Deviance or Normative Change? In recent years, an increasing number of scientists and research organizations have sought to simultaneously advance and capitalize knowledge, calling their full adherence to the Mertonian norms of communality and disinterestedness into question.
Communism implies that property rights in science are reduced to recognition of discoveries. Full and open communication represents the enactment of this norm; secrecy its antithesis. Disinterestedness denotes the institutional relationship of scientists to society, including a set of incentives to create knowledge for collegial approbation and public use in 16 henry etzkowitz exchange for insulation from popular sentiment Merton . What happens when norms are flouted? Deviance involves breaking a rule, leaving the rule intact, whereas when normative change occurs; the rule itself is transformed Meier , Marshall Under what conditions is normative change, rather than deviance likely to occur?
When behaviour is inconsistent with norms, but is: 1 undertaken either by a large number of persons or by a few persons of high status; and 2 can be shown to be consistent with the values of a social system; it is unlikely to be successfully defined as deviant.
Even scientific colleagues, who have no desire to become entrepreneurs themselves, seldom look upon their colleagues who do with disdain. Entrepreneurial activities have been undertaken by leading scientists who are viewed as role models. For example, a molecular biologist at a leading research university viewed his colleagues at Harvard who have formed firms with admiration and wished to emulate them. For an increasing number of scientists, participating in the formation of a firm has come to be positively defined as a new badge of scientific achievement.
Also, taking the path of firm formation does not necessarily mean abandoning the academy. Some, like Stanford University computer scientist, co-founder of Sun Microsystems and Netscape, Jim Clark, left the university and engaged in successive efforts at firm-formation.
Others, like biologist Leroy Hood, combined firm formation with an academic career. However, the California Institute of Technology Cal Tech did not allow Hood to gain financially from his work in helping form Applied Biosystems in the early s Hood Hood eventually moved to a more compatible academic environment at the University of Washington where he organized a new department in bio-informatics as collaboration with Microsoft. Cal Tech, however, has since changed its policies and has become quite successful in promoting the entrepreneurial engagement that it had previously discouraged.
A two-way synergy between academia and industry was developed that de-emphasized barriers. Some prominent scientists who initially questioned the trend toward academic entrepreneurialism have changed their views, either as opportunities became too tempting or as they realized the importance of industrial support to the future of academic research. Thus, Joshua Lederberg, an early critic of academic involvement in firm-formation eventually became a consultant to the Cetus Corporation Professor Pollack came to favour the university holding equity in firms formed from academia in order to move the university closer to self-supporting status Pollack and In many entrepreneurial scientific ventures, in contrast to the subordinate position of scientists in corporate laboratories, scientists and business persons develop strategy together; mutually shaping the course and direction of the firm and share ownership and control.
Normative Change Entrepreneurial scientists believe that they are acting in accord with scientific values and only a minority of their colleagues view them as deviant. Under such conditions the path is open to normative change. When behaviour conflicts with existing norms, but when deeper values remain stable, new norms can be identified with these values. Proponents of change such as university administrators often exploit the conflation of norms with values by redirecting debates over controversies from values where there is usually great resistance to change to particular cases in which a change can be shown to be advantageous.
Nevertheless, at this university, and others where controversies have erupted over entrepreneurial science for example, MIT in the early twentieth century , the overall trend is to acceptance within limiting conditions Etzkowitz Reinterpretation of formerly excluded behaviour often goes unnoticed when it is felt that values are not threatened, or is repressed when values are believed to be threatened but rule changers cannot psychically afford to admit to themselves their exercise in revision.
Change in rules also takes place quietly when rule makers and enforcers do not wish to admit that a change is underway for fear of loss of authority, and when those subject to the change do not protest, for reasons of self interest or lack of interest.
In the case of scientists operating under novel research conditions there may be two sets of relevant norms operating simultaneously, creating an inherently unstable situation. For example, in a study of the Apollo moon scientists, Mertonian norms were found to be operative when scientists worked on well structured problems; while counter norms guided the study of ill structured problems Mitroff Implicit in this formulation of norms and counter-norms is the existence of a mechanism for making the two sets of norms compatible with each other—the definition of a problem as structured or unstructured—thus, reducing or even eliminating the conflict between normative expectations.
