Faculty and Administrators' Attitudes toward Potential Conflicts of Interest, Commitment, and Equity in University-Industry Relationships
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 (Campbell, 1995, 1997; Campbell & Slaughter, 1999; Slaughter & Rhoades, 1996). 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. Ample literature has tracked this activity between academics and industry, particularly since the late 1970s (Blumenthal, Campbell, Anderson, Causino, & Louis, 1997; Blumenthal, Campbell, Causino, & Louis, 1996a, 1996b; Blumenthal, Epstein, & Maxwell, 1986; Blumenthal, Gluck, Louis, & Wise, 1986a, 1986b; Bowie, 1994; Braxton & Bayer, 1996; Dooris & Fairweather, 1994; Etzkowitz, 1983, 1990, 1992, 1993; Fairweather, 1988, 1989, 1993; Fassin, 1991; Feller, 1992; Hackett, 1990; Lambright & Rahm, 1992; Lee, 1994, 1995; Louis, Anderson, & Rosenberg, 1995; Louis, Blumenthal, Gluck, & Stoto, 1989; Rahm, 1994a, 1994b; Wood, 1992; Zuckerman, 1993). Those in favor of increased interaction suggest that, for the most part, faculty and administrators(1) 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, 1984; Florig, 1986; Luton & Zinke, 1989; Rhoades & Slaughter, 1991a, 1991b; Slaughter, 1990; Slaughter & Rhoades, 1990). Although faculty involvement in collaborative activity is encouraged by federal sponsors and university leaders (Campbell, 1995, 1997), thus far there is neither a large body of university policy nor professional customs and norms that guide and shape entrepreneurial faculty behavior. Administrators, faculty, and business persons are in the process of establishing new entrepreneurial norms, and this provides a unique opportunity to study the reshaping of professional roles as well as the tensions and conflicts that surround such changes. Some tension between faculty and administrators has been accepted as an enduring part of academic life, but few studies have explored empirically the possibility that differences between the two groups may be amplified when industry enters into the picture. …