowledge. To be sure, education
becomes the cornerstone for learning in a knowledge-‐based economy, and codified
and tacit knowledge skills become the tool for both individual and organizational
advancement.
The creation, distribution, and use of knowledge, facilitated in part by
information and communication technologies, is central to both economic and social
life (Bastalich, 2010, p. 846); and, knowledge transfer and the idea of the ‘network
society’ thus becomes inextricably linked to the new knowledge economy. The
distribution and the diffusion of knowledge and information is of particular
importance as “the success of enterprises, and of national economies as a whole,
become more reliant upon their effectiveness in gathering, absorbing, and utilizing
knowledge” (Houghton and Sheehan, 2000, p. 11). The rapid development of
information technology and the digital revolution have certainly played a role in
accelerating the diffusion of information in a globalized knowledge economy. “As a
consequence, information technology makes codified knowledge, data, and
information much more accessible than before to all sectors and agents in the
economy linked to information networks or with the knowledge of accessing such
networks” (Soete and Ter Weel, 1999, p. 299). However, this is not to underscore
the importance of tacit knowledge. While such information technologies typically
allow for easier and less expensive access to information, the need for learning the
skills and stock of competencies to effectively and efficiently utilize this knowledge
becomes even more crucial. Particularly, we may recall here the inherent difficulties
in transferring tacit knowledge. Experiential in nature, the effective transfer of tacit
knowledge typically requires personal contact and repeated interaction, and the
20
diffusion of tacit knowledge is facilitated by trust and openness. Strategic ‘know-‐
how’ and critical competencies, in tandem with codified knowledge, are developed
interactively and shared within an array of both formal and informal networks
(Castells, 1996) and sub-‐groups: The economy becomes a hierarchy of networks, driven by the acceleration in the rate of change and the rate of learning. What is created is a network society, where the opportunity and capability to get access to and join knowledge- and learning-intensive relations determines the socioeconomic position of individuals and firms (Foray and Lundvall, 1996, p. 14; David and Foray, 1995).
Ideally, according to such a model, social and economic networks may effectively
replace more traditional, vertically integrated hierarchies (Bastalich, 2010; Castells,
1996). Further, due to the non-‐rivalrous nature of knowledge and the scarcity-‐
defying characteristics of ideas, knowledge market transactions for (non-‐patented)
knowledge and information depend critically on trust, in addition to repeated
interactions and reputation (Olssen and Peters, 2005, p. 337), especially when given
the asymmetries of information. In particular, we may observe that on the supply
side of these activities, “knowledge transactions within firms and organizations
require trust and reciprocity if knowledge workers are to share knowledge and
codify their tacit knowledge. Hoarding creates a vicious circle of knowledge
restriction, whereas trust and reciprocity can create a culture based on a virtuous
circle of knowledge sharing” (Ibid).
Stiglitz (1999) posits that such knowledge principles carry over to
knowledge institutions and countries as a whole; to be sure, this argument points
towards the value of scholarship and towards supporting educational structures in a
variety of institutional and organizational contexts. Indeed, the dynamics of learning
in a knowledge-‐based economy calls for “a fundamental rethinking of the traditional
relationships between education, learning, and work, focusing on the need for a new
coalition between education and industry” (Burton-‐Jones, 1999, p. vi). From a policy
perspective, the implications for universities and institutions of higher education
could prove highly consequential. By highlighting the role of education in the
21
creation of human capital and in the production of new knowledge (Olssen and
Peters, 2005), and the increased emphasis towards interactive and multilateral
networks for knowledge transactions, universities are becoming increasingly
aligned with industry. This shift has potential repercussions for both universities
and industries in the creation, use, and distribution of knowledge. It is the changing
nature of this relationship that we aim to explore. However, before delving into
detail on the developing relationships between university and industry, it is worth
examining further the creation, use, and distribution of knowledge; specifically, it is
the examination of knowledge creation and production that is necessary for us to
consider. After all, knowledge, in terms of skills and competencies, is one of the most
important factors for knowledge production resulting in innovation. It is with this in
mind that we must include a discussion on innovation and the importance of its role
within the knowledge economy.
22
CHAPTER IV
On Processes and Systems of Innovation
If OECD economies are steadily driven by knowledge and information, then
the creation and production of new knowledge and information become
increasingly important and even more so integral as a source of competitive
advantage. Competing in the current knowledge economy requires constant
adaptation—and thus the ability and stock of competencies to adapt—to shifting
market demands. In regarding knowledge as an economic asset, knowledge may
appear both as “an input (competence) and [an] output (innovation) in the
production process” (Lundvall, 2003, p. 2). To be sure, such language recalls our
discussion on the nature of knowledge and the relationship between codified
knowledge and tacit knowledge. In terms of production in the knowledge-‐based
economy, “innovation is driven by the interaction of producers and users in the
exchange of both codified and tacit knowledge” (Foray and Lundvall, 1996, p. 7). It is
this idea of innovation as the output of such processes and interaction (Antonelli,
1999; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995) that we aim to explore. That is, we may examine
innovation as an important outcome of knowledge production and further, the
favorable conditions and environment that facilitate and effectively nurture such an
outcome.
Conceptualizing Innovation: An Outcome of Knowledge Production
It is useful for us to begin by conceptualizing the idea of innovation and its
broader relation to the knowledge economy; further, the concept of creativity is
worth mentioning briefly. Indeed, the importance placed upon innovation within the
knowledge economy “may reflect, in part, the widespread cultural fascination with
‘creativity,’ originally promoted by management and psychology ideologues and
23
highly evident within business culture” (Bastalich, 2010, p. 850). To be sure, notions
of creativity have also become widespread in recent years as a purported factor in
promoting economic growth (Florida, 2005; Peck, 2005), with a particular
predilection towards urban policy. While this is neither the focus, nor the aim of our
examination at hand, it is nonetheless worth noting the role—albeit generalized—
that creativity may play within the innovation process. Succinctly put, and for
simplicity, we may consider creativity, especially from a cognitive perspective, as
the capacity to generate new and valuable ideas (Rhodes, 1961; Amabile, 1996;
Martins and Terblanche, 2003). Of course, creativity and innovation are often
associated with other. However, it is important for us to distinguish between the
two; while certainly related, the concepts of creativity and innovation are not to be
used interchangeably. Rather, we may view innovation as an implementation of
creativity; indeed, we may view innovation as a very particular kind of
implementation of a very particular form of creativity. If creativity is associated with
the generation of new ideas, then innovation may be understood, for instance, as the
process of transforming these ideas into new products or services (Drucker, 1985;
Abernathy and Clark, 1985; Tidd, Bessant, and Pavitt, 2001; Haradgon, 2003; Im,
1999). Creativity may be a veritable input in part of the innovation process, but in
terms of the economic framework outlined, innovation is the resulting output.
Therefore, in understanding the nature of knowledge market transactions within
the context of the knowledge-‐based economy, we can focus on innovation as a major
outcome of knowledge production.
Lundvall (2003) cites two reasons for regarding innovation as an important
outcome of knowledge production: One is that innovation represents—by definition—something new and therefore adds to existing knowledge. The second is that innovation is—again by definition—knowledge that is in demand. (Innovation is defined as an invention that has been introduced in the market and it thus represents knowledge that has proven its relevance for the market economy.) (p. 8)
Certainly, innovation can be seen as the ability to produce work that is both novel
(i.e. original) and appropriate (i.e. useful) (Sternberg, 1999), and is often associated
24
with purposeful change (Drucker, 1985). Of course, we must also note that within a
Schumpeterian framework4, innovation may be understood as part of a process of
‘creative destruction’ (Schumpeter, 1954; Galbraith, 1952, 1958, 1967; Hirschman,
1970), whereby, “the notion of creative destruction has by definition the natural
property that new inventions make the leading-‐edge technology and/or products
obsolete, which might force… [withdrawal] from the market” (Soete and Ter Weel,
1999, p. 295). Naturally, such processes of creative destruction are likely to lead to a
more competitive market environment. Indeed, the growing economic and policy
consensus on the importance of knowledge for industrial competitiveness may
effectively hinge on innovation. If this is the case, it is of particular importance for us
to explore the means and methods by which many OECD countries are attempting to
facilitate and drive innovation. We have already established innovation as an
outcome of knowledge production and we have already outlined that knowledge
production is increasingly marked by a complex set of relationships among different
actors producing, distributing, and applying various kinds of knowledge (OECD,
1997). It is with this in mind that we may introduce the concept of ‘national
innovation systems’ as a premise to understanding the linkages among the actors
involved in innovation as a key to improving economic performance.5 Further, we
may then examine the concept of open models of innovation in understanding the
developing nature and the characteristics of these linkages. To be sure, “the
configuration of national innovation systems, which consist of the flows and
relationships among industry, government, and academia in the development of
science and technology, is an important economic determinant” (Foray and
Lundvall, 1996, p. 7); moreover, the idea of ‘open innovation’ plays a role in
facilitating these flows and relationships, “such that newly developing technologies
4 Specifically, we may consider here the Schumpeter Mark I regime (Schumpeter 1912, 1942). 5 Of course, innovation systems may be defined as regional or national, or as sector-‐ or technology-‐ specific (Lundvall, 2003, p. 9); however, we will only be referencing national systems of innovation, respectively. This is largely due to our broader scope of OECD countries and the policy framework of the national and transnational bodies of government constituting the majority of this research.
25
and products [benefit] from integrating knowledge and expertise from multiple
sources” (Melese, Lin, Chang, and Cohen, 2009, p. 502). We must look towards
examining such national systems of innovation and emerging models of open
innovation before we move onto our next chapters exploring the implications that
such configurations bear for universities and higher institutions.
National Systems of Innovation
The concept of national systems of innovation certainly has traceable roots in
intellectual endeavors of centuries past (Smith, 1776; List, 1841), yet, its current
ideology is of determinately recent origins (Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1992; Nelson,
1993; Patel and Pavitt, 1994; Metcalfe, 1995); to be sure, from initial discussions
arising during the mid-‐1980s, the idea of a collective innovation system approach
has become greatly diffused and widespread in its application, particularly in the
current era of knowledge capitalism. “Today, OECD, the European Commission, and
UNCTAD have absorbed the concept as an integral part of their analytical
perspective” (Lundvall, Johnson, Andersen, and Dalum, 2002, p. 214); national
innovation systems are further breaking ground in policy framework for the World
Bank and IMF and other similar organizations. In its adoption by numerous national
and transnational policymakers, the general consensus of such a system of
innovation may be understood as, “the network of institutions in the public and
private sectors whose activities and interactions initiate, import, modify, and diffuse
new technologies” (Freeman, 1987 in Hubert, 2004, p. 332). Within a national
context, this of course involves “national institutions, their incentive structures, and
their competencies, that determine the rate and direction of… learning (or the
volume and composition of change generating activities) in a country” (Patel and
Pavitt, 1994 in Lundvall, Chaminade, and Vang, 2009b, p. 4). In short, national
innovation systems may be understood as the institutional framework, often
created through state action, to facilitate innovation as the desired outcome of
knowledge production in a knowledge-‐based economy:
26
Innovation and technical progress are the result of a complex set of relationships among actors producing, distributing, and applying various kind of knowledge. The innovative performance of a country depends to a large extent on how these actors relate to each other as elements of a collective system of knowledge creation and use, as well as the technologies they use. These actors are primarily private enterprises, universities and public research institutes, and the people within them. The linkages can take the form of joint research, personnel exchanges, cross-patenting, purchase of equipment, and a variety of other channels. (OECD, 1997, p. 9)
It is this web of interaction and the complex set of multilateral relationships—in
effect, the system—that is meant to serve as a source of competitive advantage in
driving innovation and facilitating economic growth. Certainly, we may observe the
strands of neoliberalism and also, certain tenets underpinning the new knowledge
economy, which we so previously discussed, as dictating many of the ideas behind
national systems of innovation. The increased recognition of the economic
importance of knowledge, coupled with the increasing use of systems approaches
and new institutional economics, effectively drives the growing development of a
national innovation ideology. In turn, if such an approach hinges on this ‘web of
interaction’ and the relationship among the various actors involved, we may take a
closer look at the subsequent innovation processes that ensue. Indeed, we may
argue that the very perception of the nature of innovation processes has also
changed significantly in recent history, in tandem—or perhaps as a result—of
implementing these systems of innovation. At the very least, innovation occurs
within a set of complex dialectical processes that deem further examination.
Open Models of Innovation
Broadly speaking, innovation capability has moved away from previously
linear and unidirectional models of innovation and, instead, become a more open
and interactive network-‐based model in what Henry Chesbrough (2003) first
termed as ‘open innovation.’ As the term suggests, the basic premise of open
innovation involves the ‘opening up’ of the innovation process. Such an approach
27
advocates, “establishing a broad ecosystem whereby external parties are much
more engaged and involved in conceptualization and implementation of innovative
new ideas in a variety of formal and informal matters” (Munsch, 2009, p. 48);
innovation and technical change do not occur in a perfectly linear sequence, but
rather, through feedback loops within this system (OECD, 1997). This is clearly
linked to the network characteristic of the knowledge economy and the
development of interactions based on trust and openness. While used increasingly
to explain and understand the development of innovation across organizations in
both the private and public sectors, open innovation arguably first gained
momentum in terms of practical application and management for businesses and
private enterprises (Scott, 1992, 1996a, 1996b): In the latter part of the twentieth century, companies began changing from a closed innovation model, based on a virtuous circle of innovation, to a more open model, which involved collaborating extensively with external agents and commercializing ideas in many different ways, such as spin-offs and licensing. (Padilla-Melendez and Garrido-Moreno, 2012, p. 418)
Indeed, recent decades proved decisive for this development; certainly, a multitude
of social and economic changes both within and outside of the wider innovation
environment have made it necessary to render innovation processes more open,
including, “changes in working patterns, increased labor division due to
globalization, improved market institutions for trading ideas, and the rise of new
technologies to collaborate across geographical distances (Dahlander and Gann,
2010, in Huizingh, 2010, pp. 1-‐2). We may recall the importance of the creation,
distribution, and use of knowledge facilitated in part by information and
communication technologies and the acceleration of this diffusion in a globalized
knowledge economy. Further, the importance of open networks and knowledge
transfer is key.