However, if an algorithm does not exist or cannot be invented to stabilize ambivalence, it may be resolved through reinterpretation or replacement. Sociological consonance is the result of changes in the social structure that bring heretofore opposing normative expectations into a new complementary relationship with each other or replace one set by another.
Such normative change is not merely an individual phenomenon but a social process in which a significant number of persons go through the same experience and express similar new conclusions. Entrepreneurship is made compatible with the conduct of basic research through a legitimating theme that integrates the two activities into a complementary relationship.
For example, scientists often say that earnings from commercializing their research will be applied to furthering their basic research interests. Reinterpretation takes place through an experience of realizing that what had previously seemed to be in conflict really was not. This conversion experience suggests the transmutation of ambivalence—the opposition between two opposing principles, one primary, the other secondary, into consonance—reformulating apparently contradictory ideological elements into a consistent identity.
This transformation, with concomitant effect on norms, occurred initially in the industrial research laboratory and in recent decades has penetrated academia, as well. Norms are stable as long as they are effective and support efficient engagement in the world. When the environment changes, norms may no longer be effective, creating a 20 henry etzkowitz disjuncture between the workings of the organization and its environment. In the next sections I shall examine the institutional spheres of industry and academia and specify the trajectories through which normative change in science takes place.
Normative Change in Industrial Science One group of scientists, employees of corporate laboratories has long been found not to only have a partial fit with Mertonian norms. A body of research developed from the s to the s suggests a variety of adaptations for industrial scientists including: 1 role strain or transition to managerial norms; 2 a creative tension between organizational and scientific norms; and 3 the existence of alternative normative structures of science.
Scientists in industry had been expected to conform to corporate norms but academic science had been held to be a world apart, with well defined boundaries between science and society Gieryn The axis on which the debate turns is the desired relationship of scientists to society, whether they should be independent of or directed by political goals. Ben-David distinguished among different types of scientists in his review, holding that propositions about autonomy referred primarily to academic scientists in basic research disciplines.
Nevertheless, a central research question regarding scientists who work in non-academic settings has been the degree to which Mertonian norms conflict with organizational values Marcson , Kornhauser , Glaser , Cotgrove and Box The professional scientist accepts control over research problem choice but retains control over the choice of techniques to perform the research Kornhauser Managers noted, however, that many scientists resisted efforts at resocialization.
For such scientists the norms of science were in conflict with corporate goals Shephard , Randall , Burns and Stalker and such conflict, with its attendant role strain, was believed to result in a loss of productivity. However, within a framework that postulated a single normative structure of science and a single normative structure in which technology could be most productively developed, there could be no satisfactory resolution of these conflicts.
Of course, industrial scientists could resolve this role strain by replacing the value placed on autonomy with adherence to the organizational norms of their corporate employer. This role shift, while resolving the problem of role strain, is expected by other researchers to result in a loss of creativity Pelz and Andrews This is where the dilemma of industrial science is: the very qualities of the scientists required in order to create innovations desired by the organization may be suppressed by it to promote smooth organizational functioning.
Pelz and Andrews treat all scientists regardless of research setting as a single group, that is, norms are presumed to be invariant. A significant number of industrial scientists in their sample who lacked autonomy did not experience role strain. Moreover, no significant loss of productivity was noted among this group.
Thus, a scientific role that operated without cognitive dissonance was postulated for the industrial arena. However, if the thesis of a self-regulating scientific community is pared down to its base in the university, the character of contemporary academic science becomes crucial to this thesis. Transformation of the Academic-Industry Interface Academic scientists have a long history of working with industry, having helped establish the early industrial research laboratories in the United States Reich Until quite recently most universityindustry connections separated academic and commercial practices.
Limits were placed on how much time an academic could devote to outside concerns. A one fifth rule allowing one day per week became commonplace. Consulting relationships typically involved brief visits to industrial sites or conduct of discrete projects on university premises. A consequence of this separation was that it left control of commercial opportunities of academic research in the hands of industry whereas control over the direction of research and choice of research topics was left to academic scientists. Although regular payments were made to individual consultants, the large-scale transfer of funds from industry to the university was left up to the generosity of companies.
