Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Commodification and the Governance of Academic Research

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The new prominence given to science for economic growth and industry comes with an increased policy focus on the promotion of commodification and commercialization of academic science. This paper posits that this increased interest in commodification is a new steering mechanism for governing science. This is achieved by first outlining what is meant by the commodification of scientific knowledge through reviewing a selection of literatures on the concept of commodification. The paper concludes with a discussion of how commodification functions as a means for governing science.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Compensating for market failure is one of the central arguments for public investment in R&D and the rationale is that the state invests in R&D that would be unlikely to or have difficulty in attracting private investors.

References

  • Biagioli, Mario. 2006. Patent republic: Representing inventions, constructing rights and authors social research. Social Research 73: 1129–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böhme, Gernot. 2003. Contribution to the critique of the aesthetic economy. Thesis Eleven 73: 71–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, Michel. 1994. Is science a public good? Science, Technology and Human Values 4: 395–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, Ronald H. 1974. The market for goods and the market for ideas. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 64: 384–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, Roger. 2007. Repairing the deficits of modernity: The emergence of parallel discourses in higher education in Europe. In World yearbook of higher education, eds. Debbie Epstein, Rebecca Boden, Rosemary Deem, Rizvi Fazal, and Susan Wright, 14–31. UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everett, Margaret. 2003. The social life of genes: Privacy, property and the new genetics. Social Science and Medicine 56: 53–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47: 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godelier, Maurice. 1999. The enigma of the gift. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Ronald M. 2001. What does it mean to use someone as “a means only”: Rereading Kant. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11: 247–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, David. 2001. Spaces of capital: Towards a critical geography. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haug, Wolfgang F. [1971] 1986. Critique of commodity aesthetics, trans. R. Bock. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  • Holland, S. 2001. Contested commodities at both ends of life: Buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11: 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katches, Mark, William Heisel, and Ronald Campbell. 2000. Donors don’t realize they are fueling a lucrative business. Orange County Register (16 April). Online at http://www.ocregister.com/health-fitness/features/body/ index.shtml. cited in Holland, Suzanne 2001. Contested commodities at both ends of life: Buying and selling gametes, embryos, and body tissues. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11: 267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaushik Sunder, Rajan. 2006. Biocapital: The constitution of post-genomic life. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, Phillip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy (Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Science). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  • Kleinman, Daniel Lee, and Steven P. Vallas. 2001. Science, capitalism, and the rise of the “Knowledge Worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society 30: 451–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. The cultural biography of things: Commoditization as process. In The social life of things: Commodities in cultural perspective, ed. A. Appadurai. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

  • Krimsky, Sheldon. 2003. Science in the private interest. Has the lure of profits corrupted biomedical research?. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve. 1986. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, USA: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, Jean-Francois. 1991. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge, trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Oxford, UK: Manchester University Press.

  • Mäki, Uskali. 1999. Science as a free market: A reflexivity test in an economics of economics. Perspectives on Science 7: 486–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl. 1990. Capital: A critique of political economy. Trans. Ben Fowkes, vol. 1. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • McSherry, Corynne. 2001. Who owns academic work? Battling for control of intellectual property. USA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, Robert K. 1942. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. Robert K. Merton. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirowski, Philip, and Esther Mirjam-Sent. 2002. Introduction. In Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science, eds. Philip Mirowski, and Esther Mirjam Sent, 1–66. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirowski, Philip, and Robert van Horn. 2005. The contract research organization and the commercialization of scientific research. Social Studies of Science 35: 503–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, Ian. 1986. Gift and commodity in archaic Greece. Man 21: 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, Jason. 2003. From separate systems to a hybrid order: Accumulative advantage across Public and Private Sciences at Research One Universities. Research Policy 32: 1081–1104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pestre, Dominique. 2005. The technosciences between markets, social worries and the political: How to imagine a better future? In The public nature of science under assault: Politics, markets, science and the law, eds. Helga Nowotny, Domique Pestre, Eberhard Schmidt-Aßmann, Helmut Schultze-Fielitz, and Hans-Heinrich Trute. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, Amit. 2009. Capitalizing disease: Biopolitics of drug trials in India. Theory, Culture & Society 26: 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radin, Margaret. 1996. Contested commodities: Trouble with trade in sex, children, body parts and other things. Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhoten, Diana, and William Powell. 2007. The frontiers of intellectual property: Expanded protection vs. new models of open science. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 3: 345–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip, Arie. 1994. The republic of science in the 1990s. Higher Education 28: 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, Donald S., Mike Wright, and Andy Lockett. 2007. The rise of entrepreneurial activity at universities: Organizational and societal implications. Industrial and Corporate Change 16(4): 489–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P.E. 1996. The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature 34: 1199–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrift, Nigel. 2006. Re-inventing invention: New tendencies in capitalist commodification. Economy and Society 35(2): 279–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinic, Serra A. 1997. United colors and untied meanings: Benetton and the commodification of social issues. Journal of Communication 47: 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, Stephen. 2002. Scientists as agents. In Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science, eds. P. Mirowski, and E. Mirjam Sent, 362–384. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentin, Finn, and Rasmus Lund Jensen. 2006. Effects on academia–industry collaboration of extending university property rights. The Journal of Technology Transfer 32(3): 251–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walstad, Allan. 2002. On science as a free market. Perspectives on Science 9: 324–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, Burton, Jeffrey Ballou, and Evelyn Asch. 2008. Mission and money: Understanding the university. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, Colin. 2002. A critical evaluation of the commodification thesis. The Sociological Review 525–542.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Research Policy Institute/CIRCLE, Lund University, PO Box 117, 22100, Lund, Sweden

    Merle Jacob

  2. Centre for Technology, Innovation and Culture, Oslo University, PO Box 1108, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway

    Merle Jacob

Authors
  1. Merle Jacob
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Merle Jacob.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jacob, M. On Commodification and the Governance of Academic Research. Minerva 47, 391–405 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9134-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-009-9134-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation