Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Who and When is Private? Exploring the Edges of Public-‐ness at an Interdisciplinary Research Institute Noah Weeth Feinstein, Daniel Lee Kleinman, Greg Downey Understanding Innova/ve Science: The Case of the Wisconsin Ins/tutes for Discovery
Is contemporary science more… PUBLIC?
Greater social relevance and accountability, more input from non-‐
scienFsts.
PRIVATE? Greater collaboraFon with industry, more entwined
with economic development and capital.
The Wisconsin Institutes for Discovery
• The convergence of public, WARF, and private donor money – and interests
• Provoked by poliFcal/scienFfic crisis and modeled, in part, on private university success stories
• TWO insFtutes sharing a building • A private non-‐profit (Morgridge InsFtute for Research) • A public university affiliate (Wisconsin insFtute for Discovery)
• A third enFty, the “Town Center” occupies the boWom floor
Beyond Commercialization: Science, Higher Educationand the Culture of Neoliberalism
Daniel Lee Kleinman • Noah Weeth Feinstein • Greg Downey
! Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Since the 1980s, scholars and others have been engaged in a lively debate aboutthe virtues and dangers of mingling commerce with university science. In this paper, wecontend that the commercialization of academic science, and higher education morebroadly, are best understood as pieces of a larger story. We use two cases of institutionalchange at the University of Wisconsin-Madison to shed light on the implications of neo-liberalism for public research universities in the United States. We conclude that instead ofneoliberalization being a timely strategy for the specific fiscal and other problems facingpublic universities today, it has become an omnibus solution available to be employedwhen any opportunity arises and, in fact, helps to define the ‘‘problems’’ of the universityin the first place.
1 Introduction
How should we respond to the mingling of commerce and university science? Since the1980s, scholars, journalists, and others have raised alarms about the growing commercialpressure on academic science and higher education (American Association of UniversityProfessors 1983; Shenk 1999; Krimsky 2003; Washburn 2006). Their overarching themehas been a deep concern for the communal and collegial norms said to characterizeuniversity settings—norms that may be threatened by the incursion of private industry. Notall commentators are alarmed, however. Wielding concepts such as ‘‘the triple helix’’
D. L. Kleinman (&)Department of Community and Environmental Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison,WI 53706, USAe-mail: [email protected]
N. W. FeinsteinDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706,USA
G. DowneySchool of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI53706, USA
123
Sci & EducDOI 10.1007/s11191-012-9482-4
Author's personal copy
Public/private
TODAY • Public/private is not one demarcaFon but many. How do these dividing lines shape the pracFce and profile of science?
• Hybrid organizaFons that are created to bridge barriers may, in pracFce, make new ones.
“…a bold vision of an interdisciplinary research insFtute, bringing together a public and a private insFtute under one roof, creaFng something more nimble than just a public insFtute in terms of the types of research, the collaboraFon that could occur -‐ and really seeking the best pracFces… (AusFn interview 8-‐18-‐10)
“Public” means many things
Public Science
Public Private
Public space, private space
“…the whole first floor is devoted, really, in my view, to serving both the university as well as broader public. There are also so-‐called embedded teaching labs on the upper three floors that will be set out… to facilitate outreach in essence enabling the public to hopefully interact with the invesFgators in the building, as well in the broader campus.” (Yin 4/22/10)
Private access: In-‐group/out-‐group
Non-‐insFtute faculty, staff and students can’t enter without accompaniment Faculty and students are separated from their departments by a locking door
I get concerned about key card access… this is a very ineffecFve way of doing interdisciplinary or engulfing research, where we’re trying to bring lots of people through. I think any barriers, physical or however, that you provide are actually likely to be detrimental to that. (Ferris 5/28/10)
Public institute, private institute
“…you run into rules, so how do you treat this private partner, that he’s not really UW, but if we don’t treat him like a partner and give him access to certain things, we’re not going to be able to do what we need to do.” (Millar 4/4/10)
“I can literally walk across the line and do something in that part of the building that I can’t do when I am on the public side.” (Spangler 10/7/10)
Who is public?
The general public (vs. “science”)
Non-‐insFtute scienFsts
Public insFtute faculty & staff
Private insFtute f & s
The meaning of “public” and membership in that group becomes rela/ve, depending on who you are talking to and what you are talking about.
When is private?
Structures designed to reveal and obscure embody the need for these shiis from public to private within each level of the insFtutes.
“what we did was we took a frosFng on the glass… When you stand up, I can see you. When I’m standing up, I’m in transiFon mode, I’m making my way out…” (Spangler 10/7/10)
Why does all of this matter?
UniversiFes and academic research
The private sector and policy clients
What we WANT hybrid organizaFons to do…
In pracFce, they create new boundaries, material and social, that can restrict the flow of ideas and people
They also add to, rather than replace, exisFng means of translaFon. We are seeing early signs that this causes tension and even crisis.
What’s next?
• Looking back: how was the rhetoric of public and private used as a resource in the creaFon of the insFtutes?
• Looking ahead: How are these new hybrid enFFes perceived – and influenced – by their stakeholders? When they hold events, programs, press-‐releases, Who speaks and who listens?
• How do the boundaries change over Fme? • WID courts entrepreneurs and the private sector
• Are these enFFes what they appear to be? • A natural experiment – the games group switches from one side to the other – ironically (?), because it gives them more freedom (e.g., w/r/t non-‐biomedical themes)
Questions? [email protected]