The older forms of university-industry connections involved payment for services rendered, whether it was received directly in the form of consultation fees or indirectly as endowment gifts. Thus, the traffic between university and industry was policed so those boundaries were maintained even as exchanges took place through consultation and philanthropy.
Engineering schools reorganized themselves to serve the research needs and supply personnel for the growing science based electrical and chemical industries. The linkages included cooperative programs which sent students to industry for part of their training, university professors undertaking research at the request of industry and donations of money and equipment by industrial firms to support engineering education Noble University-industry relationships declined in the s due to the financial stringency of the depression and became relatively less important in the post war era with the growth in government funding of science.
The Dynamics of Entrepreneurial Science A broad range of universities have taken on the tasks of economic development, at times due to external pressures, including funding constriction but also as the result of internal initiatives arising from the expansionary dynamic of scientific research. Relatively few open conflicts have erupted such as the one at Harvard in when the administration proposed that the university participate financially in a firm based on the research of one of its faculty members. Although controversy over the goals of the university abated when the plan was dropped, President Bok stated at the time that he would explore other means of involving Harvard in realizing financial gain from campus based research Bok , Culliton In , when a joint venture involving the medical school was announced, the New York Times questioned whether traditional academic values were being abandoned, but there was no on-campus opposition as there had been eight years before.
During the intervening period, 24 henry etzkowitz similar proposals become accepted practice at other universities, as the University of Colorado and Columbia University accepted equity in faculty formed firms and Washington University, St. Louis and MIT took the role of venture capitalist. A second factor is the perceived constriction in federal funds for academic research in recent years that has made support from industry significant, even in the form of marginal amounts to supplement short-falls in government research funds.
The Bayh-Dole Act of assigned the intellectual property rights emanating from federally funded research to universities both as a requirement for receipt of such funds and as an incentive to earn funds by transferring technology to industry. Processes of Normative Change As academic scientists make their claims for priority concomitant with the securing of intellectual property rights to their discoveries, the conditions for increased industrial connections are being created at a liberal arts research universities.
For example, a ban on exclusive licenses was changed to allow such licenses when companies could not otherwise be induced to participate in the transfer of technology. Changes in university policy are institutionalized in the form of new administrative offices to carry out new tasks or the assignment of old offices to take on new functions. The establishment of more than university technology transfer offices during the past two decades exemplifies a similar transition in academic-industry relations.
As linkage mechanisms are put in place, a two way flow overlays the traditional one-way flow of students to industry, with corporate procedures and personnel entering the university and academic modes and professors moving to industry. Changes in Academic Policy and Practice University administrations have put in place policies and programs to market the research of their faculty and adjust these policies to retain the loyalty of faculty. A number of universities have established committees, representing faculty and administrators, to respond to the problems and opportunities created by entrepreneurial science.
Such committees are institutional mechanisms of normative change and constitute a strategic research site to examine how different viewpoints are expressed and mediated. These committees are arenas in which representatives from different social locations in the university interact under conditions where they share a common charge to produce a position. It is often believed that modest changes in university rules will allow commercial activities to be undertaken without endangering values.
However, the process of conflict resolution in committees often leads, even those most highly opposed to normative change, to allow changes in rules to be made. Committee leaders produce rationalizations to show how old norms are not violated by new forms of behaviour, thus laying the foundations for normative change. New forms of behaviour are then allowed, such as temporary withholding of research results as patents are sought, while traditional values are upheld.
Some engineering faculty at Columbia were outraged at the attempt by the university to control their involvement with industry. Although no-one opposed sharing rewards with the university some were adamant about not being allowed to accept stock and make consulting arrangements at their discretion. These faculty members wished to maintain their status as independent entrepreneurs and not be superceded by the university as an entrepreneur.
For example, a professor of Chemical Engineering characterized the new policy as both vague and restrictive. By giving the university control over patent rights it would create an inequity between copyright, left to the faculty and patents. He raises the funds for his equipment, and from his research grants pays for the operation of his laboratories, the operation of the libraries and computers, and the stipends of his students. It is a gross exaggeration to imply that the university materially invests in the research of its faculty; the University operates its laboratories as profit centers.
The University of Chicago expressed interest in having faculty enter into relations with industry including firm formation by faculty. Lacking actual cases at the time, the university committee discussed hypothetical instances of problems in industrial connections. Committee members expressed concerns over faculty allocation of time to external interests and loss of allegiance to the university.
Nevertheless, the preponderant concern was to find ways to encourage such involvement in order to legitimate the university to the larger society on grounds of contributions to its economic development. Candell and Adam B. Alternatively, their purpose was to channel the translation of research into marketable products in ways acceptable to the university among faculty where interest in economic outcomes of research was high.
These responses, indeed auger a shift in the direction of the research university, and its members, toward new normative patterns regarding the pecuniary content of knowledge. Whether built into organizational entities that handle the marketing of research, structured as guidelines for desired behaviour or felt as enticements from the outside world: a new normative structure is emerging in the research university.
They are norms in the sense that they push behaviour in a clear direction with recognizable and consistent outcomes, enticing it where possible, coercing it where necessary. Attempts to fit new phenomena into existing categories and analyses only result in analytical confusion. However, many of these purported academics were actually employees of research firms such as Bolt, Beranek and Newman BBN.
Thus, some university professors became entrepreneurs and organizational innovators, synthesizing academic and business formats, often with government support. BBN, and its counterparts, represent one source of academic entrepreneurship, often based upon defense contracts that universities may not have wanted to assume directly Vollmer Companies such as Applied Material Devices and Motorola have also developed increasingly sophisticated training programs, taking upon themselves some of the educational functions of the university. Nevertheless, the university is unique in its integration of teaching and research, even as it takes on some business functions.
The core 28 henry etzkowitz competency of the university has expanded from the production and distribution of human capital and knowledge to the packaging and diffusion of intellectual property, increasingly by recombining and enhancing internal and external innovations Sampat Indeed, corporations such as DuPont have donated intellectual property, unrelated to their core interests, to universities expecting that students and professors will be more effective than companies in taking it the next steps through development. As the corporation, the university and government, as loci of scientific research, have changed their practices; so has science itself been transformed.
Not surprisingly, as its economic consequences have become more widespread, science has gained greater attention from industry and government. As the center of significant research activity in the US, the university has become the focus of policies and programs to encourage technological innovation and reindustrialization. Conclusion The transformation of the institutional spheres of academia, industry and government, and their interrelations, increasingly shape the dynamics of innovation at the multi-national, national and regional levels Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff , Etzkowitz As these spheres interact more intensively, the social location of scientific research and the way research is put to use are also affected.
Hybrid organizations such as co-operative research centers, strategic alliances and incubator facilities have been created at the interface of academia, industry and government to stimulate innovation. Norms should be viewed as part of the process of social change as well as a source of stability for social order. Norms delineate how an institution works at the same time as they say how it should work. Thus, a norm is inherently value relevant since it incorporates an ethical standard as well as an empirical descriptor. Normative disobedience has been conceptualized as deviance and when negative sanctions are imposed it is viewed as a reinforcement of the norm in question.
Long term organizational change, such as the development of academic research that have many of the characteristics of a small business—save the profit motive—helps create the conditions under normative change takes place. Whereas financial success is a common goal in American society, the norms of science traditionally oriented scientists toward recognition from peers as a substitute for personal wealth.
Sacred Traditions and the Arts
Yet the increasing financial resources required for the conduct of research inevitably led scientists to pay more attention to the tasks of fund raising and success at these tasks increasingly became a prerequisite for the ability to achieve success in research. This experience helps explain why many academic scientists who formed firms felt that there was relatively little difference between their activities that were nominally inside and outside of the university.
