Beyond Academic Capitalism: Innovation and Entrepreneurship As Institutional Ethos at a Public Research University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: BEYOND ACADEMIC CAPITALISM: INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS INSTITUTIONAL ETHOS AT A PUBLIC RESEARCH UNIVERSITY Kevin R. McClure, Doctor of Philosophy, 2014 Dissertation Directed by: Professor Nelly Stromquist International Education Policy Program Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education The theory of academic capitalism provides a cogent explanation of the actors, organizations, and networks that initiated a shift in U.S. higher education from a “public good knowledge/learning regime” to an emerging “academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime.” In the academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime, the claims of entrepreneurs, administrators, and corporations—amidst amplified market forces—have come to supersede the claims of the public. Research thus far has not analyzed the process by which the multiple levels of higher education institutions adopt values and norms of the academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime. Using case study methodology, this dissertation empirically examines the development and dissemination of an institutional ethos that, consistent with the theory of academic capitalism, has attributed great importance to innovation and entrepreneurship at a public doctoral/research-intensive university in the United States between 1998 and 2013. Specifically, I am interested in explaining why this ethos was initiated and supported by university leaders and how it has been translated into incentives for faculty members and academic opportunities for undergraduate students. Therefore, this dissertation traces academic capitalism as a multi-level process at one higher education institution. The findings demonstrate that meanings ascribed to innovation and entrepreneurship vary across the campus. However, there is a preponderance of language and examples derived from the for-profit sector. The individuals on campus instrumental in crafting the innovation and entrepreneurship ethos were central administrators, particularly presidents and provosts. The main motivations for supporting the ethos were generating revenue in the future, continuing a land-grant tradition of service to the state, and attempting to keep pace with institutional peers and garner prestige. Efforts to translate the ethos into incentives for faculty have been limited in scope and mainly cater to disciplines in sciences, engineering, and technology. However, there is clearly emphasis placed on developing the entrepreneurial mindset in undergraduate students. The implications of these incentives and academic opportunities are analyzed, suggesting possible outcomes of innovation and entrepreneurship as institutional ethos. BEYOND ACADEMIC CAPITALISM: INNOVATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP AS INSTITUTIONAL ETHOS AT A PUBLIC RESEARCH UNIVERSITY by Kevin R. McClure Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2014 Advisory Committee: Professor Nelly Stromquist, Chair Professor Steven Klees Professor KerryAnn O’Meara Professor Judith Torney-Purta Professor Juan Uriagereka ©Copyright by Kevin R. McClure 2014 DEDICATION To my mother, Kathleen McClure: the original educator who taught me how to write. To my father, David McClure: the traveler who revealed the joys of being lost in thought. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, "What the hell is water?" -David Foster Wallace There are numerous individuals who, over the course of the last five years, have helped me to develop a better understanding of the world—in essence, to be conscious of the water. I am indebted to the scholars who have devoted themselves to a life of the mind. This dissertation is a humble contribution to the literature, building upon the foundation they laid. My thinking and writing bears the indelible mark of my wonderful adviser, Nelly Stromquist. I am thankful for her support when I decided to radically redirect my research back to higher education, and for seeing value in my project. The fact that I am writing these acknowledgements at all is a testament to the strong relationship we have developed over the years. I am sincerely appreciative of the time and effort of my committee members, Steve Klees, Judith Torney-Purta, KerryAnn O’Meara, and Juan Uriagereka. Your feedback and regular conversations helped me transform the broad contours of an idea into a piece of scholarship. Much of the data collected for this dissertation was made possible by my graduate assistantship. My colleagues in this office facilitated many conversations and welcomed me in meetings that opened doors to rich sources of data. Additionally, they provided much needed morale. To Betty Wineke, Andrea Foster-Goltz, Rebecca Follman, Mark Arnold, and Steve Marcus—thank you. iii In many ways, it takes a village to survive a graduate program. My village was enriched by some fantastic peers. Many thanks to my unofficial mentor, D. Brent Edwards, Jr., as well as Sachi Edwards, for all of the help along the way. Caitlin Haugen served as my informal academic and professional adviser, and I am grateful for her guidance. Thanks also to David Balwanz, Amanda Fogle-Donmoyer, and Matt Aruch. To my best friend, Damien Franze, there are not strong enough words to express my gratitude. You believed that I could do this more than I did at times. I look forward to repaying you over the years. My family has been steadfastly supportive during my time as a perpetual student, even when they had no idea what I was doing. I am deeply appreciative that Allison Haedt, Chris Haedt, Ryan McClure, Cheryl Simmons, Kirk Simmons, and Jeff Simmons never once questioned why I was doing this. Most importantly, to my wife, Kati: thank you for reminding me that there is so much more to life than academic research. For ensuring I did not take myself too seriously. For listening to me talk about this for years. For putting up with my absences. For keeping me organized. For assuaging my fears. For being there. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION .................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi CHAPTER .......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 Key Concepts .................................................................................................................. 3 The market/marketization ............................................................................................ 4 Privatization/corporatization ....................................................................................... 6 Informational/knowledge-based economy .................................................................. 8 Neoliberalism/the neoliberal state ............................................................................. 10 Higher Education’s Shifting Political-Economic Landscape ........................................ 11 Public universities and the national innovation system ............................................. 12 University education as a private good...................................................................... 18 Aftershocks: Implications of Tectonic Shifts among Public Universities .................... 22 Research and administrative expansion ..................................................................... 22 The academic profession and teaching quality .......................................................... 23 The accountability movement ................................................................................... 25 Rising tuition and student indebtedness .................................................................... 26 Overview of the Theory of Academic Capitalism ........................................................ 27 Problem and Purpose ..................................................................................................... 29 Scope and Significance ................................................................................................. 32 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 34 Theoretical Foundations ................................................................................................ 35 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 38 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 40 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 42 Introduction ..................................................................................................................