Interestingly, we may also note that this change from a linear model to an
interactive view of innovation and knowledge production “has also been a way to
connect innovation and the further development of competence. As now
28
understood, the innovation process may be described as a process of interactive
learning in which those involved increased their competence while engaging in the
innovation process” (Lundvall, 2003, p. 9). Open innovation thus effectively links yet
again to our previously discussed concepts regarding modes of knowledge
production and the dynamic and interactive relationship between tacit and codified
knowledge: “the concept of ‘learning by interacting’ points to how interaction
between producers and users in innovation enhances the competence of both”
(OECD, 2000, pg. 23). Certainly, this recalls the tendency for knowledge to
exponentiate itself (A. Toffler and H. Toffler, 2006) and further solidifies the
argument for facilitating knowledge production—and specifically innovation—by
means of an open and network-‐based model.
Open innovation tends to treat research and development (R&D),
particularly within science and technology (S&T) bases, as an open system. “At its
root, open innovation assumes that useful knowledge is widely distributed, and that
even the most capable R&D organization must identify, connect to, and leverage
external knowledge sources as a core process in innovation” (Chesbrough,
Vanhaverbeke, and West, 2008, p. 2). Of course, open innovation is not merely an
outsourcing of R&D activities, but rather, an integration of both internal and
external competencies, facilitated by both inbound and outbound knowledge, and
resulting from the collaboration between a range of various actors and participants
(Buganza and Verganti, 2009). Ideally, open innovation is thought to generate a
number of shared benefits (Wallin and von Krogh, 2010), including, but not limited
to such things as access to unique knowledge external to an institution or firm,
reduced costs of innovation, shared risk in product and service development, better
adaptation of products and services to customer and market needs, and faster time
to market for products. Within a national innovation system, such collaborations
and partnerships—and their potential benefits—may take place across a variety of
sectors and amongst a number of organizations and institutions, both within the
public and private sector. “The common idea is that the specificities of knowledge
29
production reflect unique combinations of technological specialization and
institutional structure” (Lundvall, 2003, p. 9).
Naturally, institutions of higher education and similar centers of public
research become increasingly important as potential partners and collaborators for
innovation. After all, as innovation is crucial to the competitiveness of economies,
then learning is crucial to innovation (Rasmussen, Lorenz, and Lundvall, 2008). “In
national systems, the education and training system is among the most important
for explaining national patterns and modes of innovation” (Lundvall, 2003, p. 9). It is
this idea, coupled with the aforementioned reconfigurations of technological
specialization and institutional structuring, that we aim to examine in our next
chapter. Namely, we can look towards the various roles that universities and
institutions of higher education have come to play in the developing knowledge
economy and, in turn, how such institutions are currently defining—or perhaps
redefining—these roles.
30
CHAPTER V
On Universities and Higher Education
We may begin by positing that universities and institutions of higher
education have a vital role to play in the economy (Nelson and Phelps, 1965;
Schultz, 1979) as veritable bases of knowledge and knowledge production (Florida,
Gates, Knudsen, and Stolarick, 2006); further, we can approach this idea from a
number of different perspectives. In the age of knowledge capitalism, the various
positions regarding the role and function of the university are, in part, reflective of
“a struggle, not only over the meaning and value of knowledge both internationally
and locally, but also over the public means of knowledge production” (Olssen and
Peters, 2005, p. 340). We have already outlined some of the basic ideas surrounding
the nature of knowledge and resulting modes of knowledge production in our
previous chapters—however, these ideas are rooted within the context of the
developing knowledge economy, and thus largely conceptualized from a market
perspective. Of course, the ‘meaning and value of knowledge’ have long been
approached within a number of discursive frameworks that are markedly different
from those deriving from current neoliberal discourse surrounding the knowledge
economy. As we have alluded to in earlier chapters, this is perhaps most apparent
within the realm of higher education, as universities and similar public institutions
of learning are under increasing pressure to adapt to these changing perceptions of
knowledge and knowledge production. To be sure, “the different perspectives on
how knowledge drives economic growth point to different challenges for…
education systems” (Rasmussen, Lorenz, and Lundvall, 2008, p. 681).
In an effort to understand these challenges, it is perhaps best to begin by
tracing the development of the university’s growing economic role in OECD
countries, and what many academics describe as a paradigmatic shift of the
university from a sequestered ‘ivory tower’ of learning to the so-‐called
31
‘entrepreneurial university’6 (Slaughter, Sheila, and Leslie, 1997; Etkowitz, Webster,
Gebhardt, and Terra, 2000; Clark, 2001; Etkowitz, 2003, 2004; Lazzeroni and
Piccaluga, 2003; Barnett, 2003; Gassmann, Enkel, and Chesbrough, 2010). Certainly,
the concept of the ‘paradigm shift’ has been one of the overarching themes in our
research, with particular regard to recent decades; in this case, starting from a
similar historical and chronological perspective can also prove useful. By outlining
the changing meanings and values of knowledge and learning within the context of
higher education, we may then establish a framework for explaining current trends
and practices in the way that universities and other institutions of higher education
are defining and justifying their institutional existence. This can provide insight into
understanding the various roles of the university, and eventually, lend to a critical
discussion on the potential issues and concerns that may subsequently arise.
The Role of Organized Education: A Brief History
At their most fundamental, we may argue that “schools, colleges, and
universities are institutions organized for the main purpose of transmitting
knowledge and facilitating learning” (Rasmussen, Lorenz, and Lundvall, 2008, p.
691). That the core mission of these institutions is to effectively serve as veritable
bases of knowledge and learning is difficult to dispute. Rather, it is the perceived
meaning and value of that knowledge and the intended purposes of that learning,
which characterize the nature of institutionalized education. Namely, questions as to
6 Of course, the terms, ‘ivory tower’ and ‘the entrepreneurial university’ are rife with both semantic and emotive meaning, which is perhaps telling in itself. Indeed, the ‘ivory tower’ is perhaps one of the most classic and succinct of all denigrations regarding traditional academe: “the rhetorical device used here is to apply a label (ivory tower) which is rich in negative connotations, activating the cliché of academics as other-‐worldly, unaccountable recluses who pursue interests of no concern or consequence to anyone but themselves” (Mautner, 2005, p. 108). Similarly, the concept of the ‘entrepreneurial university’ is often negatively associated with “capitalist regimes” (Barnett, 2003), which may “violate the ‘soul’ of academe” (Banja, 2000): “if the university becomes business, then it’s no longer a university” (Ibid). To be sure, the connotations and the potentially contentious nature of both these terms are important for us to bear in mind as we continue with our analysis.
32
what is being taught and why it is being taught prove critical. This is especially
apparent if we are to consider the general evolution of organized education: “the
early history of organized education was closely connected to religious institutions,
but the modern concept of schools and schooling was shaped by the Enlightenment
and the emergence of nation-‐states” (Ibid). Further, “the states that evolved during
the nineteenth century generally shared two features: a steadily growing
commitment to national policies for mass schooling and a steady increase in the
share of children and young people participating in basic schooling” (Araya and
Peters, 2010, p. 163). To be sure, during the modern era, education effectively
became an integral part of a common cultural framework for many Western nation-‐
states (Ramirez and Boli, 1987). This development bore clear sociopolitical
connotations, as education, citizenship, and social development became closely
interwoven themes in a political discourse, connecting mass schooling to political
progress (Ibid). Of course, many assign an arguably more utopian role to the
university, if not idealist (Habermas and Blazek, 1987; Jacoby, 1999, 2005; Peters
and Freeman-‐Moir, 2006; Stojanov, 2012)—that is, a Kantian notion of learning for
the sake of learning (Olssen and Peters, 2005). This humanistic ideal may be traced
to Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-‐1835) and the German Idealists and came to serve
as a central feature for many veritable theorists of education: The most prominent of them is probably John Dewey who emphasizes—not unlike Humboldt—the intrinsic value of education as unlimited development and flourishing of the potentials and capacities of the single human person: a development and flourishing that is to be understood according to both Humboldt and Dewey as an end-in-itself—and not primarily as a tool for the achievement of extrinsic economic or political goals of a given society. (Stojanov, 2012, p. 1)
Assuredly, such sentiments do not necessarily hold true within the parameters of
organized education discussed thus far. Readings (1996) recalls these writings of
Humboldt and the German Idealists and instead posits that the modern university
system considered universities as uniquely placed to provide a sense of national
culture and foster social and national cohesion; at the very least, we could say that
by studying and teaching such things as the social and cultural history of a nation,
this culture is extended through time (Cowan, 2005, p. 1). Indeed, by the dawn of the
33
20th century, some further argue that, “the aim of educational policymakers was to
create culturally homogenous, loyal, and productive mass citizens” (Rasmussen,
Lorenz, and Lundvall, 2008, p. 691; Meyer, 1977; Ramirez and Boli, 1987). This
might be construed as an overly harsh and simplified evaluation concerning the role
of education, yet the point to be made is that schools and institutions of learning
derive crucially from the social, cultural, and political environments in which they
are embedded.7 It is imperative, therefore, that these environments be examined
and drawn upon as an interpretative resource (Mautner, 2005, p. 97). This can
prove critical to understanding the shifts in more recent history and, specifically, the
changing relationships between academia and business.
Recent Changes in Higher Education: Towards a Methodology
Recent decades have certainly seen universities across the globe undergoing
substantial changes (Ibid), driven by a number of social, cultural, and political
contexts, specific to their environments. Indeed, in our case, these changes must be
understood as occurring within a complex set of dialectical processes, inextricably
intertwined, in part, with neoliberal discourse, the development of the knowledge
economy, and processes of innovation. To be sure, “in recent years, there has been
considerable interest in what are called the science-‐based industries… The claim is
that innovation and output in these industries depends heavily on very recent
advances in (university) basic research, and thus they provide the paradigm
example of how universities contribute to the innovation system” (Cowan, 2005, p.
6). Within these parameters, the justification of the university system hinges on the
applicable knowledge that it ‘feeds’ to innovators (Ibid). In maintaining that
7 We may refer again here to the work of Schumpeter, who states, “It is absurd that we can derive the contour lines of our phenomena from our statistical material only. All we could ever prove from that is that no regular contour lines exist… We cannot stress this point sufficiently. General history (social, political, and cultural), economic history, and industrial history are not only indispensable, but really, the most important contributors to the understanding of our problem” (Schumpeter, 1939 in Lundvall, 2008, p. 3).
34
universities are important players in systems of innovation, there are therefore
clear implications that universities have an economic role to play; thus, their
support can be justified by economic arguments. Naturally, such an emphasis on the
economic role of universities may potentially detract from the more traditional
notions concerning the cultural or social justifications of these institutions. The
subsequent developments and changes that this brings to higher education are
important for us to consider.
Parker and Jary (1995) suggest a three-‐layer model as a generalized
methodology by which to examine the developments and changes in higher
education—a framework influenced by Clark (1983) and Becher and Kogan (1992).
Such an approach considers these three ‘layers’ of change to be ‘national-‐structural,’
‘organizational,’ and ‘professional-‐subjective’: At the national-structural level we are referring to a series of structure and policy changes, which form general constraints on all higher education institutions… At the second level—internal to higher education organizations—there have been changes in the contexts within which teaching, administration, and research take place… Our third level is the action, subjectivity, motivation, and goals of academics themselves. (Parker and Jary, 1995, p. 320)
Our examination can thus incorporate these first two levels of analysis more fully,
although we may allude summarily to the latter, mainly for conceptual
completeness. Ultimately, it is important to acknowledge that these multiple
dimensions of change are indicative of the many challenges, at numerous levels, that
institutions of higher education currently face: There are repercussions on all elements of the classic triad of teaching, research, and administration, and in various strata of organizational practices. Overarching and elusive concepts like institutional culture, image, professional identities, and academic value systems are affected as much as the more hands-on aspects of governance and financial management. (Mautner, 2005, p. 98)
Assuredly, the changes in tertiary education are steeped in a complex mesh of
issues. It is with this in mind that we may loosely refer to these three layers of
national-‐structural, organizational, and professional-‐subjective change, in
35
conjunction with those concepts previously discussed thus far. That is, we may
further organize our examination of the changes in higher education within the
contexts of neoliberalization, the knowledge economy and modes of knowledge
production, and innovation.
Academia and Business: Processes of Convergence
Among the various trends and developments that characterize recent
changes in higher education, the ‘incursion’ of the market (O’Neill and Solomon,
1996) is perhaps one of the most dominant forces. Once regarded as two separate
domains (Olssen and Peters, 2005), academia and business have been moving closer
together and are now melding at various points of contact. Of course, while relations
between university and industry are not wholly unprecedented (Romero, 2007), the
extent to which business is now making inroads into academe is quite unparalleled
(Mautner, 2005). Furthermore, the focus on science and technology bases as the
infrastructure for eventual wealth generation has practically become paramount,
leaving many to also wonder at the fate this may bring other academic disciplines
outside the realm of innovation.8 Certainly, “the insertion of the university into the
innovation system, and thereby into the market sphere” (Cowan, 20005, p. 12),
8 Much of current policy and practice hinges on innovation being a key factor for economic growth. As a result, there is marked interest in the science and technology bases of universities as veritable sources in facilitating such growth. In addition, “as public sector funding in other areas is cut, there will be an increasing onus on universities to demonstrate the public and economic benefit of spending on science, technology, and research” (Kitson, Howells, Braham, and Westlake, 2009, p. 4-‐5). To be sure, this brings to light many concerns regarding other academic disciplines outside the realm of science, technology, and innovation, including, but not limited to the humanities and social sciences. “In particular, focusing on science, technology, and engineering fails to account for the many other contributions from other disciplines… For instance, research has shown the importance of interactions between business and the social sciences, which are especially important for innovation in the service sector” (Ibid). Of course, the creative arts and design can similarly be brought into such a discussion. However, it is neither our aim to examine these disciplines in detail, nor our goal to include them in the body of research at hand. Rather, we may acknowledge that these issues arise and that they deem much consideration for further and potential research.
36
leads to questions concerning the role of the university. As we have established, this
so-‐called ‘marketization’ of education and similar institutions in the public sector is
effectively linked to processes of neoliberalization. Complexities may arise when
public institutions previously governed “according to norms and values derived
from assumptions about the ‘common good’ or ‘public interest’” are effectively
replaced by a new governance model ruled by “quasi market or private sector
micro-‐techniques” (Olssen and Peters, 2005, p. 324). Moreover, at a national-‐
structural level, this application and extension of the market is increasingly
implemented through state action. It is important to acknowledge the part played by
governments and the parliaments in which they command majorities; after all, such
governing bodies initiate, support, and sustain changes in the sectors of higher
education, not only by creating the requisite regulatory framework and allocating
budgets, but also by often promulgating a pro-‐market education agenda (Mautner,
2005, p. 98; Cowan, 2005). From an economic perspective, we may consider several
general, interlocking factors that combine to steadily align universities with the
market: First, widening access (or, as critics would have it, ‘massification’) without a matching increase in government funding produces budget shortfalls. Second, because of budgetary constraints, commercial funding streams are becoming more important, whether generated through spinout companies, consulting contracts, or sponsorship deals, and this leads to “the spread into universities of norms and institutional forms characteristic of commercial society” (O’Neill and Solomon, 1996, p. 82). (Mautner, 2005, p. 98)
We may recall here the neoliberal application of market logic to the public sector
that has effectively rendered many public institutions, including universities,
increasingly analogous to companies in the private and commercial sectors.
Certainly, universities face growing pressures due to the purported massification of
university education, increasing costs of research, and a general decline in funding
from central governments. Particularly, this decrease in public financing has placed
an emphasis on the ‘exploitation’ and commercialization of university research and
similar academic endeavors (Florida, Gates, Knudsen, and Stolarick, 2006; Mould,
Roodhouse, and Vorley, 2009; Padilla-‐Melendez and Garrido-‐Moreno, 2012);
37
additionally, we may note that the decline in public funding has led to a general
increase in the percentage of university research financed by industry (Lazzeroni
and Piccaluga, 2003). As a result, we may broadly posit that, “the role of the
university has changed in the last twenty-‐five years with the emergence of a ‘third
mission’ (teaching and research being the first two) that is concerned with the
commercialization and transfer of academic activities to the economy” (Mould,
Roodhouse, and Vorley, 2009, p. 139). Universities may typically adopt this view,
both because it makes their work economically relevant, and, as a way to bolster
their budgets (Florida, Gates, Knudsen, and Stolarick, 2006, p. 2).
Of course, with this trend in higher education towards “the adoption of a
free-‐market or corporate-‐business perspective” (Webster, 2004, p. 85 in Mayr,
2008, p. 30), comes a parallel trend, whereby knowledge-‐intensive industries are,
conversely, placing an increased reliance on universities and similar institutions as
veritable bases of knowledge and knowledge production: Instead of seeing current changes in the higher education/business relationship exclusively as a case of (one-sided) “colonization/appropriation” (Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999, p. 93), they are perhaps more adequately conceptualized, as Kleinman and Vallas, (2001) argue, as a process of convergence. (Mautner, 2005, p. 98)
Georghiou and Metcalfe (2002) echo similar sentiments and posit that within recent
decades, the division of labor amongst the main organizations involved in
knowledge-‐intensive sectors—particularly those associated with scientific and
technological research, such as private corporations, public research centers, and
universities—have become increasingly subtle, as their collective activities
increasingly overlap. Such convergence processes are, in no small part, driven by the
network characteristic of the developing knowledge economy. Additionally, we may
recall the previously-‐discussed modes of knowledge production and the perception
that processes of open innovation are neither unilateral, nor linear; certainly, “the
activities of basic research and development have and need innumerable
connections [and] the increasing complexity of science and technology [is associated
with] uncertainty and risks in the development of new products and processes”
38
(Romero, 2007, p. 233). Institutions of higher education and similar centers of
public research thus become increasingly important as potential partners and
collaborators for open innovation. The concept of knowledge exchange is also
important here, as processes of knowledge exchange are similarly interactive,
involving the interchange of knowledge between ‘research users’ and ‘research
producers’ (Mitton, Adair, Mckenzie, Patten, and Perry, 2007). Further, the success
of such knowledge exchange typically hinges on genuine, multilateral interaction
between all stakeholders involved (Ibid). In conjunction with the proliferation of
both public and private actors engaged in research and development activities,
universities are cogently put under demands and pressures to serve as veritable
“engines of innovation” (Florida, Gates, Knudsen, and Stolarick, 2006, p. 2) and
facilitate knowledge exchange. In effect, new ties between universities and business
are constantly being established, while existing ones are strengthened (Lester,
2005; Perkmann and Walsh, 2007). These ties are the result of an intensified
exchange process between universities and their commercial environments
(Mautner, 2005, p. 96), and this exchange invariably leads to new social and
discursive practices for both (Ibid).
The Economic Role of the University: Benefits and Contributions
It is with this in mind that we may more fully explore the multidimensional
relationship between academia and business within the general context of the
knowledge economy, and also from the standpoint that universities can provide a
variety of resources for industries, while further contributing to innovation and the
larger economy as a whole. To be sure, it is this purported role that underpins many
of the current changes in the sphere of higher education; also, understanding this
role will lend us further insight into the subsequent shifts that occur at the
organizational and personal-‐subjective levels of universities and similar institutions.
39
If the fundamental role of schools, colleges, and universities lies in
transmitting knowledge and facilitating learning, then we must understand how this
is translated into the context of the current knowledge economy. Many who have
commented on the university’s role in the economy believe that the key lies in
increasing its ability to transfer knowledge and research to industry, with a
particular emphasis on the transfer of intellectual property (Florida, Gates,
Knudsen, and Stolarick, 2006, p. 2, Fabrizio, 2006; Padilla-‐Melendez and Garrido-‐
Moreno, 2012). Economic literature further dedicates attention to the concept of
‘research spillovers’ as the sum of direct and indirect benefits determined by
research activities and the production of new knowledge (Mohnem, 1990; Caniels,
2000). After all, as corpus evidence shows, this appears to be the crux of the
matter—certainly from a policy perspective. However, it is perhaps best to first
consider a more fundamental and multifaceted approach of the various
contributions that universities make to the economy, such as “highlighting their
importance as sources of knowledge, and also their role as sources of skilled
employees, and as the centers for regional economic clusters” (Kitson, Howells,
Braham, and Westlake, 2009, p. 5). We can therefore incorporate the potential
benefits of the university not only within the context of knowledge production,
exchange, and innovation, but also in terms of human capital, social capital, and
regional growth and development.
Both local and national economies can benefit from the human capital
provided by institutions of higher education; indeed, that universities provide highly
trained graduates—and thus a skilled workforce—is perhaps the least contested
way by which academia lends to the knowledge economy (Cowan, 2005, p. 5). As
leading sources of knowledge, universities educate individuals who may then enter
the labor force. These individuals can effectively transfer both their acquired
codified knowledge and their tacit knowledge to the workplace or the greater public
40
environment.9 Ideally, this can contribute greatly to both the stock of public
knowledge available, in addition to that used by industry and within the private
sector: By means of education, the labor force becomes more productive because individuals obtain a higher skill level. These skills can be applied in both the manufacturing division and the research department of the firm. By employing skilled individuals, labor productivity levels are expected to increase. This in turn leads to higher levels of innovative activities in the research department on the one hand and higher levels of production in the manufacturing division on the other. Of course, these skilled individuals can also be employed at the universities themselves. Employing them at universities leads to a direct positive effect on the stock of public knowledge, while employing skilled individuals at firms or in the business sector leads to possible indirect effects on the stock of public knowledge through the effort put in innovative activities at the firm level. (Soete and Ter Weel, 1999, pp. 296-297)
Furthermore, the transfer of university graduates serves as a highly effective
method of knowledge exchange, “not least because much of the… important
knowledge is tacit, which is exchanged through informal interactions, rather than
codified knowledge, which can be transferred through less personal mechanisms”
(Kitson, Howells, Braham, and Westlake, 2009, p. 9). We can recall here the
importance of both formal and informal networks in the diffusion of knowledge. In
particular, the flow of graduates—especially those with advanced degrees—fosters
“the spontaneous transfer of knowledge and experiences accumulated in the place
where the training has taken place; the knowledge which is transferred in this way
is mainly tacit and spillovers are linked not only to scientific and technologic
competencies of human resources, but also to the capacities of applying such
knowledge in business contexts” (Lazzeroni and Piccaluga, 2003, p. 42). Indeed, we
may acknowledge that individuals play a crucial role in collaborative knowledge 9 We may note here the importance of academic publications, presentations, and conferences as an additional means by which to transfer knowledge—in this case, to the public, or, at the very least, to others in academe or related fields. Patents, of course, may provide similar use. “Scientific publications represent the most widely used way by academics to describe their work and to establish priority in scientific discovery, both because they allow a large diffusion, and because they are the most widely used indicator to evaluate the quality of research activity within the university system” (Lazzeroni and Piccaluga, 2003, p. 43).
41
creation processes (Du Chatenier, Verstegen, Biemans, Mulder, and Omta, 2010),
and, in this case, the mobilities of students and academics can further prove vital in
the different processes of knowledge exchange and transfer.
Certainly, the ongoing effects of globalization, coupled with various
challenges of the recent recession, are making many key economic actors more
mobile. For instance, “firms move in response to shifts in comparative advantage or
recessionary pressures… Workers, particularly those that are skilled, move in
response to differences in wages and the quality of life” (Kitson, Howells, Braham,
and Westlake, 2009, p. 9). This mobility of the factors of production may improve
the collective efficiency of markets; however, these mobilities can simultaneously
lead to increased strain and pressure for those places that lose businesses or
workers (Ibid). With this in mind, we may posit that universities can effectively
serve as locally embedded actors for places. After all, universities may experience
both expansion and decline, yet they rarely move elsewhere. The concept that
universities contribute at not only a national level, but also in terms of regional or
local growth, is one well worth mentioning.
Universities have an important role as locally embedded actors; in particular,
we may consider the reciprocal relationship they have with the human capital they
provide. As uniquely important local institutions, successful universities—and by
extension, successful academics—are potentially major recipients of both public and
private funding for research and development; this is certainly the case as
convergence processes between academia and business lead to more open models
of innovation. In effect, “universities are often at the cutting edge of technological
innovation” (Florida, Gates, Knudsen, and Stolarick, 2006, p. 2). With regards to
academic and professional mobilities, this in turn attracts faculty, researchers, and
students to a given university. Indeed, in addition to producing human capital,
universities can also effectively attract human capital. Naturally, a region or
locality’s endowment of highly educated and productive people is important to its
economic development (Jacobs, 1984; Simon and Nardinelli, 1996; Simon, 1998;
42
Mathur, 1999; Soete and Ter Weel, 1999); to be sure, we can acknowledge a clear
connection between the economic success of a region and its human capital (Lucas,
1998; Glendon, 1999; Glaeser, 1998, 2000), as measured, in part, by levels of
tertiary education. Such notions give rise to the concept of clustering and the so-‐
called cluster effect (Rosenfeld, 1997; Clark, Feldman, and Gertler, 2000; Porter,
1998, 2000) apparent in many regions exhibiting economic growth. “An increasingly
influential view suggests that place remains important… because of the tendency of
firms to cluster together… More importantly, companies cluster in order to draw
from concentrations of talented people who power innovation and economic
growth” (Florida, 2003, p. 4). In this case, universities can act as a locus of economic
activity by encouraging these “highly educated, talented, and entrepreneurial people
and firms to locate nearby, in part to draw on the universities’ many resources”
(Florida, Gates, Knudsen, and Stolarick, 2006, p. 2).10 Glaeser (1998) similarly posits
that the ultimate source for the regional agglomeration of firms stems from this
common labor pool of skilled individuals.
Interestingly, Glaeser (2000) also argues that “intellectual spillovers—idea
flows among individuals that are not mediated by the market—are a linchpin of
economic progress” (Glaeser, 2000, p. 101). Glaeser goes on to describe these
‘nonmarket interactions’ as either classic externalities—in our case, education-‐
related and often indirect—or, “when one individual influences another without the
exchange of money” (Glaeser, 2000, p. 102), which involves the voluntary
participation of both individuals (Ibid). It is this latter definition in particular that
fits well with the network characteristic of the knowledge economy and the nature
of knowledge exchange and transfer, which we have described thus far. Certainly,
such is the case when considering the experiential transfer of tacit knowledge.
Further, as we may recall, knowledge market transactions for (non-‐patented)
knowledge and information depend critically on trust, in addition to repeated
10 For example, we may observe the now-‐classic cases of Stanford University and MIT as playing critical roles in the development of Silicon Valley and the greater Boston Area (Saxenian, 1994).
43
interactions and reputation (Olssen and Peters, 2005, p. 337), especially when given
the asymmetries of information in the knowledge economy. Trust and reciprocity
are key if knowledge workers are to share knowledge; “hoarding creates a vicious
circle of knowledge restriction, whereas trust and reciprocity can create a culture
based on a virtuous circle of knowledge sharing” (Ibid).
It may be worth briefly mentioning here, that there is significant literature
dedicated to the notion of generalized trust as an important asset conceptualized as
a central part in the broader notion of social capital (Coleman, 1990; Putnam, 1993);
“in sum… many things that are normatively desirable seem connected to social trust
and have been attributed to social capital more generally” (Rothstein and Uslaner,
2005, p. 2). While it is not our aim to enter into a detailed examination of social
capital and its larger influence on economic development, it can nonetheless prove
useful to establish the role of trust in facilitating interactions and transactions
between different organizations and institutions, which, in our case, involves
business and academia: Some researchers [point] out that trust facilitates transactions among organizations by reducing transaction costs, such as information searching, negotiation, monitoring, and enforcing transactions; other researchers [find] that the perception of partners’ trustworthiness depends on the amount and accuracy of information, the degree of cooperation and the other factors that are associated with transactions costs; still others [focus] on certain types of transactions and [analyze] how transactions costs and trust interacts” (Cai, 2004, p. 1).
Interestingly, education is typically cited as one of the standard predicators of trust
(Rothstein and Uslaner, 2005) and survey data indicates that higher levels of
education can often result in higher levels of generalized trust (Brehm and Ranh,
1997; Putnam, 1995; Knack and Zak, 2002; Uslaner and Bădescu, 2003).11 Certainly,
Putnam (2007) takes a strong stance and posits, “those that are most trusting—and
11 Of course, it is important for us to note that these results are typical of an ideal model of education; after all, there can be numerous entry barriers to higher education. Educational inequality is therefore something to bear in mind as gains in education may, in the short term, produce a ‘privileged class’ of highly educated people, and so overall inequality may arise (Rothstein and Uslaner, 2005).
44
trust others from different social, economic, and ethnic backgrounds—are those
with the highest level of education” (Putnam, 2007 in Kitson, Howells, Braham, and
Westlake, 2009, p. 9). This may very well feed back into our discussion on the
relationship between universities and human capital. In this case, the human capital
provided by universities may also prove vital in potentially promoting the trust
necessary for many of the transactions and knowledge exchange processes between
universities and business.
While many of these knowledge exchange processes between industry and
academia do have a financial orientation, typically following a ‘money-‐for-‐expertise’
formula, they also have a strong interpersonal dimension, “as businesspeople are
appointed to positions in university management or on boards of trustees, for
example, or as faculty take on consultancy contracts” (Mautner, 2005, p. 96). For
instance, Putnam (2007) maintains that mutual trust aids the transfer and exchange
of knowledge and can reduce transaction costs, “as those who trust one another are
less likely to need expensive contracts to interact with one another” (Putnam, 2007
in Kitson, Howells, Braham, and Westlake, 2009, p. 9). Furthermore, the necessity of
both formal and informal networks is crucial to models of open innovation; this is
especially important considering the proliferation of actors involved in research
development in both private and public sectors and the related clustering effects of
similar firms.
Of course, facilitating open knowledge exchange and successful nonmarket—
or, for that matter, market—interactions between academia and business can prove
problematic; particularly, trust and reciprocity may be difficult to establish. Indeed,
the success and openness of knowledge exchange processes between academia and
business is often simpler in theory than in practice. This is largely due to a number
of barriers between universities and industry and a general misalignment of the
missions and motivations for both.
45
Institutional and Organizational Restructuring: Challenges and Issues
The challenges in aligning academia and business are perhaps most
discernible if we are to look at recent changes in the institutional and organizational
governance structures of universities; it may be useful to consider these changes in
terms of cause and effect. Simply put, the spheres of academia and business are
steadily overlapping in a complex set of convergence processes that effectively link
universities and similar public institutions to their immediate and commercial
environments. As our research demonstrates, this may be seen as a result of
neoliberalization, as well as a response to adapt to the developing knowledge
economy. Of the issues previously discussed, we may recall here the neoliberal
application of market logic to the public sector and the subsequent effect that many
public institutions, including universities, are now becoming increasingly analogous
to companies in the private and commercial sectors. In particular, “under
neoliberalism, markets have become a new technology by which control can be
effected and performance enhanced, in the public sector” (Olssen and Peters, 2005,
p. 316). This trend may manifest in a number of ways: [This] exchange [between universities and their commercial environment] invariably leads to new social and discursive practices, such as ‘selling,’ ‘advertising,’ or managing.’ They are imported into the academic domain, where previously the prevailing norm was characterized by non-utilitarian knowledge creation and consultative, committee-based governance, as well as by its concomitant non-commercial discourse. (Mautner, 2005, p. 96)
Naturally, from an organizational perspective, this has potential repercussions for
the way that these institutions function at an internal level. Specifically, we may
examine these repercussions in the contexts within which teaching, administration,
and research take place (Parker and Jary, 1995, p. 320). Indeed, the normative
effects of such changes can be linked to shifts towards new institutional economics
and new public management and an overall rise in managerialism12 (Deem, 1998;
12 It is worth noting, that though ‘marketization’ and ‘managerialism’ are not the same thing, they tend to be mutually reinforcing phenomena and have, in fact, been referred to as ‘twin strategies’ (Blackmore and Sachs, 2003, p. 478 in Mautner, 2005, p. 98).
46
Trowler, 2001; Olssen and Peters, 2005) resulting from processes of
neoliberalization. We can delve into these new organizational forms of higher
education and then summarily introduce some of the issues that subsequently arise
at a personal-‐subjective level. To be sure, the restructuring of universities at a
fundamental and organizational level clearly bears implications for the very people
that are part of these institutions.
Neoliberalism and processes of neoliberalization have introduced a new
mode of regulation and form of governmentality within the realm of higher
education; this is due, in no small part, to increased state action in implementing
markets as a new disciplinary and discursive practice within the public sector. In
this case, such an extension of market logic places an emphasis towards
reconfiguring universities as part of an input-‐output system which stresses such
concepts as ‘outcomes’, ‘accountability’, ‘purchase’, ‘ownership’, ‘specification’,
‘contracts’, and ‘purchase agreements’ (Jackson, 2003). “Ron Barnett (2000) utilizes
Lyotard’s concept of ‘performativity’ to argue that [this] marketization has become a
new universal theme manifested in the trends towards the commodification of
teaching and research and the various ways in which universities meet the new
performative criteria, both locally and globally in the emphasis upon measurable
outputs” (Olssen and Peters, 2005, p. 316). Related concepts further include,
“clarification of purpose and role, task specification, and reliable reporting
procedures” (Jackson, 2003, p. 232). Indeed, central to such approaches is a
particular stress on contract, which ostensibly replaces central regulation with a
new system of public administration that demands an increase in accountability and
efficiency. Moreover, such accountability and efficiency—and in effect,
compliance—is extracted through systems that measure performance according to
both externally imposed levers and internally reinforced targets (Olssen and Peters,
2005, p. 320). Concerns with problems of compliance and control are typically
addressed by establishing a hierarchical chain of command. As a result, work
relations are often vertically structured as a series of contracts. “The consequence of
47
such a contractualism is to view all work relations as principal-‐agent13 hierarchies,
thereby redefining the appropriate process in terms of outputs, and where services
are viewed in terms of cost and quality” (Olssen, Codd, and O’Neill, p. 164). As we
may recall, this new system of public administration is effectively linked to the ideas
behind new public management (NPM), which is largely characterized by
marketization, performance measurement, and managerialized accountability
(Tolofari, 2005), and, as a result, institutions in the public sector are becoming
increasingly reconfigured and managed like those in the private sector. With this in
mind, Olssen and Peters (2005) make an astute observation and pose a crucial
question: “When organizations are ruled by new governance arrangements and
models, under relations of managerialized accountability, what happens to the
presumption of trust that public servants will act in the public good?” (p. 324)
Universities and similar public institutions of higher education certainly face
challenges and issues in the face of these organizational changes and managerial
shifts. Indeed, there appears to be no lack of critique concerning what many view as
“the importance of active resistance to what is becoming an increasingly hegemonic
discourse located in managerialist structural roots” (Trowler, 2001, p. 197; Clegg,
2002; Bollier, 2002; Harvie, 2004; Mautner, 2005; Olssen and Peters, 2005). Rather
than take our own immediate stance, it is perhaps best to outline a few of the
general challenges and limitations of the so-‐called ‘neoliberal university’ (Dowling,
2008; Peters, 2002; Germic, 2009) within these new parameters. Naturally, there
are potential dangers in university research being subjected to commercial
pressures, not least of which can be traced to some of the divergent interests
between both universities and industry. Further, the emphasis on the veritable
outputs of academia proves difficult to effectively measure. Finally, with the rise of 13 Within the context of political science and economics, ‘principal-‐agent’ refers to the separate parties of a given situation. “Any person who has the… capacity to perform an act may be a ‘principal’ and empower an ‘agent’ to carry out that act. Persons, corporations, partnerships, not-‐for-‐profit organizations, and government agencies may all be principals and appoint agents. Any individual capable of comprehending the act to be undertaken is qualified to serve as an agent… Inherent in the Principal-‐Agent (P-‐A) relationship is the understanding that the agent will act for and on behalf of the principal” (Schuler, 2002).
48
managerialism, and through the ideology of entrepreneurialism, “the university’s
particular place as a critical forum is undermined” (Barnett, 2003, p. 73). This last
point in particular brings to the light the effects that processes of neoliberalization
may incur at a professional-‐subjective level for those within the university. We may
examine these various effects and their potential repercussions before moving onto
our final chapter, where we may consider a larger outlook on the current state of
higher education as the sum of our total research.
The growing demand for universities to commercialize and capitalize on
their research is perhaps one of the more pressing issues, which we can first
address; certainly, there is increasing academic concern about the expectations that
this places on institutions of higher education (Lawton Smith, 2003). We may recall
here the ideas behind new institutional economics (NIE) arising from processes of
neoliberalization. In terms of higher education, the institutional stress on
performativity has increased pressures for universities to establish and achieve
targets in an effort to provide relevant and measurable outputs. Moreover, in the
interests of efficiency, output production assumes a more immediate nature.
Dasgupta and David (1994) argue that closely aligning industry and university may
therefore potentially draw academic scientists “towards research enterprises with
immediate short-‐term benefits to industry, but away from research with broader
and long-‐term impacts to society and the economy” (Dasgupta and David, 1994 in
Florida, Gates, Knudsen, and Stolarick, 2006, p. 3). Indeed, the emphasis on such
modes of ‘applied research’ might arguably “[do] more to support mediated ideas
for rapid consumption in local contexts than enduring scholarly contributions for
posterity” (Bastalich, 2010, p. 855). To be sure, there is often a clear misalignment of
time frames between industry and academia, with businesses typically seeking
more expeditious results than universities. Additionally, mutual disagreements on
the value of knowledge and information can also prove problematic; further,
potential conflicts in regards to intellectual property and regulations imposed by
universities or governments can act as crucial barriers to interactions between
universities and industrial firms (Bruneel, 2009 in Kitson, Howells, Braham, and
49
Westlake, 2009, p. 38). This reflects a difference between their archetypal missions,
as businesses are traditionally driven by profits and shareholder value, and
universities are traditionally driven by discovering new knowledge (Kitson,
Howells, Braham, and Westlake, 2009, p. 38). The barriers to interacting with universities involve a range of different norms of incentives and institutional barriers. Discovering new knowledge and establishing priority for these discoveries among peers through publications largely motivates university researchers. Science remains an open system, governed largely by norms set by the scientists themselves. In contrast, industrial research is likely to be specific in orientation and firms are focused on creating private and valuable knowledge that can be used to create products and processes. In this context, industrial firms operate in a very different system where capturing intellectual property, both informal and formal, plays a key role in shaping their external engagement, in general, and work with universities, in particular. (Dasgupta and David, 1994 in Bruneel, D’Este, Neely, and Salter, 2009, p. 14)
Indeed, as we may observe, a number of the issues arising as a result from the
convergence processes between academia and business can be traced to these
inherently different motivations between the two.
Another challenge lies in the difficulties of measurements and indicators, as
many of the collaborations between universities and industry cannot be measured
in existing metrics. This is clearly linked to an emphasis on increased efficiency and
the need for measurable outputs, in conjunction with the “increasing onus on
universities to demonstrate the public and economic benefit of spending on science,
technology, and research” (Kitson, Howells, Braham, and Westlake, 2009, p. 4-‐5): The transformations which are taking place in universities and the emergence of new functions, especially in the field of technology transfer and in the design of new intitiatives for territorial economic development, have determined an increase in interest towards the precise identification of university spillovers and the adoption of new performance indicators. (Lazzeroni and Piccaluga, 2003, p. 40)
Within a neoliberal framework, the difficulties in the precise identification and
measurement of such spillovers are perceived as a risk, in that this lack of objective
measures or performance indicators can inextricably lead to a lack of accountability
and effectiveness. For instance, “[while] technology transfer usually has tangible,
50
measurable benefits, such as capital raised by spinouts or patents registered,
informal knowledge exchange and the impact of universities in building clusters are
harder to capture in a single metric” (Kitson, Howells, Braham, and Westlake, 2009,
p. 38). Indeed, it is the very concept of tacit knowledge transfer and the role of
informal networks integral to knowledge production and innovation that proves the
most difficult to monitor. To be sure, “both old and new performance indicators
have to be defined in order to monitor both positive and negative consequences of
[the] changes which are taking place in university missions and strategies”
(Lazzeroni and Piccaluga, 2003, p. 38).14
Personal and Subjective Changes: Challenges and Issues
With all this in mind, we may now arrive to our final point to consider in this
chapter; namely, we can summarily introduce and address these recent changes in
higher education in terms of the subsequent “actions, subjectivity, motivation, and
goals of academics themselves” (Parker and Jary, 1995, p. 320). After all, within the
framework of neoliberalism and under the guidelines of new public management,
the restructuring of universities at a fundamental and organizational level clearly
bears potential implications for the very people that are part of these institutions: Under neoliberal governmentality, principal-agent line management chains replace delegated power with hierarchical forms of authoritatively structured relations, which erode, and seek to prohibit, an autonomous space from emerging. This shift in regulative modality constitutes a structural shift, which is likely to transform the academic’s role… The institutionalization of models of principal-agent chains of line
14 Piccaluga and Lazzeroni (2003) present a useful paper adopting an instrumentalist position in outlining a methodology for analyzing changes that are taking place in university organization, culture, incentives, marketing and so on. Further, after identifying four very functional missions for universities, Piccaluga and Lazzeroni “develop a typology of scientific research spillovers and discusses how they are to be measured—again an instrumentalist way of looking at relationships” (Lawton, 2003, p. 4). While we will not discuss this interesting methodology in detail, it is nonetheless worth summarily mentioning its relevance to our research. For further information on their performance indicators, please refer to Towards the Entrepreneurial University by Andrea Piccaluga and Michela Lazzeroni (2003).
51
management inserts a hierarchical mode of authority by which the market and state pressures are instituted. (Olssen and Peters, 2005, pp. 324-325)
To be sure, we may recall that within these parameters, the demand for increased
accountability and efficiency—and in effect, compliance—is addressed, in part, by
establishing a vertically integrated and hierarchical chain of command. As a result,
work relations—in this case, between university management (the empowering
‘principal’) and faculty (the complying ‘agent’)—are often vertically structured
through a series of contracts. In terms of the changes in higher education at a
professional-‐subjective level, this carries with it the effect of ‘de-‐professionalization’
for faculty and academic staff: [Such an effect involves] a shift from collegial or democratic governance in flat structures, to hierarchical models based on dictated management specifications of job performance in principal-agent chains of command. [Further,] the implementation of restructuring initiatives in response to market and state demands involves increasing specifications by management over workloads and course content by management. Such hierarchically imposed specifications erode traditional conceptions of professional autonomy over work in relation to both teaching and research, [as] neoliberalism systematically deconstructs the space in terms of which professional autonomy is exercised. (Ibid)
Indeed, this notion of de-‐professionalization hinges on a neoliberal patterning of
power that is established on contract. In turn, such contractualism is predicated on
the need for compliance and accountability, which is exacted by the prescribed
guidelines of new public management. Certainly, the concepts of “clarification of
purpose and role, task specification, and [measurable] reporting procedures”
(Jackson, 2003, p. 232) are at odds with the traditional conception of
professionalism as associated with “an ascription of rights and powers over work in
line with classical liberal notions of freedom of the individual (Olssen and Peters,
2005, p. 325). This rise of managerialism under new public management affects the
idea of power given to an individual in reducing his or her ability to make decisions
in the workplace. Concerns have arisen that this impact of neoliberalism on the
nature of professionalism has thus restructured the identity of professionals to
become more aligned with modes of managerialism (Du Gay, 1996; Nixon, Marks,
52
Rowland and Walker, 2001). Within universities, so-‐called ‘manager-‐academics’ are
typically key drivers of this development (Deem and Johnson, 2000; Johnson, 2002;
Deem, 2003). Of course, some argue that, “we cannot assume that this is in any way
an automatic or linear process, or that individuals respond in ways in which are
consistent or coherent” (Halford and Leonard, 1999, p. 120). Rather, as with much of
the research we have presented thus far, we can similarly view the effects of
managerialism as occurring within a set of dialectical processes: It is dangerous… to draw sweeping conclusions about the replacement of the traditional bureau-professional organizational order in education by a managerial one. Rather, it is better to view the process as a dynamic one in which growing tensions between ‘old’ and ‘new’ are worked out within particular policy and management areas as different value systems and interests of influence. (Simkins, 2000, p. 330)
That being said, while it is certainly conceivable that “new ‘emergent’
possibilities exists, in our view neoliberalism constitutes a ‘structural selectivity,’ in
Offe’s (1984) sense, that alters the nature of the professional role” (Olssen and
Peters, 2005, p. 326); at the very least, in terms of higher education, we can posit
that this increase in the power of management may potentially lead to the
diminishing autonomy of professional academics. This proves especially
problematic as performance criteria and targets are increasingly applied from
outside the academic role and outside of the traditional realm of academia, due to
the blurring of boundaries between universities and industry. For instance,
knowledge exchange processes include such things as faculty taking on consultancy
contracts and businesspeople being appointed positions in university management
or on boards of trustees. Further, the increased role of ‘commercially relevant’
research and industry funding, in addition to “the need for immediate financial
returns on research outcomes, has led to new pressures on researchers who are
increasingly tied financially to large, industry-‐linked research projects” (Bastalich,
2010, p. 846). The rising importance of such “‘managed research,’ and the pressures
to obtain ‘funded research’ constitutes further evidence that academic freedom, at
least in terms of the academics’ determination over research are concerned, are
53
increasingly ‘compromised’ or at least ‘under pressure’” (Olssen and Peters, 2005, p.
326). Certainly, researchers and professional academics may face a lack of
autonomy in choosing research focuses and drawing conclusions from data, in
addition to other pressures, such as undue secrecy and similar issues regarding
potential intellectual property rights. Moreover, the blurring of boundaries between
universities and the private, for-‐profit sector also jeopardizes the freedom of the
former to criticize the latter: “the hand that feeds is less likely to be bitten”
(Mautner, 2005, p. 97). This has generated concerns regarding such things as
corporate loyalty and the implementation of disciplinary measures against
employees or members who criticize their universities. To be sure, we may recall
here Barnett’s (2003) assessment that, “through the ideology of entrepreneurialism,
the university’s particular place as a critical forum is undermined” (p. 197).
The idea that the academic staff and faculties of universities are being placed
under growing pressures to adjust to the institutional restructuring under the
guidelines of new public management clearly has potential ramifications for the
greater academic community at large. Indeed, it would appear that academic staff
has the additional burden of now maintaining—or perhaps balancing—traditional
academic values within a new framework, coupled with certain funding mechanisms
and policy discourse, that increasingly emphasizes the purported outcomes of
higher education in terms of economic gain. Certainly, striking a balance amongst
the various interpretations concerning the role of the university proves difficult and
is further complicated by the recent deluge of manifold changes within the realm of
higher education. At the very least, we might question whether the more traditional
professional culture of open intellectual enquiry and debate is in danger of
becoming wholly subsumed by the more immediate and commercial demands of the
market. Of course, as we have repeatedly emphasized, it is not our aim to support a
singular point of view in particular; rather, it is this very notion of ‘striking a
balance,’ which could prove most useful in looking towards the future. It is with this
in mind that we may now adopt a broader outlook towards these recent changes in
higher education as the sum total of our corpus research, and proceed with our
54
concluding chapter. Namely, we can evaluate the wide range of these perspectives
and synthesize an instrumentalist approach in looking forward towards the
changing nature of higher education and the future role of the university.
55
CHAPTER VI
Critical Discussion and Debate: Future Outlooks
When considering the wide range of perspectives regarding the role of the
university within the developing knowledge economy, we can be certain that there
is no shortage of critique; indeed, the subject frequently fosters polemical—if not
polarizing—debate. In contemporary higher education discourse, the so-‐called
‘neoliberal university’ (Dowling, 2008; Peters, 2002; Germic, 2009) or the
‘entrepreneurial university’ (Slaughter, Sheila, and Leslie, 1997; Etkowitz, Webster,
Gebhardt, and Terra, 2000; Clark, 2001; Etkowitz, 2003, 2004) are often contentious
terms used to described “an iconic representation of the coming together of
business and academia, two hitherto separate but now increasingly intertwined
social spheres” (Mautner, 2005, p. 111). To be sure, as we have discussed, the
normative trends and practices surrounding neoliberalism act as focal points
around which current discourses of change—both supportive and antagonistic—
crystallize. On the one hand, universities currently find themselves within a policy
culture dominated increasingly by the values and precepts of economic doctrine
(Bastalich, 2010), while on the other hand, they may seek to maintain the ideals
expressed by Kant and Newman, of the university as an institutionally autonomous
and politically insulated realm of learning, where there are “traditional
commitments to a liberal conception of professional autonomy, in keep with a public
service ethic” (Olssen and Peters, 2005, p. 326). Interestingly, Mautner (2005)
makes an astute observation in that both ‘sides’ are silent on issues that would not
further their cause: Advocates usually disregard the issue of dependence on business, whereas critics tend to ignore the flaws of the traditional university, its inefficiencies, elitist power structures, and lack of accountability. (Mautner, 2005, p. 111)
Bearing this in mind, we therefore posit that there are certainly both positive and
negative consequences in aligning academia with business; however, while
56
universities play an integral role in economic development, we should not allow
economic logic to supersede educational concerns (Bastalich, 2010). Rather, we may
look towards finding a balance amongst the ways in which universities can
contribute to the greater economy, while still being allowed to maintain a traditional
ethos of teaching, learning, and research dedicated to the general pursuit of
knowledge. This balance can perhaps best be achieved by evaluating the changes
occurring in higher education at the organizational and personal-‐subjective levels of
universities and similar public institutions in particular. Such an evaluative
approach may eventually lead to the development of alternatives to current market-‐
oriented practices, while also being realistic about the context within which
universities are able to contribute to the economy. Namely, our argument lies not
with the fact that universities have an economic role to play, but rather, the methods
by which they are configured and restructured to do so.
We may recall that universities and public institutions of learning derive
crucially from the social, cultural, and political environments in which they are
embedded; following this logic, there is no reason to assume that they are therefore
neither immune, nor susceptible to the simultaneous demands of the market. As we
have observed, universities are inextricably linked to the development of knowledge
capitalism and the shift towards a knowledge-‐based economy in that they can
effectively serve as veritable bases of knowledge and knowledge production.
Naturally, recent decades have thus seen universities attempting to adapt, through a
variety of mechanisms, to the numerous changes wrought from such a paradigmatic
shift. Moreover, many of these adaptations and configurations are facilitated
through state action, as policy communities at both national and transnational levels
of government are increasingly recognizing the potential of universities to act as
powerful drivers of innovation and economic change. To be sure, the emphasis on
universities to play a role in economic development has become a cornerstone for
much of recent higher education policy (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, 1996; Porter and Ketels, 2003; Kitagawa, 2004), advocating a closer
alignment between academia and business:
57
These discussions are taking place against the backdrop that knowledge production and the contribution of higher education to the economies, prestige, and standing of nations are rapidly transforming the once benign higher education system into a competitive market place. (Kitagawa, 2004, p. 54)
In theory, there is neither a total nor an inherently negative consequence to
employing universities and similar public institutions of higher education as a
means for economic development. Indeed, we have discussed a number of the
potential benefits and contributions provided by universities, not only within the
context of knowledge production, exchange, and innovation, but also in terms of
providing human capital, social capital, and promoting regional growth and
development. Furthermore, we have established that these benefits can also prove
mutually beneficial, as both universities and private firms may gain from the
convergence processes between academia and industry. This is certainly the case as
universities and similar institutions in the public sector face a variety of financial
challenges, including such things as decreased government spending and budget
shortfalls. However, as our research indicates, in practice, the realities of steadily
aligning academia with industry can prove problematic. As Mautner (2005) is quick
to note, “Much as the zeitgeist may seem to dictate discursive alignment with
business, it is a strategy that can easily backfire and jeopardize rather than win
support” (p. 113). For instance, many have expressed concerns over university
research being subjected to commercial pressures, not least of which can be traced
to some of the divergent interests between both universities and industry. Further,
with the rise of managerialism, and through the ideology of entrepreneurialism, “the
university’s particular place as a critical forum is undermined” (Barnett, 2003, p.
73). This last point in particular brings to the light the salient effects that processes
of neoliberalization may incur at a professional-‐subjective level for those within the
university. It is our assertion that it is the governing mechanisms implemented
through neoliberal discourse, and the associated practices of new institutional
economics (NIE) and new public management (NPM) that typically lie at the core of
these problems in aligning universities with industry.
58
The challenges and the issues involved with aligning academia and business
are perhaps most discernible if we are to look at these recent changes in the
institutional and organizational governance structures of universities within the
parameters of NIE and NPM. Of course, it is worth mentioning here the words of
Thrupp and Willmott (2003) in that, “We are not against management per se, but
against managerialist conceptions of it…” (p. 4). In our case, implementing NPM as
the new managerial orthodoxy for universities brings with it the concerns of ‘de-‐
professionalization,’ whereby an increase in the power of management can
effectively lead to the diminishing autonomy of professional academics. Indeed, it
would appear that academic staff and university faculty now have an additional
burden of maintaining—or perhaps balancing—traditional academic values within
this new framework that increasingly emphasizes the achieved targets and the
purported outputs of higher education in terms of efficiency, accountability, and
ultimately, economic gain. The idea that the academic staff and faculties of
universities are being placed under these growing pressures to adjust to the
institutional restructuring under the guidelines of new public management clearly
has potential ramifications for the greater academic community at large.
Interestingly, within the greater academic community itself, these potential
ramifications are also subject to the polemical debate that this subject frequently
fosters: Supporters of academic entrepreneurship tend to be members of university management, holding positions which give them the power to implement entrepreneurial policy as well as promulgate the discourse that goes with it—declaring, for example, that certain connotations of entrepreneurial are the only valid ones (and others ‘simply wrong.’) By contrast, most skeptical and antagonistic voices tend to come from the individual academics who are not in such positions of power as would enable them to translate their anti-entrepreneurial sentiments into transformative actions, or promote their preferred selection of connotations. (Mautner, 2005, p. 112)
It would appear that a misalignment in motivations and a difference in mission are
not only apparent between academia and business, but also inherent within the
internal and institutional realm of higher education itself. Furthermore, in both
cases, this misalignment seems to hinge, in part, on power structures and the
59
subsequent shifts therein, which often lead to conflict. Ultimately, we may argue that
this can lead to a common effect—namely, an overall decrease in open trust and
reciprocity.