In both instances, they were acting as entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, for some scientists it was but a short step to embracing the individualistic ethic as well. Many had never rejected this ethic, in any case, but merely put it aside as simply not relevant given their choice of careers. Having already secured recognition from peers for their research, once the possibility of attaining individual personal wealth through scientific achievement appeared they willingly accepted it. During the first academic revolution, the theoretical and specialized outlook of the graduate schools was conveyed throughout the academic institutional order Storrs , Geiger In the course of the second academic revolution, the valorization of research is integrated with scientific discovery, returning science to its original seventeenth century format prior to the appearance of an ideology of basic research in the mid-nineteenth century Merton , Kevles Just as a research 30 henry etzkowitz ethos was universalized throughout the academic sphere, so is a concern with maximizing the economic uses of research that was formerly the province of a specialized academic sector—the land grant schools Veysey Nevertheless, industrial research funding and receipts from licensing of intellectual property rights are small in absolute terms in comparison to government funding sources that have become traditional, with their controversial origins forgotten by succeeding academic generations Genuth Nevertheless, a secular trend can be projected of an academic system, closely involved with industry as well as government.
During the s industry funding of academic research rose from about four percent to seven percent and, by the end of the s to about 10 percent. Much of this increase was concentrated in few fields with strongly perceived industrial relevance, such as, biotechnology and civil engineering. University research centers closely tied to industry increased nearly two-and-half times during the s. The number of patents awarded to US universities tripled between and Zusman While still small in scale, if not in scope, a new academic model is emerging from its chrysalis.
Bibliography Aitken, Hugh. Syntony and Spark: The Origins of Radio. New York: Wiley. Ben-David, Joseph. Canberra: Australian Academy of Sciences. Bok, Derek. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bush, George P. Battery, eds. Scientific Research: Its Administration and Organization. Washington D. Burns, Tom and Gibson M. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock. Cotgrove, Stephen and Steven Box. Science, Industry and Society. London: Allen and Unwin. Culliton, Barbara. Diamond, Arthur. Djerassi, Carl.
Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. London: Routledge. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. New York: Harcourt. Etzkowitz, Henry and Loet Leydesdorff, eds. The University in the Global Knowledge Economy. London: Cassell. Etzkowitz, Henry and Elsa Blum. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Faulkner, Wendy and Jacqueline Senker. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Florida, Richard and Martin Kenney. Geiger, Roger. New York: Oxford University Press. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. Glaser, Barney. Organizational Scientists. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merill. Genuth, Joel. Gieryn, Thomas. Interview with the author. Goldhor, Richard and Robert T.
Gouldner, Alvin. New York: Seabury. Guston, David. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hagstrom, Warren. The Scientific Community. New York: basic Books. Hood, Leroy. Interview with author.
Religious Studies: Professional Resources
Hill, Karl, ed. The Management of Scientists. Boston: Beacon Press. Johnston, Robert F. Edwards, Entrepreneurial Science. Westport: Quorum. Kaplan, Norman. Kenney, Martin. Kevles, Daniel. New York: Knopf. Kornberg, Arthur. Kornhauser, William. Scientists in Industry. Berkeley: University of California. Knorr-Cetina, Karin. Oxford: Pergamon. Latour, Bruno and Steve Woolgar. Laboratory Life. Beverly Hills: Sage. Lederberg, Joshua. Marshall, Gordon. McDonald, Kim. Marcson, Simon. The Scientist in American Industry. New York: Harper. Machlup, Fritz. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harvest Books. Meier, Robert. Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press. The Sociology of Science. Minsky, Marvin. Mitchell, Clyde. Mitroff, Ian. National Science Foundation. Science Indicators www. Nelkin, Dorothy. Science as Intellectual Property.
New York: Macmillan. Noble, David. America by Design. Noble, David and Nancy Pfund. September Pelz, Donald and Frank Andrews. Scientists in Organizations. Ann Arbor: Institute of Social Research. Pollack, Robert. Pollack, Robert, , Personal Communication to the author. Reich, Leonard. The Making of American Industrial Research. Sampat, Bhavat. Rosenberg, Nathan and Richard Nelson. Research Policy 23 3 : — Sahlman, William Samuelson, Pamela. Slaughter, Shelia and Larry Leslie. Academic Capitalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stehr, Nico. Storr, Richard J. The Beginnings of Graduate Education in America. The Economist. Toren, Nina. Veysey, Laurence. The Emergence of the American University. Vollmer, Howard. Menlo Park: Stanford Research Institute. Zusman, Ami. CHAPTER TWO Globalization and Scientific Research in Japan Zaheer Baber Globalization or the Logic of Late Capitalism Globalization, driven by the structural logic of late capitalism with all its inequities has unleashed dramatic transformations in every sphere of life even as these very transformations fuel the very processes that are transforming them.
It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connections everywhere…. As David Harvey and Frederic Jameson among others have convincingly demonstrated, it is impossible to get a handle on globalization as a process without reference to the logic of late capitalism. There is however, no shortage of academic as well as non-academic tomes where the discussion of globalization proceeds without any attempt to contextualize within the larger dynamics of global capitalism. And when global capitalism is acknowledged, it is usually with the aim of asserting that it has been transcended and replaced by globalization.
Their argument is that labor and capital as the essential ingredients of capitalism have been either supplanted or are well on their way to being superseded by knowledge, information and symbols as the main ingredients in the creation of value. There is indeed no doubt that increasingly knowledge and ideas as commodities constitute the key ingredients for the creation of value under global capitalism.
The fact that the traditional manufacturing sector appears to have shrunk in the advanced capitalist economies can partly be explained by the fact of the globalization of both capital and labor. The phenomenal growth of information and communication technologies as well as transportation systems has obviously enhanced the dramatic mobility of capital. The process of globalization itself has contributed to the hybridization of economic and social life, and its consequences for the texture of social life will no doubt continue to be profound and in many ways unpredictable.
In many ways, directly and indirectly, the reconstitution of a complex globalized world is dramatically reconfiguring science, technology and the cultures of research. The phenomenal growth of biotechnology, nanotechnology, material science etc. Rajan , Aneesh There seems to be little doubt that continued growth of transdisciplinary fields such as nanotechnology, superconductivity and artificial intelligence will only enhance this trend. As Immanuel Wallerstein has pointed out, the gradual dissolution of disciplinary boundaries that were drawn up during the nineteenth and sustained during the long, violent twentieth century is now quite evident in most universities and research institutions.
After all, the university as a distinctive institutional site for the production and certification of expert knowledge was simultaneously a product and producer of modernity. The same is the case with the other two institutional components of the triple helix: the nation-state and industrial houses with their own research laboratories Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff The rationalization and standardization of products through the rise of industry and of people through the coercive, disciplinary institutions and practices of both the state and universities were integral component of the production of modernity.
It was in the nineteenth century, beginning in colonial India Huff , Visvanathan , Baber that engineering training was incorporated into universities—a move that signaled the transformation of craft practices into formal academic disciplines and ultimately led to the application of scientific principles to the practice of engineering. If the emergence and consolidation of modernity led to the rise of distinctive institutions like the university, the state and industry, the movement towards transdisciplinary knowledge production currently underway is now contributing to a re-configuration of those very institutions that originally made formally demarcated disciplines possible Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff To make sense of these rapid institutional changes unfolding, a number of models and metaphors are available.
Gibbons et al. Mode 1 refers to the classical and idealized Newtonian model where the location of production of knowledge is institutionally demarcated from the site of application. Mode 2 on the other hand refers to knowledge production carried out in the context of application and is characterized by transdisciplinarity, heterogeneity and organizational transience.
The model, extending the metaphoric representation of the double helix of 38 zaheer baber the DNA, anticipates the increasing growth of a spiral model of innovation where the theoretical and practical questions are interrelated, cross over the boundaries or occur at the interstices of what until recently were rigidly demarcated institutional spheres. Universities, states and industries that were differentiated from each other as a condition for the constitution of modernity are now intersecting with each other to create unique institutional configurations. Thus, universities are taking on the characteristics of firms, many firms are beginning to resemble universities, and many states function as private corporations.
These developments are partly driven by the commodification of scientific knowledge, even as they reflexively contribute further to that process. The Commodification of Scientific Knowledge Neither the conversion of scientific knowledge nor the emergence of the entrepreneurial university is entirely new.
After all, MIT pioneered the infusion of science-based engineering into industry in the midnineteenth century and an institutional arrangement that was the model for Stanford in the post-war era Etzkowitz , Guston and Kenniston What has changed however is the sheer scale of the commodification of scientific knowledge that is pushing the formation of strategic alliances and new institutional configurations.
Following Etzkowitz and Webster — , the commodification of scientific knowledge or its conception as intellectual property itself is driven by a number of factors: the rise of technologies based on generic forms of knowledge that underpin a diverse range of industrial sectors without being unique to any one sector; the gradual blurring of boundaries between basic and applied research, particularly evident in the field of biotechnology.
As a consequence of this blurring of boundaries that were not too distinct to begin with, universities emerge as significant sites for pre-competitive research due to their institutional cultural capacity for focusing on generic principles and models that can be adapted for specific technical systems Mukerji Driven by the emergence of post-Fordist production systems, industrial research houses increasingly underemphasize specialized research that can have generic applications and closer commercial links with specialized research in universities have been one of the solutions to this problem.
There are of course other important factors that have contributed to the emergence of the triple helix, but the increasing transformation of scientific knowledge into capital and property constitutes one of the key driving forces. In view of these far reaching changes that promise to dramatically restructure the nature and location of scientific research, against the backdrop of globalization, the specific configuration of social factors that are at work in the constitution of the triple helix in Japan are examined in this paper.
The specific focus of this paper is on the mix of historical, global and local social factors that have contributed to the detailed configuration of the triple helix of the state, university and industry in Japan. The Triple Helix in Japan: Historical and Contemporary Transformations The truism that under globalization no country is an island rings particularly true for Japan comprised as it is, entirely of islands with no physical connections to any mainland.
Even during the periods of relative isolation, there were always linguistic, religious and architectural exchanges between Japan and its neighbours, particularly China and Korea. Even though like any other nation under globalization, Japan is not an island, when it comes to scientific research, until recently, Japanese universities constituted veritable islands in their own societies.
To be sure, as Diana Hicks has rightly pointed out, informal 40 zaheer baber collaboration always existed, but until recently the situation was quite different when one compares Japanese universities with American institutions such as MIT and Stanford. Until the mids Japanese university scientists worked in an institutional environment and culture that was shaped by restrictive governmental regulations that prohibited research collaborations with industry.
On their part, university scientists radicalized by the antiVietnam war movement, did not want to have anything to do with private corporations. This organization structure is the koza system comprising of units that include a professor, an associate professor, two assistants and a couple of technical assistants, all employed directly by the Ministry of Education. The university scientists together with the research support staff have the status of civil servants that implicates them in a specific institutional relationship with the state.
It is not that such co-operation is impossible or that it never happens. However the general trend is toward competitive autonomy that serves research in certain fields better than others. Fields that cannot survive without equipment and instruments that are costly are at a particular disadvantage.
Private Wildlife Conservation in Zimbabwe - Joint Ventures and Reciprocity | brill
Thus when it comes to the crucial issue of the purchase of expensive equipment, different kozas cannot pool their resources together as there is no real mechanism for such co-operation. Until recently, this problem was complicated further by the unequal distribution of funds to all koza within a faculty and by the relatively low level of technical support for university research. In response to the bottlenecks induced by the koza system prevalent in the universities, a number of research institutes independent of the traditional faculties have sought to create post-koza academic environments.
A number of university based research institutes have begun to function completely outside the koza framework, but a substantial proportion of research is still conducted in the traditional departments and faculties Sigurdson 72—80, Traweek Until the s, when Japanese corporations needed the expertise of university scientists, they were forced to collaborate with mostly American universities. Indeed, the MIT Tokyo Office to facilitate precisely such collaborations has been in existence for a fairly long time.
As for university scientists, those who were looking for collaborating with industrial corporations had found it easier to work in foreign, mostly American universities or corporations. With the consolidation of global capitalism and the onset of neo-liberalism during the Reagan era, the structural pressures for institutional change and realignments were felt everywhere, including of course, Japan.
