Abstract
Organizational institutionalism has shown how institutional entrepreneurs can introduce new logics into fields and push for their broader acceptance. In academic science in the United States, however, market logic gained strength without such an entrepreneurial project. This article proposes an alternative “practice selection” model to explain how a new institutional logic can gain strength when local innovations interact with changes outside the field. Actors within a field are always experimenting with practices grounded in a variety of logics. When one logic is dominant, innovations based on alternative logics may have trouble gaining the resources they need to become more broadly institutionalized. But if a changing environment starts systematically to favor practices based on an alternative logic, that logic can become stronger even in the absence of a coherent project to promote it. This is what happened in US academic science, as growing political concern with the economic impact of innovation changed the field’s environment in ways that encouraged the spread of local market-logic practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
I should note here that the empirical claims I make apply solely to changes that occurred within the United States, and I do not attempt to address the increasing role of market logic in academic science more globally. The United States, however, is an important case, since it was an early mover in marketization and its policies have served as a model for other countries (Forero-Pineda 2006).
Friedland and Alford (1991), using slightly different language, refer to the logic of capitalism.
History of the MIT Industrial Liaison Program, Finding Aid, [Massachusetts] Institute [of Technology] Archives and Special Collections AC 265.
F. E. Terman to David S. Jacobson, 20 June 1958, Folder 1, Box 18, Series VII, Stanford University Archives SC 160.
Based on a search of the Congressional Record on HeinOnline conducted 28 July 2010 using the terms “technological innovation” and “‘innovation economy’ ~ 20 OR ‘innovation economic’ ~ 20.” The trend holds across a variety of searches on technology, innovation, and the economy. Numbers are corrected for the increasing length of the Congressional Record during this period and reflect the number of pages that contain the search term, not the total number of times the term is found.
Innovation arguments were absent in the discussions that led to the creation of institutional patent agreements (which made it easier for universities to patent agency-funded research) at NIH in 1968 and NSF in 1973. In general, such arguments were not very visible politically before 1977. The IPA decisions, however, were not completely distinct from the passage of Bayh-Dole, since the same group of people who worked to implement IPAs later turned their efforts to pursuing such legislation and explicitly decided to reframe their project in terms of innovation rhetoric once it became popular around 1978 (Berman 2008). So the absence of innovation arguments in the IPA decisions does not appear to be a strong piece of evidence against the critical role of innovation rhetoric in changing the policy environment in ways that eventually expanded market logic in academic science.
A fuller account of how innovation concerns shaped the policy decisions that are discussed only briefly here can be found in Berman (2012).
References
A policy for industry: What it takes to spur innovation. (1980). Business Week, p. 122.
Abramson, B. D. (2007). The secret circuit: The little-known court where the rules of the information age unfold. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Academy opposes local DNA research rules. (1977). Science & Government Report, p. 8.
Administration to seek wide DNA guidelines. (1977). Science & Government Report, p. 8.
American venture capital: Fun no more. (1978). The Economist, p. 98.
Announcements. (1963). Science, 141, 415–418.
Avant, D. D. (2005). The market for force: The consequences of privatizing security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barley, S. R., & Tolbert, P. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: studying the links between action and institution. Organization Studies, 18, 93–117.
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: the case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1419–1440.
Beckert, J. (2010). Institutional isomorphism revisited: convergence and divergence in institutional change. Sociological Theory, 28, 150–166.
Belanger, D. O. (1998). Enabling American innovation: Engineering and the National Science Foundation. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Berg, P. (1997). Paul Berg. Oral history conducted by S. S. Hughes. Berkeley, CA: Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California.
Berk, G., & Galvan, D. (2009). How people experience and change institutions: a field guide to creative syncretism. Theory and Society, 38, 543–580.
Berman, E. P. (2008). Why did universities start patenting? Institution-building and the road to the Bayh-Dole Act. Social Studies of Science, 38, 835–871.
Berman, E. P. (2012). Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Binder, A. (2007). For love and money: organizations’ creative responses to multiple environmental logics. Theory and Society, 36, 547–571.
Block, R. B. (1977). The Experimental R&D Incentives Program: Past and present. In D. E. Cunningham, J. R. Craig, & T. W. Schlie (Eds.), Technological innovation: The Experimental R&D Incentives Program (pp. 16–24). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Boly, W. (1982). The gene merchants. California Monthly, pp. 76–78, 170–171.
