Slaughter, Sheila and Rhoades, Gary. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Reviewed by Rebecca Barber, Arizona State University

Slaughter, Sheila and Rhoades, Gary. (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy: Markets, State and Higher Education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Pp. xii +370 $39.95   ISBN 0-8018-7949-3 Reviewed by Rebecca Barber Arizona State University January 3, 2006 Commercialism in higher education is not a new topic; it has been covered by a number of authors focusing on research (Etzkowitz, Webster & Healey (1998)), interaction with industry (Soley (1995)), marketing (Kirp (2003)), and sports-related commercial ventures (Sperber (2000)). This book, however, takes a different and more sophisticated approach. Sheila Slaughter and Larry Leslie wrote the first book on this topic in 1997: Academic Capitalism: Policies, Politics and the Entrepreneurial University. At that time they focused on research universities in the U.S., U.K., Canada, and Australia, looking primarily at technology transfer activities. The definition of academic capitalism remains the same: “…the pursuit of market and market-like activities to generate external revenues” (p. 11). But this definition is too simplistic a summary for Academic Capitalism and the New Economy. Slaughter and Rhoades focus heavily on the blurred lines between markets, states and higher education, as well as the entities and actors who span and blur those boundaries. In this book Slaughter has a new writing partner and puts forth a formalized theory of academic capitalism. The focus of Slaughter and Rhoades’ research is strictly public and not-for-profit institutions in the U.S., but the topics are more thoroughly investigated and the conclusions more nuanced than in the first, more broadly focused volume. While considerable attention (Chapters 3 and 4) is paid to patent issues and technology transfer, chapters 5 and 6 are devoted to exploring the issues around copyright and its impact on instruction, educational materials, and courseware. Chapter 7 is devoted to departmental market activities such as on-line programs, professional Masters degrees and independent development officers. Another (Chapter 8) is devoted to activity at the level of Administrators and Trustees, with focus on the networks that link these managers to the new economy. Finally, two chapters are devoted to students as both the target market and what is being marketed. The first of these chapters, Chapter 10, deals with the status of students as a captive market once they enroll and the way institutions take advantage of the situation to make money through deals with outside companies. The second, Chapter 11, discusses the activities involved in recruiting students and the ways in which marketing is directed at current and potential students. Immediately following the introduction is a chapter covering the policies and politics that enable the move to academic capitalism. Slaughter and Rhoades divide policy into two principal groups, focusing first on student financial aid and then on research, patent and intellectual property policies. These two sets of policies show some interaction in the growth of academic capitalism, and familiarity with the political and policy environment provides a good foundation for the more specific subjects enumerated above. While Slaughter and Rhoades do not spend an extensive amount of time discussing or defining the “New Economy,” they do touch on the characteristics most relevant to colleges and universities. First among these characteristics is the global scope of the new economy. Globalization increases complexity in all types of transactions and produces a greater reliance on technology to support those transactions. While universities have long formed global learning communities and made contact with colleagues in far away lands, this new globalization brings with it increased choice for students, increased mobility in the global labor force and increased technologically enabled delivery of instruction than had previously been possible. They also see the growth of what they refer to as “non-Fordist manufacturing” as an issue. In short, this is the move away from mass production, out of an industrial economy and into a knowledge-based economy. This change appears in areas such as the management of faculty, as both the growth of part-time, adjunct or non-tenure track faculty and the unbundling of professorial work in areas such as on-line or distance education. However the change also impacts the next key characteristic, the need for educated workers and technology savvy consumers. The changing nature of the majority of work has caused a change in the nature of the undergraduate curricula. Business has become the most popular field while science, engineering, medicine, and law have all seen substantial growth in order “to create and protect knowledge-based products, processes and services” (p. 19). Further, students are exposed to blatant consumerism and new technology throughout their college experience, such as mini-malls in student unions and the use of colleges as technology test beds. The final key new economy concept is that of knowledge as a raw material. “Corporations in the new economy treat advanced knowledge as a raw material that can be claimed through legal devices, owned, and marketed as a product or service” (p. 17). The implications of this change are staggering, since it is the key change that has moved us from what the authors previously saw as a “public good” paradigm to one of “academic capitalism”. As the authors define it, “the public good knowledge regime was characterized by valuing knowledge as a public good to which the citizenry has claims” (p. 28). This is directly in conflict with the view of knowledge as something that can be owned. Slaughter and Rhoades point out that the change values privatization and profit making, and gives the institution, faculty inventor, and potentially corporations claim on this newly created knowledge over and above any claim made by the public. The authors do not see one regime as having replaced the other but do see an overlap and uncomfortable intersection of the two. That intersection has led to a substantive change in the way institutions are run and the reasons behind many of the decisions they make. One feature of the new economy is increased complexity, scale, and the need for specialization, all of which is grounded in the global scope of the new economy and move away from a mass-production model. While the historic role of faculty was comprehensive (anything related to the instruction and academic progress of a student was under their purview), the tools used were simpler and easily learned. As we evolve from chalkboards through overhead projectors and Powerpoint to HTML and Flash, the need for professionals to assist faculty greatly increases. The same applies to patent and copyright lawyers, who work in a constantly evolving field that requires the expertise of a professional to navigate. Slaughter and Rhoades attempt to make the case that the very need for these types of professionals is a concern. It is only through the transition of knowledge from being public to it being private that these roles even become necessary. The authors acknowledge that this is not a change that can be easily undone, and this concept of privatized knowledge is as much a part of the new economy as the technology that symbolizes it. The authors use a standard set of lenses to view each subject and present their findings in a structure that uses each lens in turn. They begin with a look at the “New Circuits of Knowledge” that have been created during the move to the new economy. The implication here is that we have moved away from teaching being the work of faculty and peer review being an activity for academics to one where the administration and industry play a larger role. The influence of different rating systems (such as U.S. News and World Report) on how schools choose to allocate their resources in order to compete is another example. With these connections established, the authors move on to examine the internal changes caused or encouraged by the new economy requirements as well as the organizations that mediate between universities and colleges and industry. Finally the authors look at the enhanced managerial capabilities emerging to deal with these new economy functions. One concept that the authors return to repeatedly is the intermediation of non-faculty professionals in the education process. The authors cast the use of these managerial staff in a negative light, implying for example that faculty should be making the decisions about the purchase of technology for use in instruction (p. 318). This presumes, however, both the interest and the technical knowledge to make good decisions of this type. Given the complexity of the technology involved, it is unlikely that most faculty have either the technical knowledge or the desire to acquire the knowledge needed to make these decisions. The author’s implication is that by giving up control of these decisions, faculty give up control of the options and ultimately the pedagogy of classes that use the tool. Yet it seems clear that the best use of faculty time is in creating content and learning to take advantage of the capabilities of the available tools rather than burying themselves in the technical minutia of choosing the tool itself. They conclude by illuminating their concerns with the new market-oriented activities of universities. The blurring of boundaries between the public and private sectors is seen as an issue due to the heavy subsidization that occurs for university research and the fact that universities are not particularly effective or efficient entrepreneurs. There are also concerns about the extent of patent and copyright use, as the development of knowledge becomes more “propertized” (owned) and less available for enhancement of the public knowledge base. They would at least like to see more thought to the public good being put into the type of research projects chosen; there is no need for universities to research cosmetic products when pharmaceutical companies will do that themselves. However, there is a great need to research AIDs vaccines and other types of less profitable items that would have a great deal of social benefit. The authors also see issues arising related to educational equity and access as schools pursue students who can pay regardless of whether they were inadequately served before. Examples of this include new professional programs and on-line programs that are targeted at working adults, theoretically taking resources from underserved populations. “The heavy attendance of low-income and minority students at community colleges is in part a reflection of the marketing strategies of elite colleges and universities” (p. 335). However it is difficult to make a strong case that resources are being taken away when there are far more low-income and minority students in higher education than at any time in the past. Finally, they see less interaction with the community as institutions expand their focus to the global market. Slaughter and Rhoades touch on the replacement of full-time faculty with part-time and contingent faculty, turning over the bulk of the teaching to those who have fewer vested interests and are not as stably involved with the institution. These faculty also are given fewer resources and are less available to students. In addition, the extensive growth of middle management, specifically “managerial non-faculty professionals who manage infrastructure, economic development, endowment, and entrepreneurial activities” (p. 332), is less focused on what they see as the core mission of the university, teaching and instruction. The authors see a core shift in why students come to college and the mission of the institution. “The idea of a college or university as a space for public discussion, debate, commentary, and critique is pushed to the background. Instead, colleges and universities focus increasingly on preparing students for new economy employment” (p. 333). Again, the question comes to mind as to whether these concepts cannot be accomplished concurrently. There is nothing inherent in a program directed toward gainful employment that silences debate or critique; rather the opposite as more companies list communication skills and problem-solving skills as critical for employees. The authors place much of the blame for the presented problems on a set of changing societal values. They write about a state that “focuses not on social welfare for the citizenry as a whole but on enabling individuals as economic actors. To that end … states move resources from social welfare to production functions” (p. 20). This is one of the classic objections to neoliberal economics and as such is an ideology as much as an argument. The counter is that by moving resources to production we make the resources available in the future to improve social welfare. Which ideology is more convincing is left to the reader. While obviously concerned about these issues, the authors are also realistic. They see a change from what, at the time of the Slaughter and Leslie book, was referred to as the profit motive “encroaching” on institutions to it having become embedded. They understand that academic capitalism is unlikely to go away and does have some potential benefits if implemented with more care. A change in focus from pure monetary profit to one of social profit and advancement could go a long way toward addressing many of their concerns, as could bringing the global economic focus back to a local one through programs that address local issues (e.g., combining ESL and computer technology classes, as they suggest). The authors do miss some of the efforts to educate faculty about these issues and their rights that organizations such as the Association of American Universities and the Associations of Research Libraries have started. They portray faculty as often oblivious to the changes when in many cases they are driving them. They also miss the point that it is only through providing faculty the opportunity to be entrepreneurs and get some personal gain from their research that the same faculty have stayed within the academy rather than left for private industry. This could even be to society’s benefit since the faculty are then available to train new generations of researchers. Academic Capitalism and the New Economy is a very thorough, nuanced coverage of the issues but not at all accessible to the average reader. Between the off-putting and confusing vocabulary (ranging from neologisms such as “marketizing,” “propertized,” and the like) to esoteric terms (such as “academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime” and “neoliberal state”) and the dry tone (broken up with the occasional economics pun just to see if the reader is still paying attention) this would be a slow and difficult read for a nonacademic. Given the importance to the academy of the issues it presents, one hopes eventually to see a more treatment of these issues that can appeal to a wider audience. References Castells, M. (1996 - 2000). The information age: Economy, society and culture. Volumes 1 - 3. Malden, MA, Blackwell Publishers. Delany, J. E. (1997). "Commercialism in Intercollegiate Athletics." Educational Record, 78(1): 39-44. Dill, D. D. (1997). "Higher Education Markets and Public Policy." Higher Education Policy 10(3-4): 167-185. Etzkowitz, H., A. Webster, P. Healy (Eds.). (1998). Capitalizingknowledge: New interactions of industry and academe. Albany, NY, SUNY Press. Kirp, D. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education. Boston, MA, Harvard University Press Slaughter, S. and Leslie. L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD, The Johns Hopkins University Press. Sperber, M. (2000). Beer and Circus:How Big-time College Sports Is Crippling Undergraduate Education. New York, NY, Henry Holt & Company. Soley, L. (1995). Leasing the ivory tower: The corporate takeover of academia. Boston, MA, South End Press. About the Reviewer Rebecca Barber is a PhD student in the Education Leadership and Policy Studies program at Arizona State University. Her research interests include the economics of higher education, the transition from secondary to post-secondary education, and the businesses that surround and profit from education at all levels. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review.