This study analyzes interview data from 37 science and engineering faculty involved in university-industry relations. Faculty are particularly concerned about how these relations affect their work with graduate students. Our analysis is guided by ritual exchange theory and network theory. First, we explore the ways faculty define and redefine what makes industrial or corporate research appropriate or inappropriate for training graduates. Second, we examine difficulties and tensions faculty face when they work with students on industrial or corporate projects. These difficulties and tensions center on intellectual property and we look at how faculty negotiate with industry over restrictions on publication of graduate student and faculty research results, on faculty and graduate student involvement in start-up companies, and on faculty and graduate student ownership of intellectual property.Since the 1980s, the number of university-industry research partnerships in the United States has greatly increased. The emergence of a bipartisan congressional competitiveness coalition in the 1980s and early 1990s strongly promoted these partnerships as a way of resolving economic problems (Slaughter and Rhoades 1996). During the same time, monies from several states increased as a share of academic research and development (R&D), and these funds too were very often tied to economic development and university-industry partnerships (Lambright and

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Ohio State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Higher Education.In the 1940s the federal government began awarding grants and contracts for significant amounts of money to academic researchers who pursued paths of national as well as scholarly interest (Smith, 1990). During the post-World War II years, the conduct of research through federal sponsorship became a source of prestige and autonomy within the academic profession. In the mid-1970s the federal share of academic research funding began to decrease, and faculty and administrators began to look for other sources of funding. At the same time, business leaders voiced concern that governmental regulations, restrictions, and processes were impending their ability to compete in the global marketplace. In the 1980s the U.S. government responded by encouraging increased cooperation between universities and firms, allowing universities to hold patents on federally sponsored research and financing research projects in which universities and firms were both active participants . Although the academic and industrial sectors had worked together on a limited basis before 1980, over the past fifteen years, collaborative relationships have intensified, and increasing numbers of academics are seeking ways to position themselves close to the commercial marketplace. . Those in favor of increased interaction suggest that, for the most part, faculty and adminis-trators1 approach industry-sponsored research as professionals who strive to maintain Mertonian norms such as rationality, impartiality, and objectivity rather than allow themselves to be influenced by the potential financial gains that might arise from their research. Their discussions focus on the benefits that arise out of university-industry relationships and suggest that most adverse impacts on institutions are anomalous and readily remedied (Bok, 1982;Geisler & Rubenstein, 1989;Peters & Fusfeld, 1982). Those more skeptical of this movement toward the market warn that the potential to generate revenue at personal and institutional levels has had a multifaceted, not always positive, impact on academe. For example, administrators are increasingly treating faculty in the same manner that industrial managers treat their employees and, as a result, faculty are losing ownership of their discoveries and autonomy over their professional lives (Dickson. Although faculty involvement in collaborative activity is encouraged by federal sponsors and university leaders (Campbell, 1995(Campbell, , 1997, thus far there is neither a large body of university policy nor professional customs and norms that guide and shape entrepreneuria...

Closer university-market relations are evidenced in increased university patenting, the formation of start-up companies, and partnerships with industry. They are part of a state and policy effort to link science and engineering to the market, thereby developing new technologies, stimulating economic growth, and creating new jobs. Yet the blurring of boundaries between the two institutions creates quandaries for faculty and administrators. Using a National Science Foundation database and interviews, this article explores the effects of redrawn boundaries, the need to negotiate disputed boundaries, and the role of start-up companies in the new academic environment.

No abstract

No abstract