1. Thomas E. Perorazio
Post-Doctoral Research Fellow
The University of Michigan
Association for the Study of Higher Education
Denver ,CO
April 30, 2010
A Steady State?:Faculty Perceptions of Academic Science and
Self-Directed Research
2. 2 Primary Research Questions
To what extent do university faculty feel the process for obtaining
research sponsorship is compromising their ability to control their
own research agenda?
______________________________________
What factors predict the level of control over research agendas
that faculty indicate they possess?
2
3. Theoretical Perspectives
Science Studies
Content vs. context of science
Transformation of Academic Science
Changing processes for knowledge production
Institutionalism
Faculty alter science by adaptation
3
4. Study
Original Survey Instrument; Online Admin.
Sample of 4,540 faculty nationwide
Pool of 252 Doctoral/ Research universities
5 disciplinary areas
Engineering, Medical/Health, Biological, Physical, & Social
Sciences
1,210 responses
4
5. Control Over Research Agendas
EXAMINED TWO WAYS
Scale for Self-Directed Research
Control Scenarios
5
6. Analytical Model
6
7. Friday, April 30, 2010
7
Note: 1 = Low Control, 5= High Control
8. Self-Directed Research
8
9. Group Differences (ANOVAs)
Positive associations with control
Female
No industry experience
Working at private institution
No knowledge of commercial science activity/processes
No industry funding
Government research support had mixed effects
Note: Means sharing a subscript are significantly different. Effect
size: 2 = 0.10.
Higher scores indicate higher control
10. OLS Regression: Self-Directed Research
Significant Predictors
Knowledge of/Involvement in CS(-, -)
Pressure to produce CS outcomes(-)
Req. to offset salary w/ external funds(-)
Univ offers financial support for research(+)
Industry funding sources(-)
Discipline: Engineering (ref: Soc Sci)(-)
Private institution(+)
10
11. Control: Theoretical Scenarios
11
12. Scenarios, Paired Comparisons
12
13. Control Scenarios
Few high scores overall
Means for freedom from interference measures higher than those for
autonomy (for all disciplines)
Engineering different from other disciplines (usually lower
control)
Social scientists low on affirmative measures, highest on
overcoming interference
13
14. Scenarios, by Discipline
15. Control (Findings)
Control as complete autonomy (Curiosity-based research) was NOT the
prevailing definition
Control not a steady-state. Context matters:
Discipline, Policies, Funding sources, Experience/Knowledge re:
commercial activity
Overcoming sponsor influence more common (realistic?) than having
control over problem choice
15
16. Implications, Policy & Practice
Faculty have strong tolerance for ambiguity
Faculty seek healthy engagement with sponsors
Control is moderate overall
Networks of collaboration matter
16
17. Implications, Theory & Research
Social relations of knowledge production critical
Should seek evidence of reflexive adaptation
Move beyond heroic view of science
More complex construct for control is required
17
18. More Complex Representation of Control
18
19. Limitations/ Suggestions
Need a more complicated construct for control in quantitative
studies
Qualitative studies could examine constructs in more depth; case
studies of collaborations
Seek evidence of institutionalization of alternate value
systems
19
20. Questions ?????
Thomas E. Perorazio
Slides uploaded to www.slideshare.net
The University of Michigan [email protected]
20