The pressure on the Japanese government from its corporations and university scientists who wanted to engage in direct collaboration with each other, had been building up for a long time. The autonomous and island-like existence of the Japanese universities enforced by post-War legislation began to erode not just due to globalization but also because of specific local and scientific factors as discussed below. Responding to the global and local changes, the Japanese University Council in instituted self-monitoring and self-evaluation exercises in an attempt to enforce quality controls Mok Among other things, this plan dramatically increased the science and technology budget and made it legal for universities to collaborate with industry while simultaneously enhancing the links between the universities and the state.
Just a year later, the Basic Law on Intellectual Property was passed in Following closely on the heels of these initiatives that unfolded in a short space of time, the plan finally paved new ground rules for the dramatic transformation of the structure, funding and the relationship of the universities with industry and the state.
With the passage of this law, the national universities that were until now funded and controlled by the state were converted into corporations or more specifically, National University Corporations. As summarized by Kitagawa —14 a number of transformations that represent a clear break from the past, followed. When compared to the existing institutional arrangement under which higher education and research had been pursued until , these measures triggered off quite dramatic institutional changes and reconfigurations in their wake Tabata , Yamamoto , Kitagawa , Mok Given the enormity of changes underway, it is hardly surprising that these initiatives have evoked some very sharp responses that need to be taken into account Tabata , Ozawa and Nakayama , Iwasaki In addition to globalization, there is another major factor at work.
Scientific and technological research in Japanese universities is not supported by the military. The situation in the United States is quite the opposite, with many research universities receiving extensive funding for basic research from the department of defense. For example, the mega Human Genome project was funded largely by the Departments of Energy and Defense. At one level, such funding opportunities are not available to Japanese academic researchers. Partly because of the declining funding situation, this hostility toward private funds is no longer that strong, and this situation is pushing leading Japanese universities towards collaborative research with the private sector.
The funding situation is critical. In a period where scientific research requires enormous amounts of funds, most universities are feeling the crunch. However, whether the corporatization of Japanese universities will actually enable to them to generate the much needed funds or not is not yet clear Yamamoto This is particularly the case with a number of trans-disciplinary fields where university researchers are better placed than their counterparts in private corporations.
The combination of all these factors is leading to significant changes in the mode of scientific knowledge production in Japan Goto et al. In addition to the emergence of the university based research centers that enter into alliance with industry, a number of new institutional configurations are emerging in Tsukuba Science City, 80 miles north of Tokyo. Although a part of Tsukuba University, TARA provides the institutional setting for bringing researchers from the university, industry and state laboratories to work together on specific projects.
In effect TARA as an institution is attempting to create a hybrid institutional setting for research that is organizationally and institutionally different from the three existing forms: the university, the private company and state labs. The second such hybrid institution that does not exist anymore but provides lessons for understanding the emerging alliances was the Tsukuba Research Consortium TRC.
Cooperative Strategy: Managing Alliances, Networks, and Joint Ventures
Located in the heart of Tsukuba Science City, the TRC was a private sector initiative that sought to simulate all the social, cultural and structural aspects of a university campus. It fosters innovative research, nurtures new generations of social scientists, deepens how inquiry is practiced within and across disciplines, and mobilizes necessary knowledge on important public issues. Support the SSRC. Items is a space for engagement with insights from the work of the Council and the social sciences. The Immanent Frame publishes interdisciplinary perspectives on religion, secularism, and the public sphere.
Constituting religion: From South Asia to Malaysia. Mothers of the disappeared in Lebanon. Mansplaining religion.
Kujenga Amani facilitates the exchange of ideas about diverse aspects of peacebuilding in Africa. Rural Banditry in Zamfara state, Northwest Nigeria. Amanda Coffie. What might gun violence research look like if we centered our analysis on victims? Social Science and the Future of Gun Research. Recent posts. Read more. June 4, May 31, Jackson , David Karpf and Mike Miller. May 21, May 7,
Related Joint Ventures: Religious Studies and Social Sciences
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved