Curiosity and commercialization: Faculty perspectives on sponsored research, academic science and research agendas

2009 2009

Other formats: Order a copy

Abstract (summary)

Given the need to compete for sponsored research funding, do university faculty believe they retain the freedom to research what is of most interest to them? The higher education literature frequently asserts that faculty research agendas are being subjugated to the demands of sponsors. An alternate perspective, from the science studies literature, posits that academic science itself is changing as some research faculty adapt to a transformed environment for knowledge production that involves new working relationships with sponsors.

However, this transformation produces an altered conception of academic science that moves away from traditional normative systems such as those proposed by Robert Merton. The literature shows that academic scientists can deviate from traditional norms of research practice, but it is not known to what value systems they are gravitating. This question requires conceptualizing academic science as a social activity, understanding that faculty adaptation involves the construction of new organizing frameworks for science as they integrate conflicting values and experience ambivalence regarding their research demands.

Based on an original survey collecting data from more than 1200 faculty at doctoral/research universities, the study has two areas of foci concerning academic science. The primary question addresses concerns that, owing to the need to locate extramural sponsorship for research, university faculty are losing the ability to determine their own research agendas. Following analysis of multiple conceptions, levels of perceived control in different contexts reveal complex patterns of adaptation and negotiation in relation to external circumstances. A more nuanced understanding of control emerges.

The second question examines the value systems present in academic science— such as those proposed by Merton's norms—in relation to alternate views to determine whether faculty would view different academic values as legitimate or even necessary to perform research. The findings reject the notion of conventional values being predominant, and discrete types within the typology being tested were not supported. The findings indicate that faculty move among multiple value systems when conducting academic science.

Indexing (details)

Education finance;
Science history;
Higher education;
School faculty;
Academic achievement
0277: Education finance
0585: Science history
0745: Higher education
Identifier / keyword
Social sciences; Education; Academic freedom; Academic science; Faculty; Merton, Robert; Research funding; Sociology of science; Sponsored research
Curiosity and commercialization: Faculty perspectives on sponsored research, academic science and research agendas
Perorazio, Thomas E.
Number of pages
Publication year
Degree date
School code
DAI-A 71/02, Dissertation Abstracts International
Place of publication
Ann Arbor
Country of publication
United States
Dey, Eric
University of Michigan
University location
United States -- Michigan
Source type
Dissertations & Theses
Document type
Dissertation/thesis number
ProQuest document ID
Database copyright ProQuest LLC; ProQuest does not claim copyright in the individual underlying works.
Document URL
Access the complete full text

You can get the full text of this document if it is part of your institution's ProQuest subscription.

Try one of the following:

  • Connect to ProQuest through your library network and search for the document from there.
  • Request the document from your library.
  • Go to the ProQuest login page and enter a ProQuest or My Research username / password.