Is the academic Ivory Tower becoming a managed structure? A nested analysis of the variance in activities of researchers from natural sciences and engineering in Canada | Scientometrics Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Is the academic Ivory Tower becoming a managed structure? A nested analysis of the variance in activities of researchers from natural sciences and engineering in Canada

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As an adaptation to its new environment, universities have engaged in various organisational innovations and taken a more active role in the orientation of the researcher. The emerging institutional management imposes specific constraints and opportunities for researchers. Thus, the impact of institutional membership, notably on the different institutional policies, is increasingly a dominant force in academic working lives. However, some scholars have argued that the context of researchers remains an Ivory Tower situation, where academic working life is defined through the twin discourse of academic freedom and professional autonomy. This article analyses the activities of research faculty members funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, in comparison to the theories that contribute to the explanation of researchers’ behaviour. By using intra-class correlation, which is based on a multi-level analysis of the variance distribution, we find that the grouping effect is still small. In other words, despite the emerging constraints and opportunities determined by their institutional context, researchers still exist in an Ivory Tower, where the explanation of their behaviour is still a matter of individual differences.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acs, Z. J., Braunerhjelm, P., Braunerhjelm, P., & Carlsson, B. (2009). The knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 32(1), 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, G. (2008). Mapping academic resistance in the managerial university. Organization, 15(2), 251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, D., Johnson, R., & Saha, L. (2002). Changes in academic work: Implications for universities of the changing age distribution and work roles of academic staff. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, M., & elGuebaly, N. (1996). Research productivity among PhD faculty members and affiliates responding to the Canadian Association of Professors of Psychiatry and Canadian Psychiatric Association Survey. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie, 41(8), 509–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azagra Caro, J. M., de Lucio, I. F., & Gutiérrez Gracia, A. (2003). University patents: Output and input indicators…of what? Research Evaluation, 12(1), 5–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N. (2009). Implementing Bayh–Dole-like laws: Faculty problems and their impact on university patenting activity. Research Policy, 38(8), 1217–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35(4), 518–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, J., Chandler, J., & Clark, H. (2001). Between the Ivory Tower and the academic assembly line. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 87–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernardin, H. J. (1996). Academic research under siege: Toward better operational definitions of scholarship to increase effectiveness, efficiencies and productivity. Human Resource Management Review, 6(3), 207–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayol, N., & Matt, M. (2004). Does research organization influence academic production? Laboratory level evidence from a large European university. Research Policy, 33(8), 1081–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P. (2005). Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: Exploring ‘Globalisation 2’—a new model of industry organisation. Research Policy, 34(8), 1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: The construction of advantage. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dai, Y., Popp, D., & Bretschneider, S. (2005). Institutions and intellectual property: The influence of institutional forces on university patenting. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(3), 579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Zilwa, D. (2005). Using entrepreneurial activities as a means of survival: Investigating the processes used by Australian universities to diversify their revenue streams. Higher Education, 50(3), 387–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degroof, J.-J., & Roberts, E. B. (2004). Overcoming weak entrepreneurial infrastructures for academic spin-off ventures. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3–4), 327–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Brisolla, S. N. (1999). Failure and success: The fate of industrial policy in Latin America and South East Asia. Research Policy, 28(4), 337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D., & Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2002). Brokers on the boundary: Academy–industry liaison in Canadian universities. Higher Education, 44, 449–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fox, K. J., & Milbourne, R. (1999). What determines research output of academic economists? Economic Record, 75(230), 256–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frost, S. H., & Teodorescu, D. (2001). Teaching excellence: How faculty guided change at a research university. Review of Higher Education, 24(4), 397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 41(4), 277–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B., & Côté, G. (2002). Funding research: A bibliometric evaluation of the NSERC research grants program. Montréal: Observatoire des sciences et des technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, B., & Henrekson, M. (2003). Bottom-up versus top-down policies towards the commercialization of university intellectual property. Research Policy, 32(4), 639–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, H. (2003). Multilevel statistical models (3rd ed.). London: Kendall’s Library of Statistics.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Halilem, N. (2010). Inside the triple helix, a systematic review of the researcher’s activities. Journal of Research Administration, forthcoming.

  • Hardy, M., & Bryman, A. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of data analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harley, S. (2002). The impact of research selectivity on academic work and identity in UK universities. Studies in Higher Education, 27(2), 187–205.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Harley, S., & Lee, F. S. (1997). Research selectivity, managerialism, and the academic labor process: The future of nonmainstream economics in U.K. universities. Human Relations (New York, NY), 50(11), 1427–1460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemlin, S. (2006). Managing creativity in academic research. Science Studies, 19(1), 83–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henkel, M. (2007). Shifting boundaries and the academic profession. Key Challenges to the Academic Profession, 65, 192–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inzelt, A. (2004). The evolution of university–industry–government relationships during transition. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 975–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnsrud, L. K. (2002). Measuring the quality of faculty and administrative worklife: Implications for college and university campuses. Research and practice. Research in Higher Education, 43(3), 379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keith, B. (2001). Organizational contexts and university performance outcomes: The limited role of purposive action in the management of institutional status. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 493–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinman, D. L. (1998). Untangling context: Understanding a university laboratory in the commercial world. Science Technology & Human Values, 23(3), 285–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogan, M. (2007). The academic profession and its interface with management. In M. Kogan & U. Teichler (Eds.), Key challenges to the academic profession (pp. 159–174). Paris and Kassel: UNESCO Forum on Higher Education Research and Knowledge International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel (INCHER-Kassel).

    Google Scholar 

  • Konstantopoulos, S. (2008). The power of the test for treatment effects in three-level cluster randomized designs. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 1(1), 66–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreber, C. (2000). How university teaching award winners conceptualise academic work: Some further thoughts on the meaning of scholarship. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kreft, I., & De Leeuw, J. (1998). Introducing multilevel modelling. Thousands Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, P., Mwamwenda, T. S., & Dye, A. H. (1999). Incentive-driven research at the University of Transkei. Research in Education, 61, 49–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwiek, M. (2008). Academic Entrepreneurship vs. Changing Governance and Institutional Management Structures at European Universities. Policy Futures in Education, 6(6), 757–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2007). Determinants of knowledge transfer: Evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 32(6), 561–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Rherrad, I. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35, 1599–1615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landry, R., Amara, N., & Saihi, M. (2005). Patenting and spin-off creation by Canadian researchers in engineering and life sciences. Workshop “Bringing Science to Life”, Toronto, University of Toronto, April 29–May 01, 2005.

  • Landry, R., Saihi, M., Amara, N., & Ouimet, M. (2010). Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy, forthcoming.

  • Larsen, I. M. (2000). University research policy in Norway—Walking the tightrope between internal and external interests. European Journal of Education, 35(4), 385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. J., & Rhoads, R. A. (2004). Faculty entrepreneurialism and the challenge to undergraduate education at research universities. Research in Higher Education, 45(7), 739–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lester, H. E., Carter, Y. H., Dassu, D., & Hobbs, F. D. (1998). Survey of research activity, training needs, departmental support, and career intentions of junior academic general practitioners. British Journal of General Practice, 48(431), 1322–1326.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L., & Meyer, M. (2006). Triple helix indicators of knowledge-based innovation systems: Introduction to the special issue. Research Policy, 35(10), 1441–1449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Link, A. N., Swann, C. A., & Bozeman, B. (2008). A time allocation study of university faculty. Economics of Education Review, 27(4), 363–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, R., & Gonzalez-Brambila, C. (2005). Faculty entrepreneurs and research productivity. Workshop “Bringing Science to Life”, Toronto, University of Toronto, April 29–May 01, 2005.

  • Markman, G. D., Gianiodis, P. T., Phan, P. H., & Balkin, D. B. (2004). Entrepreneurship from the Ivory tower: Do incentive systems matter? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29(3), 353–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McInnis, C. (2000). Changing academic work roles: The everyday realities challenging quality in teaching Changer les fonctions des universitaires : les réalités quotidiennes défient la qualité de l’enseignement. Quality in Higher Education, 6(2), 143–152.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Du Plessis, M., Tukeva, T., & Utecht, J. T. (2005). Inventive output of academic research: A comparison of two science systems. Scientometrics, 63(1), 145–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M., Sinilainen, T., & Utecht, J. T. (2003). Towards hybrid triple helix indicators: A study of university-related patents and a survey of academic inventors. Scientometrics, 58(2), 321–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milem, J. F., Berger, J. B., & Dey, E. L. (2000). Faculty time allocation: A study of change over twenty years. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 454–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, L. E., & Smith, K. (1983). Handling non-response issues. Journal of Extension On-line, 21(5), 46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthen, B. O., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25, 267–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S., & Lake, E. T. (2005). Multilevel modeling of a clustered continuous outcome: Nurses’ work hours and burnout. Nursing Research, 54(6), 406–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. R. (2007). Academic tenure and higher education in the United States: Implications for the dental education workforce in the twenty-first century. Journal of Dental Education, 71(3), 354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirnay, F., Surlemont, B., & Nlemvo, F. (2003). Toward a typology of university spin-offs. Small Business Economics, 21(4), 355–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using multilevel modeling. Research in Higher Education, 42(2), 171–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powers, J. B. (2003). Commercializing academic research: Resource effects on performance of university technology transfer. Journal of Higher Education, 74(1), 26–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Presley, J. B., & Engelbride, E. (1998). Accounting for faculty productivity in the research university. Review of Higher Education, 22(1), 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Print, M., & Hattie, J. (1997). Measuring quality in universities: An approach to weighting research productivity. Higher Education, 33(4), 453–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radhakrishna, R., & Doamekpor, P. (2008). Strategies for generalizing findings in survey research. Journal of Extension On-line, 46(2), 2TOT1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rappert, B., & Webster, A. (1997). Regimes of ordering: The commercialization of intellectual property in industrial–academic collaborations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 9(2), 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhoades, G. (2001). Managing productivity in an academic institution: Rethinking the whom, which, what, and whose of productivity. Research in Higher Education, 42(5), 619–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riskin, E. A., Lange, S. E., Quinn, K., Yen, J. W., & Brainard, S. G. (2007). Supporting faculty during life transitions. In A. J. Stewart, J. E. Malley & D. LaVaque-Manty (Eds.), Transforming science and engineering: Advancing academic women (pp. 116–132). Ann Arbor (MI): The University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosa, P., & Dawson, A. (2006). Gender and the commercialization of university science: Academic founders of spinout companies. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 18(4), 341–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, E. K., & Langberg, K. (2007). Academic autonomy in a rapidly changing higher education framework: Academia on the Procrustean bed? European Education, 39(4), 80–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serow, R. C. (2000). Research and teaching at a research university. Higher Education, 40(4), 449–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. (2001). Collaborative research: Policy and the management of knowledge creation in UK universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(2), 131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. (2006). “Big is Beautiful.” Organisational change in universities in the United Kingdom: New models of institutional management and the changing role of academic staff. Higher Education in Europe, 31(3), 251–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N., & S’Jegers, R. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 249–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidal, J., & Quintanilla, M. A. (2000). The teaching and research relationship within an institutional evaluation. Higher Education, 40(2), 217–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wæraas, A., & Solbakk, M. N. (2009). Defining the essence of a university: Lessons from higher education branding. Higher Education, 57(4), 449–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ward, D. (2007). Academic values, institutional management and public policies. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D., Taylor, A., & Chittleborough, C. (2007). The second computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) forum: The state of play of CATI survey methods in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25(3), 272–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yokoyama, K. (2006). Entrepreneurialism in Japanese and UK universities: Governance, management, leadership, and funding. Higher Education, 52(3), 523–555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada as well as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial support for this project. We also would like to thank Hélène Gauthier, Barney Laciak and Susan Morris from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Faculty of Business, Laval University, G1K 7P4, Québec City, Canada

    Norrin Halilem, Nabil Amara & Réjean Landry

Authors
  1. Norrin Halilem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nabil Amara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Réjean Landry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norrin Halilem.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Halilem, N., Amara, N. & Landry, R. Is the academic Ivory Tower becoming a managed structure? A nested analysis of the variance in activities of researchers from natural sciences and engineering in Canada. Scientometrics 86, 431–448 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0278-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0278-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation