universities and the market economy the differential impact on knowledge production in

Universities and the Market Economy: The Differential Impact on Knowledge Production inSociology and EconomicsAuthor(s): Mathieu AlbertSource: Higher Education, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Mar., 2003), pp. 147-182Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3447527 .Accessed: 18/07/2011 04:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Higher Education.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3447527?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer

Higher Education 45: 147-182, 2003. 147 F ? 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on

knowledge production in sociology and economics

MATHIEU ALBERT Centre interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et la technologie (CIRST), Universit6 du Quebec a Montreal, P.O. Box 8888, Station Centre-ville, Montrdal (Qudbec) Canada H3C 3P8 (E-mail: [email protected])

Abstract. Based on the conceptual framework of Pierre Bourdieu, this study compares the

impact of pressure to develop ties with non-academic organisations on two fields of research, namely: sociology and economics. The study highlights the dynamics particular to each discipline and shows that a sound understanding of transformations affecting university research cannot exclude analysis of the specificity of each one. Two cohorts of professors were studied in two Quebec universities: the first cohort was made up of professors who received tenure between 1974 and 1983, and the second between 1989 and 1998. The results suggest that pressures in favor of partnership with non-academic organisations have not had the same impact in sociology and economics. While research practices have undergone transformations in each

discipline, the nature of these transformations differs in an important way. The results also contradict two popular models in knowledge production studies, which are the Entrepreneurial Science, and Mode 1/Mode 2 models. Although these models claim that academic research orientation has become geared towards problem-solving, our results indicate, however, that the opposite trend has been taking place in sociology and economics.

Keywords: economics, entrepreneurial science, knowledge production, social science, sociology, university studies

Introduction

Numerous authors have shown that the emergence of the global market has exerted pressure on university researchers, who are expected to increase the socioeconomic usefulness of their research (Elzinga 1993; Fisher et al. 2001; Hayrinen-Alestalo 1999; Gibbons et al. 1994; Gumport 2000; Newson 1994; Slaughter and Leslie 1997). Through various involvements in the scientific and the technological arenas, governments aim to enhance the economic 'edge' of the private sector and create more competitive economies. In Canada and Quebec, certain government programs also encourage social sciences scholars to pursue studies aimed at bringing about means of strengthening social cohesion, so that social programs will be less costly (CQRS 1997; SSHRC 1990, 1996; CSTQ 2000; MRST 2001).

MATHIEU ALBERT

The purpose of this study is to discover whether, since the mid-1970s, the pressure to develop ties with non-academic institutions has had an effect on the dynamics of knowledge production in the social sciences - an area of academia that has not been widely studied. More precisely, it will compare the impact of such pressures on knowledge production in sociology and economics. This comparison is designed to bring out the dynamics proper to each of these fields and to show that a sound understanding of the transformations affecting academic research must not fail to account for the specificity of each scientific discipline.

Recent studies on academic research in relation to the 'instrumentalization' of knowledge have focused on three themes: the evolution of public and private sector investment in research (Albert 2000; Fairweather 1988; Fisher and Rubenson 1998; Slaughter and Leslie 1997; Williams 1992); the 'redefinition' of scientific policies so as to make them more responsive to the needs of economic and industrial actors (Crespo 2001; deAngelis 1998; Gingras et al. 1999; Slaughter 1998; Shinn 2000); and the application of bibli- ometric measurements to trend analysis in matters of scientific production (Dalpe and Anderson 1995; Godin 1998; Godin and Gingras 2000).

By resorting, as a matter of priority, to quantitative data and documentary evidence, these studies fail to shed light on a crucial aspect of the transformations that have affected the production of academic knowledge. Indeed, these studies do not reveal the social processes through which these pressures are manifested, for example, in the way they have contributed to a change in the criteria used to evaluate professorial production and the modification of power relationships among competing quality standards.

For their part, other recent studies have developed analytical models in order to explicate the changes underway in academic knowledge production. One such model is "new knowledge production" of Gibbons et al. (1994) and Nowotny et al. (2001); another is "entrepreneurial science," posited by Etzkowitz (1996, 1998), Etzkowitz et al. (2000) and Etzkowitz and Leydes- dorff (2000). According to the "new knowledge production" model, a new mode of knowledge production (termed Mode 2) has been developed since the 1940s and has acquired a comparable, if not greater, importance to that of the traditional mode (Mode 1). This new mode's chief characteristics are problem-solving research orientations, the involvement of economical and political actors in the definition of research priorities, the strengthening of transdisciplinarity and the multiplication of research sites outside the university. For its part, the "entrepreneurial science" model maintains that the rapprochement of the scientific and economic spheres would have lead researchers to develop an entrepreneurial ethos and a growing number of them would tend to want to market the fruits of their research. According

148

UNIVERSITIES AND THE MARKET ECONOMY

to this model, such practices have become sufficiently widespread that "the capitalisation of knowledge appears to be taking increasing precedence over disinterestedness as a norm of science" (Etzkovitz et al. 2000, p. 315).

The present study will demonstrate that these two models provide a misleading image of academic research by ascribing a commonality of characteristics to all disciplines that they do not necessarily share, while at the same time neglecting the specificities of each.

Conceptual framework

This research relies on Bourdieu's concepts of "field" and "capital" (1971, 1975, 1991, 1996, 1997). For Bourdieu, a field refers mainly to arenas of production, circulation, and appropriation of goods, services, knowledge, or status centered on a particular issue (e.g., literature, art, science, etc.), and the network, or configuration, of historical relations of power between positions held by individuals, social groups or institutions (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, p. 97). Field is a relational construct in that, rather than referring to a delimited population of producers, it points to the relationships (e.g., oppositions or alliances; domination or resistance) between various social agents occupying different positions in a structured network. A critical characteristic of field is the existence of stakes for which agents vie. For instance, in the field of science, these will be the 'legitimate' definitions and functions of science. A field, then, is simultaneously a space of competition for resources and rewards and of struggle for dominant positions (accumulation of valued forms of capital in a given state of a field: economic, social, cultural, symbolic capital, etc.).

The use of the concepts of field and capital in our study aims to illu- minate the specific dynamics and power relations among the stakeholders within the two target disciplines. An understanding of such dynamics is crucial for comparing the changes in the research practices of sociology and economics professors. Both disciplines are relatively autonomous and, as such, have their own logic. The concepts of field and capital help to understand what shapes the specificity of the social processes operating within each discipline, and especially how, based on such specificity, they 'translate' the pressures favoring instrumentalization of knowledge exerted by the political and economic fields.