Boyer, H. W. (1994). Recombinant DNA research at UCSF and commercial application at Genentech. Oral history conducted by S. S. Hughes. Berkeley, CA: Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California.
Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2004). The NSF Engineering Research Centers and the university-industry research revolution: a brief history featuring an interview with Erich Bloch. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 365–375.
Bremer, H. W. (2001). Oral history no. 565. Oral history conducted by B. Teicher. University of Wisconsin Oral History Program, Madison, WI.
Byers, B. (2006). Brook Byers: Biotechnology venture capitalist, 1970–2006. Oral history conducted by T. D. Kiley. Berkeley, CA: Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California.
Calendar of events – January. (1967). Science, 158, 1502, 1505–1506, 1508.
Cape, R. (2003). Biotech pioneer and co-founder of Cetus. Oral history conducted by S. S. Hughes. Berkeley, CA: Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California.
Carey, W. D. (1977). The blind side of science policy. Science, 196, 1045.
Carter, L. J. (1965). Technical Services Act: Industry to benefit from new state programs paralleling farm extension service. Science, 149, 1485–1486, 1547–1550.
Chubin, D. E., & Hackett, E. J. (1990). Peerless science: Peer review and US science policy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Cibuzar, G. T. (1993). Microelectronics at the University of Minnesota. In Proceedings of the Tenth Biennial University/Government/Industry Microelectronics, 18–19 May 1993 (pp. 170–173). New York: IEEE.
Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441–466.
Coburn, C., & Berglund, D. (1994). Partnerships: A compendium of state and federal cooperative technology programs. Columbus, OH: Battelle.
Cohen, S. N., Chang, A. C. Y., Boyer, H. W., & Helling, R. B. (1973). Construction of biologically functional bacterial plasmids in vitro. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 70, 3240–3244.
Cohen, W. M., Florida, R., & Goe, W. R. (1994). University-industry research centers in the United States. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University.
Colton, R. M. (Ed.). (1982). Analyses of five National Science Foundation experiments to stimulate increases technological innovation in the private sector. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Colyvas, J. A., & Jonsson, S. (2011). Ubiquity and legitimacy: disentangling diffusion and institutionalization. Sociological Theory, 29, 27–53.
Colyvas, J. A., & Powell, W. W. (2006). Roads to institutionalization: the remaking of boundaries between public and private science. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 305–353.
Cooke, R. (1978). Clone business: it’s growing fast it’s growing fast. Boston Globe, pp. 1, 10–12.
Cowan, E. (1978). President and House Democrats discuss tax cut without reform. New York Times, pp. 1, 45.
Culliton, B. J. (1982). The academic-industrial complex. Science, 216, 960–962.
D’Andrade, H. A., Holveck, D. P., & Penhoet, E. E. (2001). Regional characteristics of biotechnology in the United States: Perspectives of three industry insiders. Oral history conducted by S. S. Hughes. Berkeley, CA: Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California.
Danilov, V. J. (1971). The research park shake-out. Industrial Research, 13, 1–4.
de Laski, K. (1985). Trouble in Mecca: New programs threaten established strongholds. High Technology, pp. 24–25.
Dickson, D. (1984). The new politics of science. New York: Pantheon.
Digging a spur into innovation. (1979). Business Week, p. 94.
DiMaggio, P. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory. In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations: Culture and environment (pp. 3–21). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Dorado, S. (2005). Institutional entrepreneurship, partaking, and convening. Organization Studies, 26, 385–414.
Dunn, M. B., & Jones, C. (2010). Institutional logics and institutional pluralism: the contestation of care and science logics in medical education, 1967–2005. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 114–149.
Dunner, D. R., Jakes, J. M., & Karceski, J. D. (1995). A statistical look at the Federal Circuit’s patent decisions: 1982–1994. Federal Circuit Bar Journal, 5, 151–179.
Eisenberg, R. S. (1996). Public research and private development: patents and technology transfer in government-sponsored research. Virginia Law Review, 82, 1663–1727.
Endicott, K. M., & Allen, E. M. (1953). The growth of medical research 1941–1953 and the role of public health service research grants. Science, 118, 337–343.
Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial scientists and entrepreneurial universities in American academic science. Minerva, 21, 1–21.
Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm. Research Policy, 29, 313–330.
Eveland, J. D., Hetzner, W. A., & Tornatzky, L. G. (Eds.). (1984). Development of University-Industry Cooperative Research Centers: Historical profiles. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Federal aid for industrial R&D under study. (1977). Science & Government Report, p. 7.
