Upload
seth-hudson
View
10
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
SAH CTCH 821 Strain of Entrepreneurship on Higher Ed 051714
Citation preview
Invention, Innovation, Migration: The Strain of Entrepreneurship on the University
Following the American Psychological Association’s Guidelines
Seth A. Hudson
George Mason University
CTCH 821: The History of Higher Education in the United States
Dr. Mary Frances Forcier
May 17th, 2014
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
Introduction
In 1949, in his inaugural address, President Truman called on institutions of higher
education to lead the way in research that would aid the developing world, promote social
justice, and possible help the human race stave off nuclear annihilation (CITE). While
engaged in those pursuits, developments in the following 60 years complicated matters
for research universities and their faculty. Greater federal resources for small business
entrepreneurs, dwindling state funding, and a reliance on private funding have moved
faculty invention to commercial innovation. Given that move, these faculty may now
migrate from the university and seek to profit for themselves.
Background
Truman’s lofty goals for higher education set a tone for years to come, lading to
inventions like the ENIAC and Mark I computers at major universities—initially
developed to aid the military, these are early example of a long line of
federally/commercial partnerships that made a path for future innovation.
[…] But the scientific knowledge and technical skills that have made atomic and
bacteriological warfare possible are the products of education and research, and
higher education must share proportionately in the task of forging social and
political defenses against obliteration. […] The indirect way to-ward some longer
view and superficial curricular tinkering can no longer serve. The measures
higher education takes will have to match in boldness and vision the magnitude of
the problem. (The President’s Commission on Higher Education for Democracy,
1947)
2
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
Surprisingly, this theme of the interaction of science and technology as a valid research
problem lost momentum in the seventies (Hughes, 1979). Looking back at the initial
relationships between industry and higher education, government funding and higher
education, and the current state of so-called academic capitalism allows one to plot the
future trajectory of research in higher education. Modern technology has a long
umbilical cord (Hughes, 1979), so the path between scientific invention and commercial
innovation is one that needs examining. The role of universities in this invention to
innovation transition is up in the air.
Business Involvement
Though the ties between university education and advances in industry have been
long established, providing qualified individuals to drive the economy, the relationship
has become more apparent over the years. For some, the role of university research in the
21st century is to take discoveries out of the lab and into the commercial world. By 1988,
of 107 U.S. universities surveyed, 41 had direct industrial ties via corporate liaisons.
(Chaddock, 1992). Programs like MIT’s Media Lab (Figure 1), began to get most of their
financial support from corporations
Rosenberg (1970) differentiates invention from innovation: “we still look upon
the transformation of an ‘invention’ into an ‘innovation’ as the work of entrepreneurs,”
mostly the work of the capital goods industry (569). Decades ago, universities had less
capability to move into the commercial space and thus relied on industry to take
discoveries to market. As gatekeepers, corporations were able to run research and
development in a low-risk environment with the potential of great profits.
3
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
Figure 1 (Pasley, 1992)
Whereas the incentive for faculty researchers is to share knowledge that
contributes to the field, industry partners are concerned with securing any commercial
applications in order to generate profit (Van Looy, Callaert, and Debackere, 2006).
Although this commercialization is mutually beneficial in most cases, industry
constraints placed on faculty can disrupt university life. For example, it is now fairly
common for industry partners to delay (or disallow entirely) publication of faculty
research to protect intellectual properties. In the academic environment, though, this
practice can hurt faculty by reducing the incentives on initial inquiry on two fronts.
Firstly, university researchers who rely on publishing to advance in their careers,
or in some cases to begin them, will be hurt in their professional lives. Instead of
4
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
engaging the academy in the creation of proliferation of knowledge, they become no
different than an employee working for the profit of a corporation. Secondly, some
faculty may shy away from these opportunities in fear of the aforementioned scenario.
Though the resources of a corporate partner may allow university researchers to amplify
their efforts and do more ‘good’ for society in the long term, junior faculty may seek
safer projects that have a clearer path to publication. In turn, this impedes the flow of
private funding that justifies the current ties to industry.
Though it plays a major role, private industry has not completely taken over
funding of university research. State and federal governments also affect the climate of
university discovery. In fact, examining the relationship between the industry, university,
and the government bears fruit in this conversation.
Government Involvement
The Triple Helix Concept first presented by Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz (1996)
maps the role of industry, university, and government in the 20th century. Even though
state-funded research has been reduced in many cases, new structures of cooperation
have kept university innovation relatively healthy. The Triple Helix concept provides a
framework to view political and industrial involvement in higher education.
Leydesdorff and Etzkowitz also address the enhanced role of the university in terms of
communication. Academics must learn the languages of business and intellectual
property law in order to flourish. A basic visual representation of the Triple Helix is
below (Figure 2).
5
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
Figure 2 (Leyesdorff, 2006)
As partnerships between the ‘helices’ have evolved, the different parties have
assimilated some common language. This “common language” helps collaboration, but it
also brings potentially complicating knowledge: as researchers see the resources available
to entrepreneurs, they naturally question their role in the large system. They may ask:
“Why should large corporations have the lion’s share of profits from my invention?” or
“Shouldn’t my efforts be put to use in bettering society?”
Rosenberg saw Truman’s vision of science and industry solving the world’s
problems as failing (1970). Conversely, he argues, the rapid development of technology
in major powers impedes under-developed countries from doing the same. Technological
advance does not help developing world because there was no labor or market for most of
these advances other than agriculture. Though altruistic motives are common in
6
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
university research, invention and innovation are driven by the mass market in the United
States (Hughes, 1979).
In the decades following Bayh-Dole, discussed in greater detail later on, federal
policies have sought to shield corporations from risk in research and development,
though in past years these policies have been vilified as picking “winners and losers”
(Link & Scott, 2001). Technology research in higher education is more comfortable with
risk by its very nature, so it stands to reason that corporations would seek to increase the
depth of this relationship.
The energy crises of the 1970’s and other examples of national recession/conflict
ask for a reconsideration of government, state, and industry relationships. Research
institutions are looked at as a way to solve state and federal economic concerns,
universities and their faculty are empowered (Shinn, 2002).
Today the potential for commercialization activity outside of disciplines
traditionally associated with industry, specifically in information technology and
computer science. This move toward industry-relevant research that does not require
expensive equipment means that faculty quality can lead to greater technology transfer
rather than just university resources (Powers & McDougall, 2005). Even in the popular
imagination.
Academic Capitalism
In Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State, and Higher
Education (2004), Slaughter and Rhoades seek to identify the current relationship
between the academy and other institutions in society. They cite amendments to the
Higher Education Act of 1965 as a turning point in the relationship between researchers
7
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
and the university. In 1972, the act was amended to give aid to students rather than
institutions. The overhead that came with former aid was now gone, so new models of
funding were sought. Perhaps paradoxically, while federal funding for students
increased, on-the-ground support for instruction may have waned. What has followed in
the last 40 years has been a shift toward commercialization; some say, a shift away from
students.
Figure 3 (Yang, 2008)
Schools believed that, with one major discovery, they could commercialize and
solve all of their financial woes (Dupree, 2008). Naturally, faculty with potentially
lucrative research were encouraged to spend more time in the lab rather than the
classroom. When major grants come in, many universities simply award faculty with a
course reduction rather than direct payment. The perception is that these classes are then
8
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
taught by less-qualified instructors—the misguided stigma attached to taking courses
with graduate assistants and/or adjuncts.
Mendoza (2007) explores the phenomenon of academic capitalism, a set of
market like behaviors the must be adopted by faculty and academic institutions in order
to find alternative funding. Centered in the culture of higher education, Mendoza
examines how this academic capitalism affects other parties, from poor graduate students
in the lab to tenured faculty adjusting to these conditions. Instead of following passionate
curiosity, faculty must now bend the focus of their research toward commerce. The
troubling reality is that many research decisions inside the university are now being based
on potential profit rather than potential benefit to the public good (Rae-Dupree, 2008).
Figure 4 (Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004)
9
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
The traditional “public good” model of research (Figure 4) is now under question. Many
of the motivations and practices for important university research are now put on hold to
better serve industry. Given this current climate, faculty may be tempted to forego the
traditional “public good” model altogether, moving instead directly to the application side
of the equation.
National developments to promote innovation and support small business
entrepreneurship make this possible transition from the academy to industry easier. For
students, higher education is a means to a better life, upward mobility with a greater
earning potential later in life. If improving one’s financial prospects is the real goal,
however, then a clear path to circumvent the university altogether may be appealing.
What’s more is that faculty have an even easier time taking their goods and expertise to
market.
Faculty as Entrepreneurs
The Bayh-Dole act allowed for copyright of not only printed materials, but digital
works; swelling the intellectual property stream coming from universities (Slaughter &
Rhoades, 2004). With the new affordances of Bayh-Dole, the relationship between
university managers and faculty changed. Trustees, boards, etc., now saw faculty work
as intellectual property to be protected and perhaps profited from. At the same time,
faculty began to conceptualize their research pursuits as licensable products and
processes, rather than just knowledge to share for the good of the field (Slaughter &
Rhoades, 2004).
10
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
Additionally, the Small Business Innovation Development Act of 1982 (SBIR)
aimed to help fund research outside of traditional institutions and promote technological
innovation and aid minority groups in this pursuit. Over time, the benefits of the SBIR
have spread to the university, allowing innovative ideas to leave the academy and go to
market (Audretsch, Link, & Scott, 2002). One study found that researchers who
participate in SBIR have greater motivation in their research (Toole & Czarnitzki, 2007),
so for the time being there is benefit to be had by both faculty and institutions. The same
study also found that researchers involved in SBIR are more proactive in
commercializing applied research instead of waiting for the traditional cycles of external
funding.
This entrepreneurship is currently a benefit to universities, but perhaps a tipping
point: O’Shea, Allen, Chevalier, and Roche (2005) hypothesize that those universities
receiving the greatest industry funding also receive a large proportion of public funds.
Even if an institution is unable to directly profit financially from an innovation, colleges
and universities that can align themselves in anyway with these entrepreneurs benefit in
the press. There is a danger of romanticizing a lack of higher education; achievement via
rugged individualism rather than institutionalization.
