Faculty and Administrators' Attitudes toward Potential Conflicts of Interest, Commitment, and Equity in University-Industry Relationships

Abstract

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...

Faculty Entrepreneurialism and the Challenge to Undergraduate Education at Research Universities

“…For instance, combining research (i.e., the number of publications and the number of conference presentations/exhibitions) and funds (i.e., serving as a principal investigator on an externally funded project and total research funds) as a single "research" measure, Fairweather (2002) found that only 22% of university faculty were productive in both teaching and research, whereas about 50% of faculty in research universities were productive in either research or teaching. Campbell and Slaughter (1999) warned that disparities between entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial faculty will continue to widen, with entrepreneurial faculty engaging in university-industry activity and non-entrepreneurial faculty involved with traditional academic duties (i.e., teaching and attention to students). Entrepreneurial faculty are likely to increase in status and prestige, while the status of non-entrepreneurial faculty will diminish (Campbell and Slaughter, 1999).…”

“…Campbell and Slaughter (1999) warned that disparities between entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial faculty will continue to widen, with entrepreneurial faculty engaging in university-industry activity and non-entrepreneurial faculty involved with traditional academic duties (i.e., teaching and attention to students). Entrepreneurial faculty are likely to increase in status and prestige, while the status of non-entrepreneurial faculty will diminish (Campbell and Slaughter, 1999).…”

“…The social good arguably is served as entrepreneurial activities often provide practical ways of fulfilling the university's research mission. Some may even consider entrepreneurial research as a form of public accountability; working in collaboration with corporate and industry partners challenges professors to engage in research that is of utmost concern to economic productivity (Campbell and Slaughter, 1999;Fairweather, 1988). Whether building closer ties to the corporate/industry sector, tapping into federal sources of support, developing patents, or pursuing consulting opportunities, faculty entrepreneurialism has evidenced the kind of innovative spirit that has long been a marker of U.S. economic success (Anderson, 2001).…”

“…Higher education scholars tend to look to the 1980s and 1990s as a key period in the intensification of entrepreneurialism, which was most forcefully advanced through an increase in university-industry alliances and a more aggressive push to commercialize research (Campbell and Slaughter, 1999;Fairweather, 1988Fairweather, , 1996. Slaughter and Leslie (1997), for instance, note an increase of non-governmental funds from 29.9% in 1969-1970 to 32.8% in 1984^1985.…”

Patenting productivity and intellectual property policies at Research I universities: An exploratory comparative study.

“…The Bayh-Dole Act in 1980 was the first legislation that allowed universities to start spin-off businesses and to generate profits from patents (Campbell & Slaughter, 1999). As a result, university partnerships with the private sector have greatly increased through research grants, licensing patents, and in some cases, the formation of new firms-mainly at research universities and in the hard sciences.…”