Feller, I., Ailes, C. P., & Roessner, J. D. (2002). Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry: evidence from Engineering Research Centers. Research Policy, 31, 457–474.
First annual survey of research parks. (1962). Industrial Development and Manufacturers Record, 131, 32–43.
Fitzsimmons, S. J., Grad, O., & Lal, B. (1996). An evaluation of the NSF Science and Technology Centers program. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates Inc.
Flender, J. O., & Morse, R. S. (1975). The role of new technical enterprises in the US Economy. In US Senate Select Committee on Small Business et al., Small business and innovation (pp. 594–606). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Fligstein, N. (2001). Social skill and the theory of fields. Sociological Theory, 19, 105–125.
Forero-Pineda, C. (2006). The impact of stronger intellectual property rights on science and technology in developing countries. Research Policy, 35, 808–824.
Friedland, R. (2009a). The endless fields of Pierre Bourdieu. Organization, 16, 887–917.
Friedland, R. (2009b). Institution, practice, and ontology: Toward a religious sociology. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 27, 45–83.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2002). Institutional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common technological standards: the case of Sun Microsystems and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 196–214.
Geiger, R. L. (1986). To advance knowledge: The growth of American research universities, 1900–1940. New York: Oxford University Press.
Geiger, R. L. (1993). Research and relevant knowledge: American research universities since World War II. New York: Oxford University Press.
Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Glynn, M. A., & Lounsbury, M. (2005). From the critics’ corner: Logic blending, discursive change and authenticity in a cultural production system. Journal of Management Studies, 42, 1031–1055.
Gompers, P. A. (1994). The rise and fall of venture capital. Business and Economic History, 23, 1–26.
Gompers, P. A., & Lerner, J. (1998). What drives venture capital fundraising? Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics, 149–192.
Graham, B. (1978). Something's happened to Yankee ingenuity. The Washington Post, p. G1.
Gray, D., Gidley, T., & Koester, N. (1987). 1986–1987 Center Director Report. Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Program Evaluation Project. http://www.ncsu.edu/iucrc/PDFs/scanned%20CD%20reports/CD%2086-87.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2011.
Gray, D. O., & Baneth, R. C. (1992). 1990–1991 structural information. http://www.ncsu.edu/iucrc/PDFs/scanned%20CD%20reports/CD%2090-91.pdf. Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Program Evaluation Project. Accessed 23 May 2011.
Gray, D. O., & Walters, S. G. (1998). Managing the Industry/University Cooperative Research Center. Columbus, OH: Battelle.
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature firms: the big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 27–48.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: the role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 58–80.
Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational responses. Organization Science, 21, 521–539.
Hacker, J. S. (2004). Privatizing risk without privatizing the welfare state: the hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review, 98, 243–260.
Hallett, T. (2010). The myth incarnate: recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75, 52–74.
Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). Inhabited institutions: social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s Patterns of industrial bureaucracy. Theory and Society, 35, 213–236.
Hamilton, A. (1969). State Technical Services: Congress swings the axe. Science, 166, 1606–1608.
Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1976). The population ecology of organizations. The American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929–964.
Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2008). Institutional entrepreneurship. In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 198–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishers, Ltd.
Haveman, H. A., & David, R. J. (2008). Ecologists and institutionalists: Friends or foes? In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 573–595). SAGE Publishers, Ltd.
Haveman, H. A., & Rao, H. (1997). Structuring a theory of moral sentiments: Institutional and organizational coevolution in the early thrift industry. The American Journal of Sociology, 102, 1606–1651.
Henderson, R., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology: a detailed analysis of university patenting, 1965–1988. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 80, 119–127.
Hilts, P. J. (1982). Scientific temperaments: Three lives in contemporary science. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Hirsch, P. M. (1986). From ambushes to golden parachutes: corporate takeovers as an instance of cultural framing and institutional integration. The American Journal of Sociology, 91, 800–837.
House, Senate split on authorization for NSF. (1977). Science & Government Report, p. 5.
Hughes, S. S. (2001). Making dollars out of DNA: the first major patent in biotechnology and the commercialization of molecular biology, 1974–1980. Isis, 92, 541–575.
Ikenberry, S. O., & Friedman, R. C. (1972). Beyond academic departments: The story of institutes and centers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Industry starts to do biology with its eyes open. (1978). The Economist, p. 95.
The “innovation recession”. (1978). Time.