It is arguably this very loss—both potential and existing—of generalized
trust and reciprocity that proves most problematic when evaluating the numerous
changes occurring within the realm of higher education in response to the
developing knowledge economy. This challenge presents itself both in the external
relations between academia and business, and in the internal relations within
universities themselves. As we have previously outlined, within the context of open
models of innovation and knowledge exchange, processes of innovation often rely
critically on trust; in turn, infringing on the autonomy and professional freedom of
academics and researchers could potentially compromise this trust, thereby
negatively impacting research endeavors. By the same token, trust diminishes
amongst those in the larger academic community, as the concerns and the critiques
posed by individual academics in response to new managerial practices appear to
have no impact outside of the given academic and research community: “Article
after article and book after book critiquing the ‘McUniversity’ (Hayes and Wynard,
2002) and ‘academic capitalism’ (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997) may be published, but
the entrepreneurial juggernaut, propelled by its powerful supporters, rolls on”
(Mautner, 2005, p. 112). Indeed, when policy advice is separated from actual
operations or the practicalities of reality, “the emergence of destructive sub-‐cultures
can result, which in turn lead [to such things as] the duplication of advice as well as
increased distrust and disruption instead of the theorized would-‐be benefits of
greater contestability” (Olssen and Peters, 2005, p. 324).
It is with this in mind, that in looking towards the future, we emphasize the
importance of trust in playing a key role in better developing the methods by which
universities contribute to the economy, in addition to establishing the relationships
between academia and business. Naturally, this is perhaps one of the more difficult
approaches, not the least of which is due to its arguably intangible nature and its
60
long-‐term outlook. Nevertheless, the idea of generalized trust hinges on reciprocity;
in this case, an emphasis on both the mutual advantages and potential
disadvantages of aligning academia and business and orienting universities with the
economy should be taken into consideration. We might even suggest the term,
‘compromise,’ or perhaps more ideally, consider the notion of ‘striking a balance,’ as
proving most useful in looking towards the future role of the university. Of course,
striking a balance amongst the various interpretations concerning the role of the
university proves difficult and is further complicated by the recent deluge of
manifold changes within the realm of higher education. However, we argue that it is
possible to develop alternatives to current trends and practices, while remaining
pragmatic about the context in which universities and similar institutions of higher
education can contribute to the economy. Moreover, developing these alternatives
requires multilateral cooperation and reciprocal dialogue amongst the very
individuals that are part of these institutions. We may refer here to a suggestion put
forth by Mautner (2005): It seems hard to understand why universities, with hundreds of years of tradition under their belt and a formidable assemblage of intellect under their roofs, should not be able to pursue a reform agenda independently, without playing to the rules set by economically powerful external constituents, and without deliberately appropriating the language of the commercial sector. (p. 112)
To be sure, it is not so much the idea of universities adapting to their
changing environments that poses challenges, as it is the methods and mechanisms
by which they are configured and restructured to do so. Rather, at the ‘heart of the
matter,’ as Clark (2001) states, is how universities are responding to and shaping
these many forces that play upon them (p. 8). In evaluating these responses and
subsequent changes, the dialectic between policy and practice, and in turn, cause
and effect, must be examined and monitored closely. Our own attempt to do so has
led us to the conclusion that while there is much work left to be done in analyzing
recent changes in higher education and the role of the university, we should be
mindful of allowing economic logic to supersede educational concerns. Rather, we
61
may look towards finding a balance amongst the ways in which universities can
contribute to the greater economy, while still being allowed to maintain a traditional
ethos of teaching and learning dedicated to the general pursuit of knowledge.
Furthermore, much of this appears to lie with affording professional academics a
relative measure of autonomy in an effort to facilitate and promote the trust
necessary for many of the current and emerging relationships dictated by the nature
of the developing knowledge economy. Indeed, it is our position that in the
continual evolution of both the economy and higher education, the importance of
establishing reciprocity within this complex set of dialectical processes will
ultimately prove integral for a future outlook on the role—economic and
otherwise—of the university.
62
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Works Cited
Abernathy, William J., and Kim B. Clark. "Innovation: Mapping the Winds of Creative
Destruction." Research Policy 14.1 (1985): 3-‐22. Print.
Adler, Paul S. "The Dynamic Relationship Between Tacit and Codified Knowledge:
Comments on Ikujiro Nonaka's, "Managing Innovation as an Organizational
Knowledge Creation Process"" Ed. J. Allouche. International Handbook of
Technology Management. Ed. G. Pogorel. Amsterdam: North Holland: n.p.,
1996. N. pag. Print.
Amabile, Teresa, and Teresa Amabile. Creativity in Context. Boulder, CO: Westview,
1996. Print.
Antonelli, Cristiano. The Microdynamics of Technological Change. London: Routledge,
1999. Print.
Araya, Daniel, and Michael Peters. Education in the Creative Economy: Knowledge
and Learning in the Age of Innovation. New York: Peter Lang, 2010. Print.
Araya, Daniel. "Cultural Democracy: Universities in the Creative Economy." Policy
Futures in Education 8.2 (2010): 217. Print.
Armellino, Alejandro, and David Hawkridge. "Utopian Universities: A Technicist’s
Dream." Journal of Computing in Higher Education 24.2 (2012): 132-‐42. Print.
"The Arts, New Growth Theory, and Economic Development." National Endowment
for the Arts: Research. National Endowment for the Arts, 2012. Web. 01 June
2013.
Australia. Department of Education Science and Training. Creative Associations in
Special Places: Enhancing the Partnership Role of Universities in Building
Competitive Regional Economies. By SC Garlick. N.p.: n.p., 1998. Print.
Aviram, Aharon. "The Nature of University Education Reconsidered (a Response to
Ronald Barnett's The Idea of Higher Education)." Journal of Philosophy of
Education 26.2 (1992): 183-‐200. Print.
63
Banja, J. "No Conflict, No Interest. Ethical Considerations in Technology Transfer."
Emory University. Emory University, 2000. Web. 01 Aug. 2013.
Barnett, Ronald. Beyond All Reason: Living with Ideology in the University.
Buckingham [England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open
UP, 2003. Print.
Barnett, Ronald. Beyond All Reason: Living with Ideology in the University.
Buckingham [England: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open
UP, 2003. Print.
Barnett, Ronald. The Idea of Higher Education. Milton Keynes [England: Society for
Research into Higher Education, 1990. Print.
Barnett, Ronald. Realizing the University in an Age of Supercomplexity. Buckingham:
Society for Research into Higher Education & Open UP, 2000. Print.
Bastalich, Wendy. "Knowledge Economy and Research Innovation." Studies in Higher
Education 36.7 (2010): 845-‐57. Print.
Bădescu, Gabriel, and Eric M. Uslaner. Social Capital and the Transition to
Democracy. London: Routledge, 2003. Print.
Becher, Tony, and Maurice Kogan. Process and Structure in Higher Education.
London: Routledge, 1992. Print.
Beck, Ulrich. What Is Globalization? Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2000. Print.
Becker, Gary S. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, with Special
Reference to Education. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993. Print.
Berry, Christopher R., and Edward L. Glaeser. "The Divergence of Human Capital
Levels across Cities*." Papers in Regional Science 84.3 (2005): 407-‐44. Print.
Blackmore, Jill, and Judyth Sachs. "‘Zealotry or Nostalgic Regret’?Women Leaders in
Technical and Further Education in Australia: Agents of Change,
Entrepreneurial Educators or Corporate Citizens?" Gender, Work &
Organization 10.4 (2003): 478-‐503. Print.
Boas, Taylor C., and Jordan Gans-‐Morse. "Neoliberalism: From New Liberal
Philosophy to Anti-‐Liberal Slogan." Studies in Comparative International
Development 44.2 (2009): 137-‐61. Print.
Bollier, D. "The Enclosure of the Academic Commons." Academe 88.5 (2002): n. pag.
64
Print.
Boosting Innovation: The Cluster Approach. Paris: OECD Publications, 1999. Print.
Bourdieu, P., and L. Wacquant. "NeoLiberalSpeak: Notes on the New Planetary
Vulgate." Radical Philosophy 105 (n.d.): 2-‐5. Print.
Brehm, John, and Wendy Rahm. "Individual Level Evidence for the Causes and
Consequences of Social Capital." American Journal of Political Science 41
(1997): 888-‐1023. Print.
Bruneel, Johan, Pablo D'Este, Andy Neely, and Ammon Salter. The Search for Talent
and Technology: Examining the Attitudes of EPSRC Industrial Collaborators
Towards Universities. Www.aimresearch.org. Advanced Institute of
Management Research, Jan. 2009. Web. 01 July 2013.
Bruneel, Johan. The Search for Talent and Technology: Examining the Attitudes of
EPSRC Industrial Collaborators Towards Universities. London: AIM Research,
2009. Print.
Buchanan, James M., and Gordon Tullock. The Calculus of Consent, Logical
Foundations of Constitutional Democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan,
1962. Print.
Buchanan, James M. The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1975. Print.
Buganza, T., and R. Verganti. "Open Innovation Process to Inbound Knowledge
Collaboration with Universities in Four Leading Firms." European Journal of
Innovation Management 12.3 (2009): 306-‐25. Print.
Burton-‐Jones, Alan. Knowledge Capitalism: Business, Work, and Learning in the New
Economy. Oxford [England: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.
Cai, Rong. "Trust and Transaction Costs in Industrial Districts." Diss. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2004. Print.
Campbell, David F. J., and Elias G. Carayannis. Knowledge Creation, Diffusion, and Use
in Innovation Networks and Knowledge Clusters: A Comparative Systems
Approach across the United States, Europe, and Asia. Westport, Conn. [u.a.:
Praeger, 2006. Print.
Caniëls, M. C. J. Knowledge Spillovers and Economic Growth: Regional Growth
65
Differentials Across Europe. Cheltenham, UK: E. Elgar, 2000. Print.
Castells, Manuel. End of Millennium, The Information Age: Economy, Society, and
Culture, Vol. 3. Oxford: Blackwell, 1998. Print.
Castells, Manuel. The Power of Identity, The Information Age: Economy, Society, and
Culture, Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell, 1997. Print.
Castells, Manuel. The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy,
Society, and Culture, Vol. 1. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. Print.
Chandler, Alfred D. "Organizational Capabilities and the Economic History of the
Industrial Enterprise." Journal of Economic Perspectives 6 (1992): 79-‐100.
Print.
Chatenier, Elise Du, Jos A. A. M. Verstegen, Harm J. A. Biemans, Martin Mulder, and
Onno S. W. F. Omta. "Identification of Competencies for Professionals in Open
Innovation Teams." R&D Management 40.3 (2010): 271-‐80. Print.
Chesbrough, Henry William. Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and
Profiting from Technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 2003. Print.
Chesbrough, Henry William., Wim Vanhaverbeke, and Joel West. Open
Innovation:Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print.
Chouliaraki, Lilie, and Norman Fairclough. Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking
Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh UP, 1999. Print.
Clark, Burton. "The Entrepreneurial University: New Foundations for Collegiality,
Autonomy, and Achievement." Higher Education Management 13.2 (2001): n.
pag. Print.
Clark, Burton R. The Higher Education System. Berkeley: University of California,
1983. Print.
Clark, Gordon L., Maryann P. Feldman, and Meric S. Gertler. The Oxford Handbook of
Economic Geography. Oxford, England: Oxford UP, 2000. Print.
Clegg, Phil. "Creativity and Critical Thinking in the Globalised University."
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 45.3 (2008): 219-‐26.
Print.
Coase, R. H. The Firm, the Market, and the Law. Chicago [u.a.: Univ. of Chicago, 1992.
Print.
66
Coleman, James S. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard
UP, 1990. Print.
Cowan, Robin. Universities and the Knowledge Economy. Paper Prepared for the
Conference, Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy, at the
National Academies, Washington DC, 10-‐11 January 2005. Washington DC:
n.p., 2005. Print.
Dahlander, Linus, and David M. Gann. "How Open Is Innovation?" Research Policy
39.6 (2010): 699-‐709. Print.
David, P., and D. Foray. "Accessing and Expanding the Science and Technology
Knowledge Base." STI Review 16 (1995): n. pag. Print.
David, P., and D. Foray. "Assessing and Expanding the Science and Technology
Knowledge Base." STI Review (OECD, Paris) 16 (1995): n. pag. Print.
Davis, Lance Edwin., Douglass C. North, and Calla Smorodin. Institutional Change and
American Economic Growth,. Cambridge [Eng.: University, 1971. Print.
Deem, Rosemary. "'New Managerialism' and Higher Education: The Management of
Performances and Cultures in Universities in the United Kingdom."
International Studies in Sociology of Education 8.1 (1998): 47-‐70. Print.
Department of Trade and Industry, UK. Our Competitive Future: UK Competitiveness
Indicators 1999. Rep. no. DTI/Pub 4248/8k/12/99/NP. London: Crown
Copyright, 1999. Print.
Donegan, M., and N. Lowe. "Inequality in the Creative City: Is There Still a Place for
"Old-‐Fashioned" Institutions?" Economic Development Quarterly 22.1 (2008):
46-‐62. Print.
Dowling, R. "Geographies of Identity: Labouring in the 'neoliberal' University."
Progress in Human Geography 32.6 (2008): 812-‐20. Print.
Drucker, Peter F. Innovation and Entrepreneurship: Practice and Principles. New
York: Harper & Row, 1985. Print.
Du Gay, Paul. Consumption and Identity at Work. London [u.a.: Sage, 1996. Print.
Etzkowitz, H. "The Evolution of the Entrepreneurial University." International
Journal of Technology and Globalisation 1.1 (2004): 64-‐77. Print.
Etzkowitz, Henry, Andrew Webster, Christiane Gebhardt, and Branca Regina
67
Cantisano Terra. "The Future of the University and the University of the
Future: Evolution of Ivory Tower to Entrepreneurial Paradigm." Research
Policy 29.2 (2000): 313-‐30. Print.
Etzkowitz, Henry. "Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-‐
Industry-‐Government Relations." Social Science Information 42.3 (2003):
293-‐337. Print.
Etzkowitz, Henry. "Research Groups as ‘quasi-‐firms’: The Invention of the
Entrepreneurial University." Research Policy 32.1 (2003): 109-‐21. Print.
Fabrizio, K. R. "The Use of University Research in Firm Innovation." Open Innovation:
Researching a New Paradigm. Ed. Henry W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhverbeke,
and J. West. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. 134-‐61. Print.
Flexner, Abraham. Universities, American, English, German,. New York: Oxford UP,
1930. Print.
Florida, Richard. "Cities and the Creative Class." City and Community 2.1 (2003): 3-‐
19. Print.
Florida, Richard. "The Economic Geography of Talent." Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 92.4 (2002): 743-‐55. Print.
Florida, Richard. Flight of the Creative Class: The New Global Competition Talent. New
York, NY: HarperCollins, 2005. Print.
Florida, Richard, Gary Gates, Brian Knudsen, and Kevin Stolarick. The University and
the Creative Economy. The Heinz Endowments, 2006. Web. 01 June 2013.
Florida, Richard. "Regions and Universities Together Can Foster a Creative
Economy." The Chronicle Review B6 53.4 (2006): n. pag. Print.
Foray, D., and B. Lundvall. "The Knowledge-‐based Economy: From the Economics of
Knowledge to the Learning Economy." (n.d.): n. pag. Rpt. in Organization for
Economic Development. Paris: n.p., 1996. Print.
Foucault, Michel, Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, and Peter Miller. The Foucault
Effect: Studies in Governmentality : With Two Lectures by and an Interview
with Michel Foucault. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1991. Print.
Freeman, Christopher. Technology, Policy, and Economic Performance: Lessons from
Japan. London: Pinter, 1987. Print.
68
Friedman, Milton, and Anna J. Schwartz. A Monetary History of the United States,
1867-1960. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1963. Print.
Friedman, Milton, and Rose Friedman. Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University
of Chicago, 1962. Print.
Friedman, Milton. Capitalism and Freedom. [Chicago]: University of Chicago, 1962.
Print.
Furubotn, Eirik G., and Rudolf Richter. The New Institutional Economics of Markets.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2010. Print.
Galbraith, John Kenneth. The Affluent Society. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1958.
Print.
Galbraith, John Kenneth. American Capitalism, the Concept of Countervailing Power.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1952. Print.
Galbraith, John Kenneth. The New Industrial State. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967.
Print.
Gassmann, Oliver, Ellen Enkel, and Henry Chesbrough. "The Future of Open
Innovation." R&D Management 40.3 (2010): 213-‐21. Print.
Georghiou, L., and S. Metcalfe. "Convergence and Division of Labour in Policy for
Science." SPRU NPRnet Conference: Rethinking Science Policy: Analytical
Frameworks for Evidence-‐Based Policy. University of Sussex, Brighton. 21-‐23
Mar. 2002. Lecture.
Geraldi, Joana G. Fachbereich Maschinenbau: Management Internationaler Projekte.
New Institutional Economics. N.p., Jan. 2007. Web. 01 July 2013.
Germic, Stephen, and .�ن�ڤ�ي�ت�س �ك�م�ر�ي�ج "The Neoliberal University: Theory and
Practice." Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics, No. 29, The University & Its
Discontents:Egyptian & Global Perspectives 29 (2009): 127-‐48. Print.
Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter
Scott, and Martin Trow. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of
Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Los Angeles [u.a.: Sage Publ.,
1994. Print.
Giroux, H. A. "Challenging Neoliberalism's New World Order: The Promise of Critical
Pedagogy." Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies 6.1 (2006): 21-‐32. Print.
69
Glaeser, E. "Are Cities Dying?" Journal of Economic Perspectives 12 (1998): 139-‐60.
Print.
Glaeser, Edward L. (Edward Ludwig). "The Future of Urban Research: Non-‐Market
Interactions." Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs 2000.1 (2000):
101-‐38. Print.
Glendon, Spencer Paul Lucas. Urban Life Cycles. Cambridge: Harvard University,
1999. Print.
Godin, Benoit, and Yves Gingras. "The Place of Universities in the System of
Knowledge Production." Research Policy 29.2 (2000): 273-‐78. Print.
Habermas, Jürgen, and John R. Blazek. "The Idea of the University: Learning
Processes." New German Critique 41 (1987): 3-‐22. Print.
Halford, S., and P. Lenoard. "New Identities? Professionalism, Managerialism and the
Construction of Self." Professionals and the New Managerialism in the Public
Sector. Ed. M. Exworthy and S. Halford. Buckingham: Open UP, 1999. N. pag.
Print.
Hargadon, Andrew. How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth about How
Companies Innovate. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School, 2003. Print.
Hargreaves, Andy. International Handbook of Educational Change. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic, 2000. Print.
Harvey, D. "Neoliberalism as Creative Destruction." The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 610.1 (2007): 21-‐44. Print.
Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005a. Print.
Harvey, David. The Enigma of Capital: And the Crises of Capitalism. Oxford [England:
Oxford UP, 2010. Print.
Harvey, David. Spaces of Neoliberalization: Towards a Theory of Uneven Geographical
Development : Hettner-Lecture 2004 with David Harvey. Stuttgart: Franz
Steiner Verlag, 2005b. Print.
Harvie, D. "Commons and Communities in the University: Some Notes and Some
Examples." The Commoner 8 (2004): n. pag. Print.
Hayek, F. A. Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 2 the Mirage of Social Justice.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976. Print.
70
Hayek, Friedrich A. Von. The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago,
1960. Print.
Hayek, Friedrich A. Von. Individualism and Economic Order. [Essays]. [Chicago]: Univ.
of Chicago, 1948. Print.
Hayek, Friedrich A. Von. Law, Legislation and Liberty: A New Statement of the Liberal
Principles of Justice and Political Economy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago,
1973. Print.
Hayek, Friedrich A. Von, N. G. Pierson, Mises Ludwig Von, and Enrico Barone.
Collectivist Economic Planning; Critical Studies on the Possibilities of Socialism.
London: Routledge, 1947. Print.
Hayek, Friedrich A. Von. New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the
History of Ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1978. Print.
Hayek, Friedrich A. Von. The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994.
Print.
Hayek, Friedrich A. Von. The Sensory Order: An Inquiry into the Foundations of
Theoretical Psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1952. Print.
Hayek, Friedrich A. Von. Studies in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. [Chicago]:
University of Chicago, 1967. Print.
Hayes, D., and R. Wynard. The McDonaldization of Higher Education. Westport, CT:
Bergin and Garvey, 2002. Print.
Healy, K. "What's New for Culture in the New Economy?" Journal of Arts,
Management, Law, and Society 32.2 (2002): 86-‐103. Print.
Henry, Nick, and Jane Pollard. "Capitalising on Knowledge." Geoforum 31.2 (2000):
V-‐Vii. Print.
Hirschman, Albert O. Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms,
Organisations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1970. Print.
Houghton, John, and Peter Sheehan. A Primer on the Knowledge Economy. CSES
Working Paper No. 18. Center for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria
University of Technology, Feb. 2000. Web. 01 June 2013.
Huber, Joseph. New Technologies and Environmental Innovation. Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar, 2004. Print.
71
Im, S. "The Model of Effect of Creativity on New Product Success." Diss. University of
North Carolina, 1999. Print.
Jackson, Norman. Engaging and Changing Higher Education Through Brokerage
(Monitoring Change in Education). Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate, 2003.
Print.
Jacobs, Jane. Cities and the Wealth of Nations: Principles of Economic Life. New York:
Random House, 1984. Print.
Jacoby, Russell. The End of Utopia: Politics and Culture in an Age of Apathy. New
York: Basic, 1999. Print.
Jacoby, Russell. Picture Imperfect: Utopian Thought for an Anti-Utopian Age. New
York: Columbia UP, 2005. Print.
Johnstone, D.B., A. Arora, and W. Experton. The Financing and Management of Higher
Education: A Status Report on Worldwide Reforms. Rep. Washington DC:
World Bank, 1998. Print.
Jones, Daniel Stedman. Masters of the Universe: Hayek, Friedman, and the Birth of
Neoliberal Politics. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2012. Print.
Kaul, Inge, Isabelle Grunberg, and Marc A. Stern. Global Public Goods: International
Cooperation in the 21st Century. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.
Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1963. Print.
Kitagawa, Fumi. "Universities and Innovation in the Knowledge Economy: Cases
from English Regions." Higher Education Management and Policy 16.3 (2004):
53-‐75. Print.
Kitson, Michael, Jeremy Howells, Richard Braham, and Stian Westlake. The
Connected University: Driving Recovery and Growth in the UK Economy. Rep.
London: NESTA, 2009. Print.
Klein, Peter G. New Institutional Economics. Department of Economics, University of
Georgie, 1999. Web. 01 July 2013.
Kleinman, D. L., and S. P. Vallas. "Science, Capitalism, and the Rise of the ‘knowledge
Worker’: The Changing Structure of Knowledge Production in the United
States." Theory and Society 30 (2001): 451-‐92. Print.
Knack, Stephen, and Paul Zak. "Building Trust: Public Policy, Interpersonal Trust
72
and Economic Development." Supreme Court Economic Review 10 (2002): 91-‐
107. Print.
Knowledge Management in the Learning Society. Paris: Organisation for Economic
Co-‐operation and Development, 2000. Print.
Krugman, Paul R. The Age of Diminished Expectations: U.S. Economic Policy in the
1990s. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1990. Print.
Krugman, Paul R. The Conscience of a Liberal. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2007. Print.
Krugman, Paul R. "Technology, Trade and Factor Prices." Journal of International
Economics 50.1 (2000): 51-‐71. Print.
Laing, Stuart, and Tara Brabazon. "Creative Doctorates, Creative Education? Aligning
Universities with the Creative Economy." Nebula 4.2 (2007): n. pag. Print.
Lambert, R. "Lambert Review of Business-‐University Collaboration." [ARCHIVED
CONTENT]. N.p., 2003. Web. 04 May 2013.
Lawton, Philip, Enda Murphy, and Declan Redmond. "Examining the Role of ‘creative
Class’ Ideas in Urban and Economic Policy Formation: The Case of Dublin,
Ireland." International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development 1.4 (2010):
267-‐86. Print.
Lawton Smith, Helen. "Universities and Local Economic Development: An Appraisal
of the Issues and Practices." Local Economy 18.1 (2003): 2-‐6. Print.
Lazzeroni, Michela, and Andrea Piccaluga. "Towards the Entrepreneurial
University." Local Economy 18.1 (2003): 38-‐48. Print.
Lester, Richard K. Universities, Innovation, and the Competitiveness of Local
Economies: A Summary Report from the Local Innovation Systems Project--
Phase I. Industrial Performance Center. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 13 Dec. 2005. Web. 01 June 2013.
Leydesdorff, Loet, and Martin Meyer. "The Scientometrics of a Triple Helix of
University-‐industry-‐government Relations (Introduction to the Topical
Issue)." Scientometrics 70.2 (2007): 207-‐22. Print.
List, F. Das Nationale System Der Politischen Ökonomie (The National System of
Political Economy). London: Longmans, Green, and, 1841. Print.
Lucas, Robert. "On the Mechanics of Economic Development." Journal of Monetary
73
Economics 22 (1988): 3-‐42. Print.
Lundvall, Bengt-‐Åke, Björn Johnson, Esben Sloth Andersen, and Bent Dalum.
"National Systems of Production, Innovation and Competence Building."
Research Policy 31 (2002): 213-‐31. Print.
Lundvall, Bengt-‐Åke. The Economics of Knowledge and Learning. Working paper.
Aalborg: Aalborg University, 2003. Print.
Lundvall, Bengt-‐Åke. "Higher Education, Innovation, and Economic Development."
Ed. Boris Plescovic. Higher Education and Development : Annual World Bank
Conference on Development Economics 2008, Regional: Higher Education and
Development. Ed. Justin Yufi Lin. Washington DC: World Bank Publications,
2008. 201-‐28. Print.
Lundvall, Bengt-‐Åke. "How Can Education Systems Contribute to Creativity and
Innovation in the Learning Economy?" Creativity in Education. Ed.
International Labour Office Genève. Genève: International Labour Office
Genève, 2010. 78-‐84. Print.
Lundvall, Bengt-‐Åke. Innovation and Competence Building in the Learning Economy:
Implications for Innovation Policy. Working paper. Aalborg: Aalborg
University, 2009a. Print. Working Paper Ser., Department of Business
Studies.
Lundvall, Bengt-‐Åke, K. J. Joseph, Cristina Chaminade, and Jan Vang. Handbook of
Innovation Systems and Developing Countries: Building Domestic Capabilities
in a Global Setting. N.p.: Edward Elgar, 2009b. Print.
Lundvall, Bengt-‐Åke. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation
and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter, 1992. Print.
Machlup, Fritz. The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the United States.
Princeton (N.J.): Princeton UP, 1967. Print.
Marginson, S. "Harvards’ of the Antipodes? Nation Building Universities in a Global
Environment." Access: Critical Perspectives on Cultural and Policy Studies in
Education 18.2 (1999): 1-‐20. Print.
Martins, E.C., and F. Terblanche. "Building Organisational Culture That Stimulates
Creativity and Innovation." European Journal of Innovation Management 6.1
74
(2003): 64-‐74. Print.
Mathur, V. K. "Human Capital-‐Based Strategy for Regional Economic Development."
Economic Development Quarterly 13.3 (1999): 203-‐16. Print.
Mautner, Gerlinde. "The Entrepreneurial University." Critical Discourse Studies 2.2
(2005): 95-‐120. Print.
Mayr, Andrea. Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse. N.p.:
Continuum International Group, 2008. Print.
McCraw, Thomas K. Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative
Destruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap of Harvard UP, 2007. Print.
Melese, Teri, Salima M. Lin, Julia L. Chang, and Neal H. Cohen. "Open Innovation
Networks between Academia and Industry: An Imperative for Breakthrough
Therapies." Nature Medicine 15.5 (2009): 502-‐07. Print.
Metcalfe, S. "The Economic Foundations of Technology Policy: Equilibrium and
Evolutionary Perspectives." Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and
Technological Change. Ed. P. Stoneman. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. N. pag. Print.
Meyer, John W. "The Effects of Education as an Institution." American Journal of
Sociology 83.1 (1977): 55-‐77. Print.
Mitton, Craig, Carol E. Adair, Emily Mckenzie, Scott B. Patten, and Brenda Waye
Perry. "Knowledge Transfer and Exchange: Review and Synthesis of the
Literature." Milbank Quarterly 85.4 (2007): 729-‐68. Print.
Mohnem, P. "New Technologies and Inter-‐Industry Spillovers." STI Review 7 (1990):
131-‐47. Print.
Mould, Oli, Tim Vorley, and Simon Roodhouse. "Realizing Capabilities – Academic
Creativity and the Creative Industries." Creative Industries Journal 1.2 (2009):
137-‐50. Print.
Munsch, Kenneth. "Open Model Innovation." Research and Technology Management
52.3 (2009): 48-‐52. Print.
Nelson, R. R., and E. S. Phelps. "Investment in Humans, Technological Diffusion, and
Economic Growth." American Economic Review 2nd ser. 56.1 (1966): 69-‐75.
Print.
Nelson, Richard R. National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. New York:
75
Oxford UP, 1993. Print.
"New Growth Theory." Economics Online. Economics Online, n.d. Web. 01 June 2013.
Nixon, Jon, Andrew Marks, Stephen Rowland, and Melanie Walker. "Towards a New
Academic Professionalism: A Manifesto of Hope." British Journal of Sociology
of Education 22.2 (2001): 227-‐44. Print.
Nixon, Jon. "Education for the Good Society: The Integrity of Academic Practice."
London Review of Education 2.3 (2004): 245-‐52. Print.
Nonaka, Ikujirō, and Hirotaka Takeuchi. The Knowledge-creating Company: How
Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford UP,
1995. Print.
O'Connor, Justin. "A Special Kind of City Knowledge: Innovative Clusters, Tacit
Knowledge, and the ‘Creative City’." Media International Australia 112 (n.d.):
131-‐49. Print.
Offe, Claus. Contradictions of the Welfare State. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 1984. Print.
Olssen, Mark, and Michael A. Peters. "Neoliberalism, Higher Education and the
Knowledge Economy: From the Free Market to Knowledge Capitalism."
Journal of Education Policy 20.3 (2005): 313-‐45. Print.
Olssen, Mark, John A. Codd, and Anne-‐Marie O'Neill. Education Policy: Globalization,
Citizenship and Democracy. N.p.: Sage, 2004. Print.
O'Neill, J., and Y. Solomon. "Education, Elitism, and the Market." The University in a
Liberal State. Ed. B. Brecher, O. Fleischman, and J. Halliday. Avebury UK:
Adershot, 1996. 82-‐95. Print.
Onsman, Andrys. "Tempering Universities’ Marketing Rhetoric: A Strategic
Protection against Litigation or an Admission of Failure?" Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management 30.1 (2008): 77-‐85. Print.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Paris. National
Innovation Systems. Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, 1997. Web. 01 June 2013.
Padilla-‐Melendez, Antonio, and Aurora Garrido-‐Moreno. "Open Innovation in
Universities: What Motivates Researchers to Engage in Knowledge Transfer
Exchanges?" International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research
76
18.4 (2012): 417-‐39. Print.
Parker, M., and D. Jary. "The McUniversity: Organization, Management and Academic
Subjectivity." Organization 2.2 (1995): 319-‐38. Print.
Partha, Dasgupta, and Paul A. David. "Toward a New Economics of Science."
Research Policy 23.5 (1994): 487-‐521. Print.
Patel, P., and K. Pavitt. "The Nature and Economic Importance of National
Innovation Systems." STI Review (OECD, Paris) 14 (1994): n. pag. Print.
Peck, Jamie, and Adam Tickell. "Neoliberalizing Space." Antipode 34.3 (2002): 380-‐
404. Print.
Peck, Jamie. "Struggling with the Creative Class." International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 29.4 (2005): 740-‐70. Print.
Pejovich, Svetozar. Economic Analysis of Institutions and Systems. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic, 1995. Print.
Perkmann, Markus, and Kathryn Walsh. "University–industry Relationships and
Open Innovation: Towards a Research Agenda." International Journal of
Management Reviews 9.4 (2007): 259-‐80. Print.
Peters, Michael A. "Foucault and Governmentality: Understanding the Neoliberal
Paradigm of Education Policy." School Field 6th ser. 12.5 (2002): 59-‐80. Print.
Peters, Michael, and D. John. Freeman-‐Moir. Edutopias: New Utopian Thinking in
Education. Rotterdam: Sense, 2006. Print.
Peters, Michael, and Tina Besley. Building Knowledge Cultures: Education and
Development in the Age of Knowledge Capitalism. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2006. Print.
Polanyi, Michael. Personal Knowledge; towards a Post-critical Philosophy. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1958. Print.
Polanyi, Michael. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966. Print.
Porter, M. E. "Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a
Global Economy." Economic Development Quarterly 14.1 (2000): 15-‐34. Print.
Porter, Michael. "Clusters and the New Economics of Competition." Harvard Business
Review November-‐December (1998): 77-‐90. Print.
Powell, James. "Creative Universities and Their Creative City-‐regions." Industry and
77
Higher Education 21.5 (2007): 323-‐35. Print.
Preston, David S. "Managerialism and the Post-‐Enlightenment Crisis of the British
University." Educational Philosophy and Theory 33.3-‐4 (2001): 343-‐63. Print.
Putnam, Robert D. "Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital." Journal of
Democracy 6.1 (1995): 65-‐78. Print.
Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. Print.
Putnam, Robert D. "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-‐first
Century The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture." Scandinavian Political Studies
30.2 (2007): 137-‐74. Print.
Putnam, Robert D. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1993. Print.
Ramirez, Francisco O., and John Boli. "The Political Construction of Mass Schooling:
European Origins and Worldwide Institutionalization." Sociology of
Education 17th ser. 60.2 (1987): 2-‐17. Print.
Rasmussen, Palle, Edward Lorenz, and Bengt-‐Åke Lundvall. "Education in the
Learning Economy: A European Perspective." Policy Futures in Education 6.6
(2008): 681-‐700. Print.
Readings, Bill. The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1996. Print.
Rhodes, Mel. "An Analysis of Creativity." The Phi Delta Kappan 42.7 (1961): 305-‐10.
Print.
Þráinn, Eggertsson. Economic Behavior and Institutions. Cambridge [England:
Cambridge UP, 1990. Print.
Romero, Fernando. "University-‐industry Relations and Technological Convergence."
Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology
IEEE (2007): 233-‐40. Print.
Roodhouse, Simon. "Universities and the Creative Industries." The Journal of Arts
Management, Law, and Society 39.3 (2009): 187-‐99. Print.
Rosenberg, Nathan, and Richard R. Nelson. "American Universities and Technical
Advance in Industry." Research Policy 23.3 (1994): 323-‐48. Print.
Rosenfeld, Stuart A. "Bringing Business Clusters into the Mainstream of Economic
78
Development." European Planning Studies 5.1 (1997): 3-‐23. Print.
Rothstein, Bo, and Eric M. Uslaner. "All for One: Equality, Corruption, and Social
Trust." World Politics 58.1 (2005): 41-‐72. Print.
Saxenian, AnnaLee. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley
and Route 128. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1994. Print.
Schuler, Doug. "Principal-‐Agent Relationship." Principal-Agent Relationship. Rice
University, 2002. Web. 14 Aug. 2013.
Schultz, Theodore. The Economic Value of Education. New York: Columbia UP, 1963.
Print.
Schulz, T. W. "The Value of the Ability to Deal with Disequilibria." Journal of
Economic Literature (1975): 827-‐46. Print.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical
Analysis of the Capitalist Process,. Ed. Rendig Fels. New York: McGraw-‐Hill
Book, 1939. UQAC (Universite Du Quebec a Chicoutimi). 14 July 2007. Web. 01
June 2013.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper &
Brothers, 1942. Print.
Schumpeter, Joseph A. History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford UP, 1954.
Print.
Schumpeter, Joseph. Theorie Der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung. Leipzig: Duncker &
Humblot, 1912. Print.
Scott, A. "Regional Motors of the Global Economy." Futures 28.5 (1996a): 391-‐411.
Print.
Scott, Alan. "Bureaucratic Revolutions and Free Market Utopias." Economy and
Society 25.1 (1996b): 89-‐110. Print.
Scott, Allen J. "The Cultural Economy of Cities." International Journal of Urban and
Regional Research 21.2 (1997): 323-‐39. Print.
Scott, Allen J. "The Role of Large Producers in Industrial Districts: A Case Study of
High Technology Systems Houses in Southern California." Regional Studies
26.3 (1992): 265-‐75. Print.
Simkins, Tim. "Education Reform and Managerialism: Comparing the Experience of
79
Schools and Colleges." Journal of Education Policy 15.3 (2000): 317-‐32. Print.
Simon, C., and C. Nardinelli. "The Talk of the Town: Human Capital, Information, and
the Growth of English Cities, 1861 to 1961." Explorations in Economic History
33.3 (1996): 384-‐413. Print.
Simon, C. "Human Capital and Metropolitan Employment Growth,." Journal of Urban
Economics 43.2 (1998): 223-‐43. Print.
Slaughter, Sheila, and Larry L. Leslie. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the
Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1997. Print.
Slaughter, Sheila, and Larry L. Leslie. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the
Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1997. Print.
Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Dublin:
Whitestone, 1776. Print.
Smith, David. "Convergence, the University of the Future and the Future of the
University." AI & Society 17.1 (2003): 1-‐11. Print.
Soete, L. L. G., and B. J. Ter Weel. "Innovation, Knowledge Creation, and Technology
Policy: The Case of the Netherlands." De Economist 147.3 (1999): 293-‐310.
Print.
"Stagflation." Oxford Dictionaries. N.d. Oxford Dictionaries. Web. 01 Aug. 2013.
<http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/stagflation>.
Sternberg, Robert J. Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1999.
Print.
Stigler, George J. "The Economics of Information." Journal of Political Economy 69.3
(1961): 213-‐23. Print.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton, 2002.
Print.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. The Theory of International Public Goods and the Architecture of
International Organizations. New York: Dep. for Economic and Social
Information and Policy Analysis, United Nations, 1995. Print.
Stiglitz, Joseph. "Knowledge as a Global Public Good." Global Public Goods:
International Cooperation in the 21st Century. Ed. Inge Kaul, Isabelle
Grunberg, and Marc A. Stern. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. N. pag. Print.
80
Published for the United Nations Development Program.
Stiglitz, Joseph. "Public Policy for a Knowledge Economy, Remarks at the
Department for Trade and Industry and Center for Economic Policy
Research." World Bank. The World Bank, Department for Trade and Industry,
and Center for Economic Policy Research, 27 Jan. 1999. Web. 01 June 2013.
Stojanov, Krassimir. "The Concept of Bildung and Its Moral Implications." Lecture.
Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain: Annual Conference. New
College, Oxford. 30 Mar. 2012. Philosophy of Education Society of Great
Britain: Papers 2012. Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain, Apr.
2012. Web. 01 Aug. 2013.
Stoneman, Paul. Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change.
Oxford: Blackwell, 1995. Print.
Thrupp, Martin, and Robert Willmott. Education Management in Managerialist
Times: Beyond the Textual Apologists. Maidenhead: Open UP, 2003. Print.
Tidd, Joseph, J. R. Bessant, and Keith Pavitt. Managing Innovation: Integrating
Technological, Market and Organizational Change. Chichester [England: John
Wiley, 2001. Print.
Toffler, Alvin, and Heidi Toffler. Revolutionary Wealth. New York: Knopf, 2006. Print.
Tolofari, Sowaribi. "New Public Management and Education." Policy Futures in
Education 3.1 (2005): 75-‐89. Print.
Trowler, P. "Captured by the Discourse? The Socially Constitutive Power of New
Higher Education Discourse in the UK." Organization 8.2 (2001): 183-‐201.
Print.
Trowler, P. "Captured by the Discourse? The Socially Constitutive Power of New
Higher Education Discourse in the UK." Organization 8.2 (2001): 183-‐201.
Print.
Wallin, Martin W., and Georg Von Krogh. "Organizing for Open Innovation:Focus on
the Integration of Knowledge." Organizational Dynamics 39.2 (2010): 145-‐54.
Print.
Williamson, Oliver E. Markets and Hierarchies, Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A
Study in the Economics of Internal Organization. New York: Free, 1975. Print.
81
Williamson, Oliver E., Sidney G. Winter, and R. H. Coase. The Nature of the Firm:
Origins, Evolution, and Development. New York: Oxford UP, 1991. Print.
Top Related