Search results

Purpose – University–industry relationships raise concerns about the influence of commercial interests on academic science. In this paper, we investigate how academic scientists who collaborate with industry understand their professional identity in relation to their research money and the notion of scientific “independence.”

Design/Methodology/Approach – We conducted in-depth interviews with 84 scientists and 65 administrators from 9 U.S. universities. The scientists do research in the field of agricultural biotechnology and collaborate with industry. The administrators have oversight responsibility for academic research, university–industry collaborations, and technology transfer.

Findings – We find that our respondents are wary of industry funding but believe that it has an appropriate place in academic research. Typically, industry money is treated either as seed money for preliminary research or as flexible funding that supplements the core, essential competitive grants academic scientists obtain from public agencies. We find that academic scientists talk about the mix of public and private funds in their research funding portfolios in ways that aim to construct an “independent” investigator professional identity.

Originality/Value – Our study is a case of how money is inscribed with meanings in institutional settings. It contributes to scholarship in economic sociology of work by revealing how money is used by academic scientists to signal their alignment with institutionally sanctioned professional norms and by administrators to evaluate scientists' work.

Starting in the late 1950s with the creation of the National Council of University Research Administrators (NCURA), followed by the formation of other professional organisations both in the USA and Europe, there was a growing sense that research management was indeed a profession. One goal was the creation of professional standards that would lead to a standard training curriculum and, ultimately, a professional credential, and there have been many attempts at developing research administration certification. Now, in the US, accreditation through the Research Administrators Certification Council (RACC) exam has become ubiquitous, whereas in other parts of the world, certification by portfolio is more common. This chapter will compare and contrast the salient features of certification, certificates, and degree programs in research administration and review their development and growth over the past 30 years. The chapter will discuss their relative merits and how they work to advance the profession of research administration.

This chapter explores the empirical and empathetic approaches employed by a group of fieldworkers from Japan who collaborated with individuals from different parts of Southeast Asia. Their objective was to address shared societal challenges and mentor the next generation of future talents. Additionally, research administrators at Kyoto University conducted an online survey and organized study group meetings focused on Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) coordination, engaging approximately 700 partners in ASEAN. While formal job guidelines for hiring full-time research administrators are rare in the region, many researchers and government officials in ASEAN recognised the importance of these coordination skills and values in advancing STI projects. Coordinating ASEAN-Japan projects has demonstrated that practical experiences with skilled professionals and strong interpersonal skills aligned with Asian cultural values that prioritize conscience and altruism. As a next step, the region will require appropriate human resource training and assessment programs tailored to local STI needs.

Based on a review of professional staff (PS), which includes research managers and administrators, in 54 academic publications, I propose a novel definition for this category of staff: ‘degree holding university employees who are primarily responsible for developing, maintaining and changing the social, digital and physical infrastructures that enable education, research and knowledge exchange’. The proposed definition facilitates the development of new research questions that target the level of the organisational fields of higher education and science, to complement research on the university and individual levels. This view supports the study of the contributions of PS to higher education and science. I anticipate that such a broader focus will help to counter and nuance accounts of ‘administrative bloat’ by focusing on how PS as a group shape and are shaped by the organisational fields of higher education and science, rather than dismissing them as superfluous or parasitic.

Historically, academia, typically universities have had two major groups of professionals. One is those who are responsible for teaching and research, including university professors, associate professors, researchers, research assistants, etc. The other is the administrative staff who are responsible for administrative tasks. Both groups have existed since the inception of a university.

As societal expectations of universities have evolved, so has the need for professionals with advanced skills, who are often referred to as Research Managers and Administrators (RMAs) or University Research Administrators (URAs). In Japan, the profession is called URA because it was modelled after the American system in the beginning of its formation. In India, on the other hand, it is often referred to as RMA because of its reference to the United Kingdom. In this chapter, we will use the term RMA as a consistent term. In Asia, the trend of increasing need for this profession has been increasing over the past decade, starting around the 2010s.

This section provides an overview of the history and background that resulted in the current situation surrounding RMAs, as well as a future prospect in the six Asian countries featured in this book: China, India, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, and Vietnam.

This study documents a new case of the further commercialization of the university, the rapid adoption of corporate partnership programs (CPPs) within centralized university career services departments. CPPs function as a type of headhunting agency. For an annual fee they facilitate a corporate hiring department’s direct access to student talent, allowing the company to outsource much of its hiring tasks to the university career center. CPPs are a feature found predominantly, though not exclusively, on campuses where there is a highly rationalized logic around the economic benefits of academic science. Further, CPPs represent a commercialization of practice that is in tension with the student-development mission of traditional career counselors. Using an inhabited institutionalist approach, we show how the models differ and how staff on each side attempt to negotiate their competing roles in the multiversity environment. We also discuss some of the potential impact on students, on the career services profession, and on college-to-work pathways.

HBCUs are significant in their number and in the number of minority students they graduate annually. They are located across Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. They make up approximately 3% of the nation's institutions of postsecondary education. In 2001, they enrolled more than 14% of all Black students in higher education, and more than 30% of Blacks graduated with a baccalaureate degree, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (2004). There are 40 four-year public institutions, 49 four-year private institutions, 11 two-year public institutions, and 5 two-year private institutions. North Carolina has 11 HBCUs, more than any other state. Alabama has nine HBCUs, and Georgia and South Carolina have eight each. Both Mississippi and Texas have seven HBCUs. The first HBCU, Cheyney University, was founded in 1837. It was followed by two other historically Black institutions, Lincoln University in Pennsylvania (1854) and Wilberforce University in Ohio (1856).