Innovation: Some positive steps. (1979). Business Week, p. 96.
Johnson, R. W. (1980). The passage of the Investment Incentive Act of 1978: A case study of business influencing public policy. Ph.D. dissertation in Business Administration, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Joining hands against Japan. (1980). Business Week, p. 108.
Katz, J. E. (1978). Presidential politics and science policy. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The university-industrial complex. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kevles, D. (1994). Ananda Chakrabarty wins a patent: biotechnology, law, and society: 1972–1980. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 25, 111–135.
Kleinman, D. L. (1995). Politics on the endless frontier: Postwar research policy in the United States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Kleinman, D. L., Habinek, J., & Vallas, S. P. (2011). Codes of commerce: The uses of business rhetoric in the American academy, 1960–2000. In J. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The American academic profession: Transformation in contemporary higher education Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Kornberg, A. (1997). Biochemistry at Stanford, biotechnology at DNAX. Oral history conducted by S. S. Hughes. Berkeley, CA: Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California.
Lardner, Jr., G. (1978). Tax cuts on the hill; conservatives celebrate, liberals struggle against further slashes. Washington Post, p. A9.
Lasken, J. E. (2005). Interview by author. Tape recording of phone interview. Potomac, MD.
Latker, N. J. (2005, 21, 24 and 28 January, and 6 April). Interviews by author. Tape recordings of telephone and in-person interviews. Bethesda, MD.
Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. R. Clegg et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organization studies (pp. 215–254). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishers, Ltd.
Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (Eds.). (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lea, C. L. (2008). Charles L. Lea, Jr. Oral history conducted by C. Kolker. National Venture Capital Association, Easton, MD.
Leblebici, H., Salancik, G. R., Copay, A., & King, T. (1991). Institutional change and the transformation of interorganizational fields: An organizational history of the US Radio broadcasting industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 333–363.
Leslie, S. W. (1993). The Cold War and American science: The military-industrial-academic complex at MIT and Stanford. New York: Columbia University Press.
Leslie, S. W. (2001). Regional disadvantage: replicating Silicon Valley in New York’s Capital Region. Technology and Culture, 42, 236–264.
Link, A. N., & Link, K. R. (2003). On the growth of US science parks. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 28, 81–85.
Longstreth, B. (1986). Modern investment management and the prudent man rule. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 289–307.
Lounsbury, M., & Crumley, E. T. (2007). New practice creation: an institutional perspective on innovation. Organization Studies, 28, 993–1012.
Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. M. (2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: a cultural-political perspective on US recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1, 71–104.
Luger, M. I., & Goldstein, H. A. (1991). Technology in the garden: Research parks and regional economic development. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la résistance: competing logics and the consolidation of US community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 799–820.
Mars, M. M., & Lounsbury, M. (2009). Raging against or with the private marketplace? Logic hybridity and eco-entrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18, 4–13.
Martin, C. J. (1991). Shifting the burden: The struggle over growth and corporate taxation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Martin, I. W. (2008). The permanent tax revolt: How the property tax transformed American politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). (1955). President’s report issue of the bulletin of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1969). Massachusetts Institute of Technology bulletin: Report of the president. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Matkin, G. W. (1990). Technology transfer and the university. New York: American Council on Education.
McGowen, L. (2008). Predictors of cooperative research centers post-graduation success: Update. Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Program Evaluation Project. http://www.ncsu.edu/iucrc/Jan’08/McGowenNSF%201-9-08denis.pdf. Accessed 23 May 2011.
Mead, C. A. (1996). Interview with Carver A. Mead. Oral history conducted by S. K. Cohen. Pasadena, CA: California Institute.
Meador, D. J. (1992). Origin of the Federal Circuit: a personal account. The American University Law Review, 41, 581–620.
Mill, J. S. (1851). A system of logic, ratiocinative and inductive. London: John Parker.
Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development. (1988). State technology programs in the United States: 1988. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2001). The growth of patenting and licensing by US universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. Research Policy, 30, 99–119.
Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2001a). Patenting and licensing university inventions: lessons from the history of the Research Corporation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 317–355.
Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2001b). University patents and patent policy debates in the USA, 1925–1980. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10, 781–814.
Mowery, D. C., Nelson, R. R., Sampat, B. N., & Ziedonis, A. A. (2004). Ivory tower and industrial innovation: University-industry technology transfer before and after the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (1971). Technology and international trade: Proceedings of the symposium. Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering.
National Science Board (NSB). (1983a). Science indicators, 1982: Report of the National Science Board, 1983. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
National Science Board (NSB). (1983b). University-industry research relationships: Selected studies. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
National Science Board (NSB). (1985). Science indicators: The 1985 report. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
National Science Board (NSB). (1996). Science and engineering indicators – 1996. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
National Science Board (NSB). (2006). Science and engineering indicators – 2006. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation (NSF). (1976). Research in industry: Roles of the government and the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Science Resources Statistics. (1997). Survey of federal funds for research and development: Fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2003). Federal funds for research and development, detailed historical tables: Fiscal years 1951–2002. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2005). Academic research and development expenditures: Fiscal year 2003. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Nelson, R. (1997). How new is new growth theory? Challenge, 40, 29–58.
News and notes. (1952). Science, 116, 681–684.
News and notes. (1953). Science, 118, 509–514.
Norman, C. (1977). Recombinant DNA pioneers lower the alarm. Science & Government Report, pp. 1–3.
O’Mara, M. P. (2005). Cities of knowledge: Cold War science and the search for the next Silicon Valley. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Osborne, D. (1988). Laboratories of democracy. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Owen-Smith, J. (2011). The institutionalization of expertise in university licensing. Theory and Society, 40, 63–94.
Pauly, D. (1979). Venture capital comes back. Newsweek, p. 67.
Perez, R. C. (1986). Inside venture capital: Past, present, and future. New York: Praeger.
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pine, A. (1978). A tax break for the rich in election year? Washington Post, p. A2.
Pisano, G. P. (2006). Science business: The promise, the reality, and the future of biotech. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.
Powell, W. W., & Colyvas, J. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishers, Ltd.
Prager, D. J., & Omenn, G. S. (1980). Research, innovation, and university-industry linkages. Science, 207, 379–384.
Purdy, J. M., & Gray, B. (2009). Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, and multilevel dynamics in emerging institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 355–380.
Rao, H. (1998). Caveat emptor: the construction of nonprofit consumer watchdog organizations. The American Journal of Sociology, 103, 912–961.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in toque ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. The American Journal of Sociology, 108, 795–843.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30, 629–652.
Reiner, M. L. (1989). The transformation of venture capital: A history of venture capital organizations in the United States. Ph.D. dissertation in Business Administration, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Rosenzweig, R. M. (1985). Research as intellectual property: Influences within the university. Science, Technology & Human Values, 10, 41–48.
Rules and regulations for fiduciary responsibility. (1978). Federal Register, 43, 17480–17482.
Rutter, W. J. (1998). William J. Rutter. Oral history conducted by S. S. Hughes. Berkeley, CA: Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California.
Savoye, C. (1983). Companies hungry for ideas, talent snuggle up to universities. Christian Science Monitor, p. 4.
Scherer, R. (1980). Wall street’s wild fling with “hot” high tech. Christian Science Monitor, p. 1.
Schmidt, L. A. (1999). The corporate transformation of American health care: A study in institution building. Ph.D. dissertation in Sociology, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Schneiberg, M. (2007). What's on the path? Path dependence, organizational diversity and the problem of institutional change in the US economy, 1900–1950. Socio-Economic Review, 5, 47–80.
Schneiberg, M., & Clemens, E. S. (2006). The typical tools for the job: research strategies in institutional analysis. Sociological Theory, 24, 195–227.
Schneiberg, M., & Lounsbury, M. (2008). Social movements and institutional analysis. In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 648–670). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishers, Ltd.
Schwitter, J. P. (1965). Universities as research park developers. Industrial Research, 7, 73–78.
Scientific meetings. (1956). Science, 123, 1088–1091.
Scientists in the news. (1957). Science, 125, 593–594.
Scott, W. R., Ruef, M., Mendle, P. J., & Caronna, C. A. (2000). Institutional change and healthcare organizations: From professional dominance to managed care. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Seo, M.-G., & Creed, W. E. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27, 222–247.
Shapley, D. (1973). Technology incentives: NSF gropes for relevance. Science, 179, 1105–1107.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Smith, B. L., & Karlesky, J. J. (1977). The state of academic science: The universities in the nation’s research effort. New York: Change Magazine Press.
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993). Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and Society, 22, 487–511.
Strang, D., & Soule, S. A. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: from hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–290.
Stuart, T. E., & Ding, W. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. The American Journal of Sociology, 112, 97–144.