Most know that Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates were Harvard men, even if they
were dropouts. This breaking out of the mold is frequently celebrated in popular media;
even Time Magazine ran a profile of the “Top 10 College Dropouts” in 2010. It should
be noted that although these few exceptional cases dropped out of school, they likely
benefitted greatly from the instruction they received and other social benefits of the
university.
11
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
Conclusion
We are on the precipice of a major change in higher education. Faculty, some
that may feel victimized by the publish or perish mentality of the university, have new
avenues to take their talents elsewhere for greater financial gain—obviously with a risk in
regards to job security. These external opportunities are made even more apparent with
university focus on commercialized research, so what motivates faculty to stay?
The students—hopefully our focus shifts back. Faculty must now undergo a
socialization process to adopt the academic capitalism required of them (Mendoza, 2007),
but perhaps this is merely a wave to pass over. Some very talented faculty-entrepreneurs
have reason and resources to leave the academy in pursuit of greater wealth and
notoriety; a possible migration will drain the talent pool serving our institutions of higher
education.
Those faculty who remain will do so, hopefully, out of a passion for students and
the traditions of higher education. As faculty attempt to enter the commercial space
directly, corporations may have less sway of university research. What remains will be a
focus on enrollment dollars for the university. What happens next is vital—focusing on
the quality of student experience to raise enrollment, rather than lowering standards or
increasing marketing budgets, can mean an improvement in the quality of higher
education across the board.
Faculty will be allowed to focus on teaching and mentorship, rather than chasing
dollars. Administrators can better manage the operations of a university with less time
spent wooing potential corporate partners. Students will gain a sense of shared meaning
12
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
around personal growth and intellectual betterment, knowing that the emphasis in on their
education and overall experience.
Though seemingly utopian, the transition to this new student-focus will be long
and hard. Our current system of academic capitalism and corporate involvement will
have to run its course. Eventually, market forces identify the victors and others will have
to seek a new way. Hopefully, this new way will be one that returns our focus to mission
statements and personal return on investment for those pursuing higher education.
13
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
References
Audretsch, D.B., Link, A.N., & Scott, J.T. (2002). Public/private technology
partnerships: evaluating SBIR-supported research. Research Policy, 31, 145-158
Chaddock, G.R. (1992, November23). Universities pin hopes on partners. The Christian
Science Monitor. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers
Higher Education for Democracy: A Report of the President's Commission on Higher
Education. Vol. 1, Establishing the Goals (New York, 1947), pp. 1-3, 5-8, 25-29,
32-39, 47-49. Retrieved from
http://courses.education.illinois.edu/eol474/sp98/truman.html
Hughes, T. P. (1979). Emerging these in the history of technology. Technology and Culture, 20(4), 697-711.
Leyesdorff, L. (2006). The knowledge-based economy and the triple helix model
[Image]. Retrieved from http://www.leydesdorff.net/thmodel/
Leyesdorff, L., & Etzkowitz, H. (1996). Emergence of a triple helix of university-
industry-government relations. Science and Public Policy, 23(5), 279-286. Doi:
10.1093/spp/23.5.279
Lin, J. (2010). Top 10 college dropouts. Retrieved from www.time.com
Link, A.N., & Scott, J.T. (2001). Public/private partnerships: stimulating competition in
a dynamic market. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19, 763-704.
Lions, R.D. (1980, January 13). Improving the mousetraps at the U.S. patent office. The
New York Times. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers
14
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms
at public research institutions: Managerial and Policy Implications. Research
Policy, 34(7), 981-993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.010.
Mendoza, P. (2007). Academic capitalism and doctoral student socialization: A case
study. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 71-96.
O’Shea, R.P., Allen, T.J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation,
technology transfer and spinorr performance of U.S. universities. Research
Policy, 34, 994-1009.
Powers, J.B., & McDougall P.P. (2005). University start-up formation and technology
licensing with firms that go public: a resource-based view of academic
entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291-311.
Rae-Dupree, J. (2008, September 7). When academia puts profits ahead of wonder. The
New York Times. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical Newspapers.
Rosenberg, N. (1970). Economic development and the transfer of technology: Some historical perspectives. Technology and Culture, 11(4), 550-575.
Sherrod, P. (1987, October 12). Academicians, small firms getting down to business in
high-technology. The Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from ProQuest Historical
Newspapers.
Shinn, T. (2002). The triple helix and new production of Knowledge: Prepackaged
thinking on science and technology. Social Studies of Science, 32 (4), 599-614.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press
Small Business Innovation Development Act, Public Law 97-219, 97th Congress (1982)
15
Invention, Innovation, Migration Hudson
Toole, A.A., & Czarnitzki, D. (2007). Biomedical academic entrepreneurship through
the SBIR program. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 716-738.
Truman, H.S. (1949). Inaugural Address. Retrieved from www.trumanlibrary.org
Van Looy, B., Callaert, J., & Debackere, K. (2006). Publication and patent behavior of
academic researchers: Conflicting, reinforcing or merely co-existing? Research
Policy, 35, 506-608.
16