Swanson, R. A. (1997). Co-founder, CEO, and chairman of Genentech, Inc., 1976–1996. Oral history conducted by S. S. Hughes. Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
The business stakes. (1977, August 29). Business Week, p. 53.
The right way to spur R & D. (1978, July 3). Business Week, p. 112.
Thelen, K. (2004). How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Thornton, P. H. (2004). Markets from culture: Institutional logics and organizational decisions in higher education publishing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood et al. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 99–129). Ltd: SAGE Publishers.
US Congressional Budget Office (CBO). (1988). How capital gains tax rates affect revenues: The historical evidence. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US General Accounting Office (GAO). (1983). The federal role in fostering university-industry cooperation. Washington, DC: General Accounting Office.
US House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance. (1968). State Technical Services Act: Extension. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce and Finance. (1971). State Technical Services Act amendments. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US House, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. (1978). Recombinant DNA Act, part 1 (report). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US House, Committee on Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties, and Administration of Justice. (1977). State of the judiciary and access to justice. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US House, Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology. (1977). 1978 National Science Foundation authorization. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US House, Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology. (1978). 1979 National Science Foundation authorization. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US House, Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology. (1983). The National Science Board: Science policy and management for the National Science Foundation 1968–1980. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US House, Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Capital, Investment and Business Opportunities. (1977). Small business access to equity and venture capital. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US House, Committee on Ways and Means. (1978). President's 1978 tax reduction and reform proposals, part 3. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1984a). Commercial biotechnology: An international analysis. New York: Pergamon Press.
US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1984b). Technology, innovation and regional economic development: Encouraging high-technology development. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment.
US Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). (1988). New developments in biotechnology: US investment in biotechnology. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). (2011). US patent activity: Calendar years 1790 to the present. US Patent and Trademark Office. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/h_counts.htm. Accessed 23 May 2011.
US Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space. (1977). Regulation of recombinant DNA research. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Senate, Committee on Finance, Subcommittee on Private Pension Plans and Employee Fringe Benefits. (1977). Pension simplification and investment rules. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Senate, Committee on Human Resources, Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research. (1977). Recombinant DNA Regulation Act, 1977. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
US Senate, Select Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Retailing, Distribution, and Marketing Practices. (1963). The role and effect of technology in the nation’s economy. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Vanishing innovation: A hostile climate for new ideas and products is threatening the technological superiority of the US. (1978, 3 July). Business Week, pp. 46–54.
Vettel, E. J. (2006). Biotech: The countercultural origins of an industry. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Wade, N. (1979). Recombinant DNA: Warming up for big payoff. Science, 206, 663–665.
Wade, N. (1980a). Cloning gold rush turns basic biology into big business. Science, 208, 688–692.
Wade, N. (1980b). Gene goldrush splits Harvard, worries brokers. Science, 210, 878–879.
Walker, R. (1982). Gov. Hunt tries to balance the future on computer chip. Christian Science Monitor, p. B3.
Wallets open up for risky ventures. (1979). US News & World Report, p. 75.
Walsh, J. (1976). R & D and economic growth: renewed interest in federal role. Science, 193, 1101–1103.
Walsh, J. (1986). NSF designates five new engineering centers. Science, 232, 18.
Wanniski, J. (1978). Stupendous Steiger. Wall Street Journal, p. 22.
Warsh, D. (2006). Knowledge and the wealth of nations: A story of economic discovery. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Weber, K., Rao, H., & Thomas, L. G. (2009). From streets to suites: how the anti-biotech movement affected German pharmaceutical firms. The American Journal of Sociology, 74, 106–127.
Wright, S. (1994). Molecular politics: Developing American and British regulatory policy for genetic engineering, 1972–1982. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Kecia Johnson, Joanne Kaufman, Ryan King, Richard Lachmann, Nicholas Pagnucco, Lisa Stampnitzky, Kate Strully, Sapna Swaroop, and Jim Zetka for their helpful comments on previous drafts of this article. An earlier version was presented at the 2008 American Sociological Association meeting in San Francisco. This research was supported by a Spencer Foundation dissertation fellowship, the SSRC Corporation as a Social Institution program, and the UC Berkeley Center for Studies in Higher Education. I am grateful to the Theory & Society Editors as well as to several anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Berman, E.P. Explaining the move toward the market in US academic science: how institutional logics can change without institutional entrepreneurs. Theor Soc 41, 261–299 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-012-9167-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-012-9167-7