Through these concepts, it is also possible to elucidate the struggle for the legitimate definition of scientific practice in academia. In the current socioeconomic context, marked by the growing ascendancy of market forces in the scientific field, this struggle - in large part but not exclusively - is articulated around a bipolar opposition. At one pole stand those faculty

149

MATHIEU ALBERT

members who, as a means of acquiring scientific legitimacy, advocate peer review procedures for research conducted by and/or aimed at their peers; at the other are those academics who are favorably disposed toward collaboration with non-university actors (business, governments, public and private bodies, community organizations, etc.). The first group sees the involvement of non-university actors in the research process as a sign of the erosion of university autonomy to the benefit of heteronomous powers and, at the same time, of the waning of their own power. The second group finds its position offers a way of better harmonizing university activities with socioeconomic needs and enhancing the social and economic relevance of those activities. This group finds forming tighter bonds with non-university partners is another way of obtaining additional support and resources from outside the field, thus increasing their strength when it comes to internal struggles.

Within the context of this study, the advocates of peer review and production for peers as a method of acquiring scientific legitimacy will be assigned to the production for producers pole (PFP pole). Those upholding production aimed at non-university actors will be assigned to the production for non- producers pole (PFNP pole). This polar approach aims to convey the notion that the professors' stances lie along a continuum delimited by the two poles rather than in two opposing camps.

Methodology

To compare the transformation of the dynamics of intellectual production since the 1970s in two social science disciplines, we examined two cohorts of university professors who had undergone peer review processes within their own departments2 to decide whether they would be granted tenure. The first cohort was made up of faculty members who were awarded tenure between 1974 and 1983. The second cohort was made of professors who were preparing to apply for, had applied for or had been granted tenure between 1989 and 1998. The first time span was seen as preceding the onset of pressures to collaborate with non-university actors and to favor the 'instrumentlization' of knowledge production. The second time span was one affected by those pressures. The sample was made up of faculty members from the sociology and economics departments of two Montr6al universities: Universite de Montreal and Universit6 du Quebec a Montr6al. The 74-83 cohort comprised 16 subjects, and the 89-98 cohort 17.

Three basic principles governed the selection of subjects: sample satura- tion, structure of power relations among actors, and heterogeneity of points of view.3 Applying these three principles to subject selection entailed the acquis- ition of what Bourdieu (1999, p. 613) has called the "specific competence" of

150


the environment under study; that is, a prior understanding of the social logic and power relations that ensures proper subject selection and interpretation of their point of view via the power relations at work within that environment. Consequently, an initial analysis of the data was conducted at the time of their collection. Based on information given us by the interviewees, a deliberate attempt was made to select further subjects who might enrich our data by contributing a point of view that was either divergent, contrary or in agree- ment with those already gathered, and in terms of their position in the power relations structure.

The bulk of the data came from interviews conducted with the professors and from their curricula vitae (CVs). As far as the CVs were concerned, we primarily considered the professors' intellectual production prior to being awarded tenure in order to assess how much and in which direction the criteria for awarding tenure have changed. The shift in such criteria was seen as an indicator of the shift in power relations between the PFP and PFNP poles. The CVs were a source of quantifiable data that completed those gathered in the interviews.

It should be noted that CVs are essentially a means of showcasing one's professional contributions with a view to acquiring material and/or symbolic resources (e.g., professional advancement, research grants, participation in a research centre). Their analysis demonstrates that they form a framework from which a strategy of symbolic capital appropriation proper to each academic field can be deployed. Indeed, some academics classify productions generating little symbolic capital (e.g., reports, articles and papers destined for non-academic publications) in categories generating a greater volume of capital (most notably, peer-reviewed journals). Since these classifications are invariably to the advantage of those who made them, they are unlikely to be considered errors. As a matter of fact, they probably indicate that these academics are familiar with the 'rules of the game.' To dispel any ambiguity concerning the classification of some production, thorough verifications were conducted.

The interviews were conducted in order to discover the logic underlying the professors' productions as well as their opinions regarding criteria for tenure and the various types of production within their respective disciplines. Together with the quantitative data from the CVs, the professors' opinions enabled us to ascertain the structure of the power relations within the field.4

Since they are submitted to statutory and interpersonal evaluations, professors' productions are necessarily subject to debate; in this respect, the decision to discuss them as part of an academic study cannot be viewed as an unbiased one. It was therefore possible that, for some, our study was seen as an opportunity to pursue the debate about the legitimate definition

151

MATHIEU ALBERT

of a 'good' professor. This explains why it was important for us to have at least a general notion of the interviewees' position in the configuration of power relations within their respective departments or disciplines. That position was one of the key elements necessary to understanding the meaning of their discourse. Our analysis is thus based on the postulate that the "real is relational" (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992, pp. 96-97) - i.e., to be understand- able, social agents' actions must be reconsidered in the system of objective relationships to which they belong.

Sociology and economics were chosen because they appear to obey seemingly conflicting logics in regards to the market economy and the 'instrumentalization' of knowledge and because they differ from each other epistemologically. Economics, or at least the currently prevailing neoclassical trend, aspires to produce nomothetical types of knowledge, while sociology, though it strives for generality, does not usually aim at universalist designs.

Universit6 de Montreal (UdeM) and Universit6 du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM) were chosen because we wanted to take into account the influence of two different academic traditions. In Quebec, UdeM is seen as a traditional and relatively elitist university, while UQAM, at least when it was originally established in 1969, is considered more accessible and left-leaning.

Results: Economics

The growing influence of the production for producers pole

During the 1970s, the Department of Economics at UdeM recruited many new professors. Unlike the incumbent faculty members, many of whom had been educated in France, most of the newcomers had completed their graduate work at English-speaking universities in Canada and the U.S. This mass influx altered the power relations structure within the faculty and transformed the dynamics of intellectual production by changing the relative value of the two major production modes (production for producers and production for non-producers). The university capital of the new recruits was quite different from that of the senior faculty. As a result of their schooling in the English-speaking tradition, they hewed to the scientific legitimization criteria acknowledged by the PFP pole in North America and imposed a symbolic capital based exclusively on production for producers. Hence, they tended to assert the independence of economics with regard to any social claim and any appreciation outside the scientific realm. As a result, they belittled the political/intellectual gratification that had been enjoyed by the older generation of professors on account of their work and their professional involvement with various Quebec government agencies.5

152


The newcomers succeeded in altering the relative value of the species of capital within their department at UdeM through the imposition of the symbolic capital which they had acquired, i.e., economics knowledge that was more mathematical and theoretical than that of their predecessors - a process similar to that observed by Lordon (1997) in France at about the same time. The ascendancy of the PFP pole over the PFNP pole consolidated the legitimacy of the type of scientific production that was most removed from social claims and simultaneously discredited production based on collaboration with non-university actors. UQAM followed suit, but in a less intensive manner, given the diversity of its faculty allegiances to various competing power poles and the 'social' mission that had been ascribed to this university at the time of its establishment.

In imposing a new symbolic capital, the 74-83 cohort of UdeM professors strove to improve their own position and that of their department within the North American field of academic production in economics. As has been well documented (Barber 1997; Beaud and Dostaler 1993; Lebaron 1997, 2000; Lordon 1997), this field had been dominated by the PFP pole since the 1950s. One of the main proponents of changing the criteria for tenure stated why he and other members of his cohort sought to break away from the collaboration tradition, i.e., from production for non-producers, as was common practice at the time:

What we wanted to do at that time was to build a department that would be on par with North American departments in every way. It is very clear that that is what we wanted. We were telling ourselves: we are in North America, so let's train people to work in North America; we live within that context, so let's not delude ourselves: if we want to be recognized we have to play by the rules of the milieu and we must train individuals who will be recognized in that milieu. Moreover, since most of the members of my generation - I'd say 75% to 80% - had been educated in the U.S., we had this international vision to start with.

The adoption of a scientific legitimacy definition analogous to the one prevailing in the English-speaking world implied that greater value be assigned to theoretical work, in keeping with the neoclassical problematic. UdeM therefore modified its selection criteria to attract candidates with a solid background in mathematics or statistics, preferably graduates of universities such as Princeton, Yale, Chicago and MIT, rather than Harvard or Berkeley, where the political economy model was more prevalent.

153

MATHIEU ALBERT

The predominance of two evaluation instruments

The ascendancy of the PFP pole was manifest in two instruments for evaluating scientific production: the ranking of journals in the Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) and the research grants obtained from the Canadian and Qu6bec government research councils.

The JEL ranking of journals gradually came to be considered by economists as a tool for measuring scientific legitimacy, the symbolic benefits being proportional to the ranking of the journals in which professors' articles are published. At the time of data collection, economists were using the ranking system published by Laband and Piette in 1994. This ranking is based on a review of 130 journals and their impact within the international research community; the frequency with which published articles are cited is used to gauge that impact. In light of the interviews, it would appear that UdeM economists systematically use this ranking system to evaluate candidates seeking tenure. At UQAM, this use of this system is not as widespread, which allows its faculty more room to maneuver when choosing a production mode.

Because of the PFP pole's monopoly in terms of the legitimate definition of scientific competence, especially at UdeM, the articles most likely to generate symbolic capital are those published in the top 10 journals in the JEL ranking;6 they belong to class 'A' in the category Journal of Economic Literature Ranking (see Table 1). At UQAM, because of the historical context that marked its foundation in 19697 and the configuration of the power relations among faculty groups, the criteria for granting tenure were not as strictly defined as they were at UdeM. Although a significant number of professors in favor of the PFP pole tried to introduce requirements similar to those used at UdeM, the power relations were never sufficiently in their favor and thus they failed to impose their conception of scientific legitimacy. This may explain why the publication of papers in journals rated highly by JEL is not a sine qua non condition for being granted tenure at UQAM. The data from the CVs of two professors belonging to the 89-98 cohort, identified as subjects 15 and 17 in Table 1, provide a good example of this situation: neither of them had published in a class 'A' journal when they were granted tenure.

The two following excerpts illustrate the sanctioning power ascribed to the journals ranked highest by JEL, especially at UdeM. The first is taken from an interview with a subject from the 74-83 cohort who had contributed to the imposition of the new evaluation criteria:

The tenure criteria of the [UdeM] Department of Economics are quite clear: if you have not published a paper in one of the best economics

154

Table 1. Departments of Economics, Universite de Montr6al (UdeM) and Universit6 du Quebec A Montr6al (UQAM): Comparison of the knowledge production of two cohorts of professors prior to gaining tenure between 1974 and 1983 (first cohort) and between 1989 and 1998 (second cohort)

Universite de Montreal Universite du Quebec a Montreal

(UdeM) (UQAM)

74-83 Cohort 89-98 Cohort 74-83 Cohort 89-98 Cohort

Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Production aimed at producers

Journal of Economic

Literature ranking

Articles published in

French-language journals Articles published in

- - 1A - -- 1A 1A 1A

- B 1B - -B - 2B 1B - - 1C 1B 1C

ID 1 ID ID ID 1C ID 1D 1C - - - 2D IC 1D

1F 3F 3F ID 3F 3F 1D -- 4F 2D IF

3 - 2 3 1 1 1- - 3 1 1

- 2 9 -3 2 - - - 5 3

journals outside the

field of economics

Conference proceedings 1 - - 2 2 - 1 -- 1 -

Books and book chapters 1 2 - 1 1 1 -- 2 1 2 15 1 1

Production aimed at non-producers

Articles published in

Quebec-based journals

2 3 1 4 4 1 2 2 1 4 2 1

in Cl m

z 0

t71 4

m 0 z 0o "I

Table 1. Continued

Universite de Montr6al Universit6 du Qu6bec a Montreal

(UdeM) (UQAM)


Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Research reports 2rg lrg 4rg 2rg 12rg 2rg lab 3ab - - rg lu lab - lab lab 2rg 2ab 2ab 2rg 3rg lOrg 2rg lu

2pf Ico Non-scientific papers 9p - 6n Ipa Ipa - In - - - 3p - 2p pa 3n

3pa 2n

Research grants

With peer evaluation 1 - 1 - 3 3 5 1 4 1 - 10 6 Without peer evaluation - 4 2 3 10 1 1 - -- 6 3 6

* Numbers in cells refer to the numbers of productions by professors in the categories identified in the left-hand column at the time they were granted tenure. * Journal of Economic Literature ranking: article published in an English-language journal likely to be included in the JEL ranking. A: Article published in a journal ranked 1st to 10th. B: Article published in a journal ranked 11th to 30th. C: Article published in a journal ranked 31st to 50th. D: Article published in a journal ranked 51st to 70th. E: Article published in a journal ranked 71st to 130th. F: Article published in an English-language journal not included in the JEL ranking. (Legend continued on page 166)

O-N

0\

4 0-3 m

w rf m


journals and another in one of the best journals within your specialty, you are in serious trouble. Tenure can be denied on those grounds. [...] We tell our younger colleagues: 'don't dissipate your efforts by publishing all kinds of papers that have no real academic value; write fewer papers, but aim higher. If you don't have what it takes to play in the big leagues, at least you'll know'.

In the second excerpt, the professor - subject 9 in Table 1 - explains how he adjusted his academic practices to meet the standards established by the PFP pole. His remarks reveal how he and his colleagues from the 89-98 cohort explicitly organize their work agendas to satisfy the tenure criteria. As can be seen in Table 1, this subject had one article published in a class 'A' journal and two in class 'B' journals, a performance indicating that he was striving for peer recognition:

My research strategy took into account that point in time when I would have to seek tenure. My chosen research themes were generally less risky than those I plan to select from now on [the subject has been granted tenure]. I studied problems that weren't too tricky and didn't stray from the beaten track. If you tackle subjects that are too complex, you risk not being able to publish within the set time limit.

The high value placed upon the journals ranked highest by JEL resulted in a devaluation of production for non-producers as well as that intended for producers not entitled, according to the PFP pole, to define scientific legitimacy. The five categories of production for producers (Table 1) that lost their symbolic power are: Articles published in French-language journals; Articles published in journals outside the field of economics (e.g., sociology, law, linguistics); Conference proceedings; Books and book chapters.

Research grants obtained from government research councils, such as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and the Fonds pour la formation de chercheurs et l'aide a la recherche du Quebec (Fonds FCAR), make up the second tool used by the PFP pole to evaluate academic researchers. Since they are allocated following merit- based peer evaluation, the grants awarded by these councils are used as a quality indicator.8 Financing from other sources, such as research contracts with government departments, private or public agencies or internal university funds, has no sanctioning power since its awarding is not based on peer evaluation. Comparing the 74-83 cohort to the 89-98 cohort in terms of the number of peer-evaluated research grants received shows a definite upward trend in favor of the latter group, chiefly at UdeM, and points to a rise in the symbolic value of this type of grant.9

157

MATHIEU ALBERT

Nevertheless, the data from the UQAM professors' CVs presented in Table 1 show that for both groups the increase in the number of grants, with or without peer evaluation, is equivalent. This may be because the ascendancy of the PFP pole is not as strong at UQAM as it is at UdeM. This being the case, it would mean that upholders of that position do not have enough power to take action in conformity with their convictions. Consequently, some professors would feel more comfortable doing research in collaboration with non-university actors since the fear of reprisal due to negative judgment by colleagues who favor the PFP pole is clearly reduced.

At UQAM as well as at UdeM, academics whose work does not cleave to the neoclassical problematic or who challenge its theoretical foundations are usually denied SSHRC funding. The following excerpt, based on an interview with a professor who has a worldwide reputation - as attested by the quantity and diversity of his production - but who is not held in high regard by the PFP pole, illustrates the difficulties facing these professors:

Toward the end of the 1980s, I received a grant from the SSHRC. Subsequently, I applied for a renewal, to no avail. One or two years later, I asked for a three-year grant but, again, I was turned down. [...] After three refusals, although the pressure from the university to do subsidized research was quite strong, I felt I had better things to do. Eventually [...] I decided to apply to a different committee of the Research Council. Instead of sending my proposal to the economics committee of the SSHRC, I forwarded it to their political science committee, and I got the grant. This shows just how relative the whole process can be.

Hegemonic domination

The monopoly exerted by the PFP pole on the definition of scientific legitimacy currently appears to be so pervasive that even certain tenured professors feel it would be symbolically detrimental to devote efforts to activities that depart from the logic of the field. Other, non-tenured academics are of the opinion that investing time and effort in research activities that are not directed specifically at peer recognition would be prejudicial to being granted tenure.

The next excerpt, from an interview with a tenured professor belonging to the 89-98 cohort, suggests the hegemonic nature of the PFP pole's influence. Before being granted tenure, this academic chose to conform to the scientific requirements imposed by the PFP pole so as to acquire the symbolic capital essential for acquiring that status. Since then, he has divided his time between production for producers and production in collaboration with non-producers. In so doing, he is respecting his conception of scientific research as at once

158


utilitarian (i.e., responding to social needs) and non-utilitarian. As expected, the nature of his research denies him access to the dominant positions within the field:

In economics [production for people outside the university world] is worthless, indeed even negative. Even worse, it proves that we don't get the respect we should in this profession. [...] If I achieve as much as my colleagues in the scientific arena and if, moreover, I'm involved in other types of projects, why should this present a handicap? Because it indicates [...] that I do not see scientific publications as the only standard of performance. It also brands me as a maverick. I'm convinced that if I had not devoted time and effort to non-academic activities, research contracts, television appearances and projects with citizen's groups, the department would have been much more disposed to granting me tenure readily. Because I would have been considered one of them; a genuine academic; which I am not. And therefore, this is a real handicap.

This excerpt is particularly interesting since it suggests the presence in Quebec of a phenomenon similar to what Lordon (1997), and to some extent Malinvaud (1996), have observed in France. The professor's remarks echo what Lordon called economists' "epistemological restlessness", which "guides everything that must be done in economics practice" (1997, p. 32, free translation). According to Lordon, this restlessness is the result of economics' never truly fulfilled ambition to break away from history and idiography and espouse the nomothetical sciences by adopting the physics model. It would appear that the project of neoclassical theory to oblit- erate the historical dimension and the complexity of social determinants at work in economic relationships has, due to its unrealistic aspect, resulted in "psychological investments by the most determined supporters [of the scientific character of economics] in a 'scientist' and 'scholar' identity." Any questioning of that identity would trigger "explosive reactions where hatred for the epistemological-dream-wrecker [and] reprisals for the affront to the commitment to that identity would mingle [...]" (1997, p. 31, free translation).

The domination of the PFP pole is also evident in the reprisals against those professors who do not conform to the fundamental law of the field. For example, the professor identified as subject 8 (cf. Table 1) was the subject of reprisals because he did not devote his energies exclusively to production for producers, as required by the rules governing the tenure-granting process. Although quantitative comparison of his production with that of his colleagues shows they are roughly equivalent, his work stands out because it is distributed across various categories. Unlike his colleagues, none of his

159

MATHIEU ALBERT

articles had been published in a class 'A' journal. One had been published in a class 'D' journal, and three in class 'F' journals. He is also the only one with relatively sizeable production in categories without peer evaluation, which would immediately disqualify it from consideration under the specific criteria. His output included six research reports done for government agencies (RG) and academic bodies (AB). Two of his articles were published outside the economics field (which imparts no symbolic capital?1), while another appeared in a daily newspaper. As far as research grants are concerned, the same paucity of peer evaluation is present. Practically all of this professor's research grants were obtained from agencies whose assessment process did not include peer evaluation.

A comparison of this professor's production and its negative evaluation with the production and positive evaluation of his colleague, subject 10, provides an additional indicator of the dynamics of production in economics at UdeM. While the production of the academic identified as subject 10 is neither large nor diversified (all his papers were published in journals ranked by JEL), he is seen as a promising researcher in view of the high rankings ('A' and 'B') of at least two of the journals in which his articles have been published. He has wholly complied with the fundamental laws of the field of scholarly production in economics and has received the sanctioning of those peers most 'authorized' to assign such recognition.

Contesting the hegemony of the PFP pole

Although in Quebec the domination of the PFP pole is hegemonic in nature, the evaluation criteria that it advocates are contested. Dissenting academics demand that other forms of scientific production, not only articles targeted towards peer acknowledgment at the international level, be recognized. They do not wish to substitute production in collaboration with non-academic actors for production for peers, but seek the broadening of the range of production that could grant access to scientific legitimacy.

As one might expect, such dissenters are relegated to second-rate positions within the field of economics, since their productions, either because they are more aligned with non-producers' concerns or more in keeping with a paradigmatic approach that differs from the neoclassical (e.g., Marxism, regu- lation theory or economic history), generate only limited symbolic capital. The marginalization of these academics takes various forms. At the most basic level, their views may be ignored during discussions dealing with major academic issues, or they may not be assigned responsibilities (administrative, academic, or evaluative) that could add to their symbolic capital. More severe reprisals can include delaying the granting of tenure so as to better judge

160


the candidate's resolution to abide by standards of 'excellence' or, in more extreme cases, the denial of tenure itself.

One of the dissenters' chief grievances concerns the rigidity with which academics aligned with the PFP pole apply evaluation criteria. They believe that such intransigence, because it leads to dislocated, abstract production, negates the social role that academic knowledge should play.

The following excerpt from an interview with a member of the 89-98 cohort, eloquently expresses the criticism dissenting academics level at the PFP pole:

I believe that criteria for excellence should be upheld as much as possible [...], but the context must be taken into consideration. If one wants to publish in international journals, one must be aware that they are not always receptive to data collected in Quebec or Canada. As a result, only purely theoretical papers should be submitted or, in the case of applied economics, only articles [...] relying on U.S. data. [...] This is a serious problem for Canadian scientific culture, and in terms of universities' contributions to economical and social concerns in Quebec and Canada. [...] I find it totally ridiculous to adopt criteria that, a priori, would rule out applied economics research focused on problems pertaining to a national context. [...] Recruiting and promotion criteria should not be such that they turn down all those interested in doing applied economics research with Canadian data.

Other professors believe they must fight against the symbolic violence exerted on non-specialists by economists who make essentially ostentatious use of mathematical language. They feel such language has the effect of rendering economics needlessly obscure and, therefore, confers symbolic power on economists by confounding those who are not competent enough to question the scientific rigor of their work. Still others criticize the isolation of economics within the social sciences and the inability of academics associated with the PFP pole to acknowledge the contributions of interdisciplinary research to the advancement of knowledge.

It would appear that the PFP pole's hegemonic power currently denies dissenting academics any opportunity to modify the relative value of various species of capital and thus impart predominant status to that species with which they are best endowed. To avoid being denied tenure and to maintain a relatively decent reputation among their colleagues on the PFP pole once they do acquire it, these professors are forced into twofold production: production for producers to satisfy the requirements of the PFP pole, and production more aligned with social claims for knowledge or more in keeping with an

161

MATHIEU ALBERT

approach removed from neoclassicism - that is more in harmony with their conception of academic research.

Sequential order of the two knowledge production modes

The 89-98 cohort of professors published fewer papers concerned with social claims for knowledge than their predecessors in the 74-83 cohort (especially at UdeM). The negative value assigned to that type of production indicates that economics, as far as the dynamics of knowledge production is concerned, was not affected to any significant degree by pressures to collaborate with non-university actors and the concomitant 'instrumentalization' of knowledge.

Analysis of the CVs of some professors who had advocated and imposed production for producers suggests, however, that in the middle and at the end of their careers, they use scientific legitimacy acquired within the PFP pole to undertake research activities that respond to the social claim for knowledge or to join committees and study groups in the political and economic fields. 1 This scientific legitimacy allows them to engage in social debates or to act as consultants or administrators, convinced they are doing so on the basis of a scientific apprehension of society, i.e., an unbiased understanding, in accordance with the dominant conception, in economics, of what constitutes scientific knowledge. The legitimacy acquired among peers early in a career is thus seen as the requirement a professor must fulfill in order to be able to act upon the social world with the power associated with scientific knowledge. This process refers to what can be described as a 'field logic': the economists most 'authorized' to take a stand and act upon the social world would seem to be those who have demonstrated that, axiologically, they have acquired unbiased knowledge of it and, in this regard, have contributed to the good name of the discipline.

The answers given by two professors to questions about economists' involvement in social debates and about knowledge production aimed at fulfilling the needs of non-academic actors are an eloquent exemplification of this field logic. Both believe that, for young economists to gain the credibility needed to produce for non-producers, they must first prove themselves within the discipline. The first professor, a member of the 74-83 cohort and a key figure of the PFP pole, stated:

Junior professors do not permanently withdraw from the local [social] scene. They have a lot to do in order to satisfy the criteria for promotion, and they have no choice but to focus their energies on this task. [...] Thus, they are not told to stay away from the social milieu; they are told to be careful, to postpone their involvement. To prove themselves first,

162


establish their credibility as scientists first, and then it will be time to participate in local debates.

The second professor is identified as subject 10 in Table 1. As attested by his publications, he is among the young economists (89-98 cohort) aspiring to a dominant position in the field. His remarks mesh perfectly with those of his elder colleague:

If an economist has something interesting to say about society, why should he abstain from doing so? On the other hand, this is clearly something a younger professor should avoid doing. It can wait for later in his career when he will have established his credibility and shown that he can accomplish really serious work. [...] In any case, I don't think that a young professor who has just completed his Ph.D. has a lot to contribute to social debates. [...] To get involved in such activities is not good for him, or for the profession.

The tendency of economics to distance itself from the social claim for knowledge does not point to a withdrawal from the social sphere, but to the introduction of more complex mechanisms for the translation of that claim for knowledge, a corollary to the 'autonomization' and structuring process at work in the field of economics. That process is expressed in a more stringent definition of the prerequisites for scientific legitimacy and in the establishment of a sequential order for the two major modes of production, namely: production for producers at the beginning of an academic career in order to build a reputation, and production for non-producers occupying a later period, during which academics who so desire are 'authorized' to address social needs.

Knowledge production in economics and the "new production of knowledge" and "entrepreneurial science" models

Contrary to the model proposed by the "new production of knowledge" (Gibbons et al. 1994; Nowotny et al. 2001), it does not seem that knowledge production in economics has followed a trajectory which has seen the decrease of Mode 1 to the benefit of Mode 2. In fact, our data do not support the thesis that disciplinary research intended for peers (Mode 1) would have been relegated to a secondary position in relation to transdisciplinary research centered on problem resolution (Mode 2). Rather, the transformation of research practices seems to have been marked by an increasing valuation of studies intended for peers (Mode 1), and by the division of researchers' careers into two periods: the first devoted to acquiring scientific legitimacy through Mode 1-type production and the second - for those academics who

163

MATHIEU ALBERT

wish to respond to a social need for knowledge - devoted to both production for peers and production of a utilitarian nature. The symbolic value attrib- uted to academic studies has thus lead Mode 1-type research to become the standard for measuring scientific competence; it has also had the effect of positioning academics' Mode 1- and Mode 2-type research according to a sequential order.

Our findings also contradict the "entrepreneurial science" thesis (Etzkowitz, 1996, 1998; Etzkowitz et al. 2000; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000). In fact, none of our data suggests that university economists have acquired a stronger entrepreneurial ethos than in the past. On the contrary, the decline in the symbolic value of problem-solving research and the deferment of this type of production to the second stage of an academic career has entailed a decline, or at the very least, a stability, in the number of studies undertaken on behalf of governments or public or private institutions.

Results: Sociology

The growing ascendancy of the PFP pole over the PFNP pole

In a similar fashion to what has occurred in economics, since the 1970s changes in the dynamics of production in sociology have been marked by the growth of production for producers. Yet this growth did not lead, as was the case in economics, to the discrediting of production that aims to address social claims. At UdeM, for example, there was a noticeable increase in production for producers and a relative decrease - but not a desertion or a dismissal - of the production for non-producers (see Table 2). At UQAM, both forms of production showed an increase, although the growth of PFP was more pronounced (see Table 2).

A brief review of the dynamics that prevailed in the 1970s can help in understanding the shift in the dynamics of intellectual production during the last three decades. The most critical requirement the members of the 74-83 cohort at UQAM had to fulfil to be granted tenure was to have a Ph.D. degree. In 1969, when UQAM was founded, the number of Quebec researchers with a doctoral degree in sociology was quite small and the sociology department was obliged to hire candidates with master's degrees in order to fill the newly created positions. This may explain why the knowledge production of the 74-83 cohort at UQAM is relatively limited.

This requirement aside, UQAM professors had a considerable degree of freedom as far as choosing the thrust of their academic production was concerned. The degree of institutionalization of sociology as a discipline, still relatively small in the 1960s, may also explain why tenure criteria were

164

Table 2. Departments of Sociology, Universite de Montrdal (UdeM) and Universite du Qu6bec a Montreal (UQAM): Comparison of the knowledge production of two cohorts of professors prior to gaining tenure between 1974 and 1983 (first cohort) and between 1989 and 1998 (second cohort)

Universite de Montreal (UdeM) Universit6 du Qu6bec a Montreal (UQAM)


Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Production aimed at producers Articles written in French 1 3 2 3 10 1 11 2 1 1 5 3 6 7 8

and English published in

Quebec and in Canada Articles published outside - - 4 - 2 1 2 2 - 2 - 2 1 - 2

Qudbec and Canada

Conference proceedings - - - 3 - 1 - 1 - - - 2 3 - 1

Books and book chapters 1 - I - 1 2 1 1 2 - - 5 2 3 3 1

written in French and

published in Quebec Book chapters published - - 7 - 3 1 - 1 - -- 2 1 1

outside Qu6bec Refereed conferences in 5 6 6 5 5 13 4 1 9 - 6 13 13

Quebec, Canada and

internationally

Production aimed at non-producers Research reports 2ab 6rg lrg 2ab lu lrg lco - 2co - 2rg 2rg 2ab

C

-q

m rn

z

0

3

Table 2. Continued

Universite de Montreal (UdeM) Universite du Quebec a Montr6al (UQAM)


Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

lab 2rg 6ab 3ab lab 2rg 2ab lco 2co lco

Non-scientific papers 24p lp 3pa lpa lpa lpa lp - 6p - Ip 2co 2p lp In 4pa 5n Ip Ip Ipa 3pa lpa

Non-refereed presentations - 7 14 1 1 5 5 3 - - - 9 14 6 3 6

in Quebec and Canada

Research grants With peer evaluation - 2 - 10 4 1 8 2 - - - 3 - 2 3 1

Without peer evaluation - 7 - 7 2 7 - 3 -2 4 4 4

* Research reports: ab: report for an academic body (e.g., research center or funding agency). co: report for a public or community body; pf: report for a private firm; rg: report for a government or government agency; u: report for a union; * Articles published in journals outside the field of economics: articles published in refereed journals outside the field of economics (sociology, law, linguistics, etc.). * Non-scientific papers: articles published in non-refereed journals. p: political article; pa: popularization article; n: article in a newspaper.

:E

r en


not more demanding. Table 2 shows that one scientific article, one conference paper and one professionally commissioned work were sufficient for a professor to be granted tenure (see subject 11). Professors who had published a greater number of non-scientific works of a political nature than scientific works could also get tenure (see subject 9).

As for UdeM, the earlier foundation of its sociology department in 1955 had allowed the recruiting of professors to be spread out over time, making it easier to hire candidates with doctoral degrees. The pursuit of objectives other than those tied to the completion of a dissertation thus steered these professors' production. This may explain why the 74-83 cohort at UdeM had a larger volume of production than did their UQAM colleagues at the time they were granted tenure. On the other hand, having more freedom and enjoying circumstances favorable to actions with political and social impact would seem to have prompted some members of this cohort to devote more time to production for non-producers. This was the case, for example, of subject 1 in Table 2 who, at the time he was granted tenure, had published more than 24 non-scientific works of a political nature yet only a single article in a peer-reviewed journal as well as a book. To a lesser degree, this is also the case for subject 2, whose total of 14 non-scientific publications and research reports greatly exceeded the volume of his scientific production in peer-reviewed journals, which consisted of three articles. For his part, the professor identified as subject 3 seems to be an exception within the 74-83 cohort both in terms of its quantity, which is relatively substantial, and its distribution, which is relatively even across both the PFP and PFNP categories. However this particular academic also stands apart from the 89- 98 cohort since the volume of his production (including conference papers) is about the same in both categories, while for the rest of the 89-98 cohort, the volume of production for producers tends to exceed that in the other category.

The rising importance of production for producers

The data indicate that during the 1990s, amongst the criteria used to evaluate the production submitted by assistant professors in support of requests for promotion, production for producers has been given progressively more weight. Articles published in peer-reviewed journals are held in the highest regard. Through the course of these years, research funds granted on the basis of peer evaluation (e.g., SSHRC, Fonds FCAR, CQRS) have also gained in symbolic value as has, according to some academics, the publication of books. Professors' productivity as an indicator of their enthusiasm for work is also taken in consideration, as long as they have published a minimum amount of peer-reviewed articles.

167

MATHIEU ALBERT

The following excerpt, from an interview with an 89-98 cohort professor, shows the growing pressure exerted - mainly, but not exclusively - by the PFP pole on junior professors to conform to the career model emergent in the early 1990s:

For me, it was hell: the race for research grants, for publishing [...]. I came along right at the beginning of that dreadful period for young researchers. I was truly working 80 hours a week. That's all I did. One year I asked for maybe eight research grants and got four [...]. And I believe that nowadays [the late 1990s] even more demands are made on those who are starting out. In most cases, just to be hired they must have completed postdoctoral studies; they also must have published a substantial number of articles, much more than what was expected from us when I started in the early 1990s. Things are also more demanding as far as research grants are concerned [...]. And don't forget that we, as faculty members, are behind these requirements; we're the ones responsible for hiring.

Some professors from the PFNP pole criticize the standardization of scientific production, which they attribute to the growing ascendancy of the PFP pole. They claim that such standardization is due to the imposition of the natural sciences evaluation model on the social sciences as a whole. The pressures exerted on junior professors and on candidates for university positions are such that they develop publishing strategies more in line with career planning than with enhancing the social relevance of research. Henceforth, for young professors - and even more so for those aspiring to such positions - the choice of a publishing vehicle is determined by the wish to acquire the scientific legitimacy accorded by the PFP pole:

Nowadays [the evaluation of professors] has become so standardized. I tell young researchers: 'Never mind the trivialities [i.e., very narrow academic research]; what you're doing is boring and it has no impact.' But they're being published in highly rated international journals. [...] To a large extent, they are trapped in the role model established by the natural sciences and that came to the social sciences by way of economics. [...] I believe this model has been imposed too harshly, so that there's no longer any diversity. One of the downsides is that you have some brilliant young researchers, but they're devoting their time and energies to trivial problems. Nevertheless, they stick to that approach because the payoff is there: they get the research funds, they get published and they increase their chances of getting a good position later.

168


As for research funds, the data indicate that those obtained through peer evaluation are henceforth vested with a power of legitimization, which was not the case previously. The following excerpt, from an interview with a professor belonging to the 89-98 UQAM cohort, illustrates this shift:

I believe that [research grants] were a lot less important ten or fifteen years ago. Professors who were granted research funds were seen a bit like entrepreneurs. [...] Nowadays, not only is this completely accepted, it is also status-enhancing. Indeed, it carries with it a whole range of benefits, not least of which is tenure. [...] No doubt about it, there is prestige attached to it [...]. I've been with UQAM for quite a few years and I've seen the culture settle in. Fifteen years ago, professors without research funds had no hang-ups. They saw their colleagues who were funded as busybodies; people who want to do everything [...]. There was something slightly derogatory about that judgment. Things have changed since then.

Because of the increased competition among professors for research grants and among candidates aspiring to university positions, it is not surprising that articles published in so-called international journals (i.e., published outside Quebec) have begun to acquire a higher level of symbolic capital than those appearing in so-called local journals. The usual refusal by sociology professors to differentiate journals on the basis of where they originate can thus be questioned, since some are beginning to make distinctions on that basis. The lack of available resources and the resulting intensified competition could explain the shift in publishing practices which appears to be underway. The interviews and CVs also indicate that some young professors and aspiring professors, seeking to increase the return on their investment, publish results from the same study twice: first in a French- language scientific journal (usually Quebec-based) and subsequently in an English-language journal (published outside Quebec). This practice indicates the increasing power wielded by those academics aligned with the PFP pole in the definition of evaluation criteria for producers.

The fragmented nature of sociology and multipolar opposition

Although professors as a whole believe that scientific legitimacy is now gained mainly through peer recognition, they hold divergent opinions concerning which kinds of production are more likely to confer such legitimacy. As a result, there is no universally accepted indicator that would make it possible to distinguish those academics who have acquired symbolic capital from those who have not. This is no doubt a trait that sets sociology firmly apart from economics. For example, some professors maintain that

169

MATHIEU ALBERT

only articles published in peer-reviewed journals are liable to impart scientific legitimacy, while others think that books also have a symbolic power of legitimization. Some academics consider that, since they are usually commissioned productions, book chapters have no real value, while still others think they are indeed a source of symbolic capital. The question of research reports leads to similar differences of opinion regarding the amount of scientific legitimacy they yield.

Some professors (especially from the 74-83 UQAM cohort) believe that obtaining research funds is not a prerequisite for being granted tenure, while others (mainly from the 89-98 cohort) believe the opposite.

The three following excerpts provide a clear illustration, which is made even more striking by their juxtaposition, of the heterogeneity of opinions concerning the symbolic value of the various production categories.

The first professor:

It could be said that a book is worth more than an article. But one would also have to say that an article published in a very prestigious journal can sometimes be worth just as much as, if not more than, a book. Plus, book chapters are less valued insofar as they are usually commissioned.

The second:

Ten years ago, books and book chapters still had value. Today, it's mainly articles in peer-reviewed journals that count. Reports for governments and public organizations and articles published in professional journals aren't worth much except as proof that a professor is at least doing something.

The third:

I believe that research reports have just as much value as books. In any case, those that I have done involved a considerable amount of work on my part and were subjected to serious evaluation by those organizations that commissioned them.

As can be seen from these professors' remarks, the symbolic value associated with various production categories varies considerably. To understand the reasons for that variation, it is necessary to examine the dynamics of sociology knowledge production from a perspective other than the PFP/PFNP opposition. Indeed, besides this opposition, which could be qualified as 'bipolar,' the dynamics of knowledge production also seems to be structured by a system of 'multipolar' oppositions. This second system of oppositions would be due to the discipline's fragmentation into various specialties and paradigms (e.g., sociology of science, of art, of organizations, of health,

170


feminist or Marxist sociology, quantitative or qualitative approaches, etc.) and to the multiplicity of hierarchical organization principles as they apply to both productions and producers. This fragmentation could explain why professors express different opinions when they are asked to identify the production categories most likely to confer scientific legitimacy. It could also explain why the PFP pole has not succeeded in winning over a sufficient number of academics to exercise full hegemony in sociology.

Unlike economics, where the imposition of PFP-pole scientific legitimacy criteria to the discipline as a whole has enabled the use of a single 'yard- stick,' sociology presents itself as a more fragmented discipline. Each of its subdisciplines functions according to its own standards regarding knowledge production and loci of legitimization (journals, research centers, awards, publishers, etc.) and is characterized by a distinctive configuration as far as the balance of power between the PFP and the PFNP poles is concerned. The true peers of sociologists specializing in any given subdiscipline are not necessarily their colleagues within their department - the latter, in fact, being only an administrative entity - but those researchers with whom they interact within that subdiscipline and whose 'home base' may be in sociology or in some other field.

Because of the multiple combinations possible between researchers and disciplines within each specialty and because of the diversity of the power relations they may give rise to, the criteria for scientific legitimacy may differ in each domain. For example, work produced in collaboration with non- university actors may generate a great deal of symbolic capital in a given specialty or paradigm while being prejudicial to the advancement of one's career in another. Sociology thus seems to be made up of a set of knowledge production domains, each marked by polemics about competing definitions of what constitutes scientific legitimacy.

Various U.S. studies have reached conclusions similar to ours (Abbott 2001; Collins 1986, 1994; Stinchcomb 1994). While employing different terms - "interstitial" discipline (Abbott 2001), "fragmented" discipline (Collins 1986), "disintegrated" discipline (Stinchcombe 1994) - these studies show that sociology is presently characterized as much by diverse objects of study as methodological styles and theoretical frameworks. This fragmentation of the discipline has resulted in the multiplication of criteria for quality and the impossibility of evaluating researchers according to a common scale. Moreover, Collins (1986, p. 1340) and Stinchcombe (1994, pp. 283, 284) assert that the various specialties and paradigms are now differentiated to such a point that researchers are little or badly acquainted both with the debates going on and the knowledge produced in other domains than their own.

171

MATHIEU ALBERT

Thus, the structure of power relations proceeds not only from the opposition of the two production poles, but also from the numerous oppositions stemming from the fragmentation of sociology into specialized subfields and diverse paradigms. The two sociology departments involved in the present study are a good example of this logic of action. Each department publishes a learned journal using a model that reflects this cohabitation of different orientations. Each issue is devoted to a special topic and, under the super- vision of the managing editor, department professors (occasionally with the help of outsiders) assume editorship. They make use of their own networks of scientific contacts and their individual styles of sociological practice influence the choice of authors as well as their evaluation of submitted papers. For his part, Collins (1986) illustrates the fragmentation of the discipline by presenting the example of the American Sociological Association, where the number of specialized subfields has continuously increased during the last few decades.

The fragmentation of sociology into various research domains and paradigms would appear to make it difficult to form lasting alliances among professors and allow one sub-entity to impose a single set of standards for defining a production/producers hierarchy. Unlike economics, where the PFP pole has succeeded in imposing its own set of standards, the diversity of competing conceptions of science in sociology has made the development of a power pole capable of imposing its definition of scientific legitimacy on the overall field of sociology practically impossible.

Four systems for evaluating productions and producers in sociology

From the data analysis, it was possible to draw up a typology made of four competing evaluation systems within sociology. The first system, referred to as fragmented pluralism, is characterized by a refusal to pass any sort ofjudg- ment out of respect for the diversity of approaches and types of production. This form of evaluation, which requires, as a matter of principle, the dismissal of any judgment appears to be based on the following postulate: in matters of sociological knowledge, there is no criterion that could possibly grant to any type of knowledge an exclusive claim on legitimacy. The relativism at the foundation of this system incites its advocates to appreciate equally all forms of knowledge production pertaining to sociology. Therefore, because of their refusal to exercise any form of discrimination, supporters of fragmented pluralism do not favor one production category over the other where the PFP/PFNP clash is concerned.12

A second evaluation system, designated universal standardization, adopts a quantitative appreciation principle based on the volume of productions. Wishing to avoid the intricacy and the arbitrariness of evaluation procedures

172


that go hand in hand with the fragmentation of sociology and the division into two poles, advocates of this system favor the adoption of a sole criterion applicable, in all situations, to all professors, regardless of research field: that criterion is productivity. As far as the PFP/PFNP opposition is concerned, champions of universal standardization attach little or no importance to whether a professor produces for one category or the other.

The third evaluation system could be referred to as limited pluralism - meaning that it is open to the pluralism of approaches and types of production. However, it requires professors subjected to evaluation to prove that their work has been deemed worthy of acknowledgment by their immediate peers. All recognized subfields in sociology seem a priori to be accepted by the upholders of this system, along with other forms of study claiming affinities with sociology (e.g., cultural studies, queer theory). Under this system an academic must demonstrate that, as far as scientific legitimacy is concerned, s/he has met the criteria specific to his/her subdiscipline. As concerns the PFP/PFNP opposition, this system acknowledges the hierarchical organization principle of the subfield in which the professor is involved.

The fourth and last evaluation system could be designated as hierarchical pluralism. It is characterized by the application of a double judgment: the first concerning the position held by the professor in his/her subfield, and the second on the position occupied by that subfield within sociology. The advocates of this system consider not only whether professors' production has been judged worthy by their immediate peers - in the same manner as the supporters of limited pluralism - but also whether that specific research area complies with their own definition of sociology. In this system, individual academics, or subsets of academics, attempt to impose the evaluation criteria they advocate for their own field over the whole of the discipline. As far as the PFP/PFNP opposition is concerned, supporters of hierarchical pluralism give priority to the dominating production category in their own research area or to the category they wish were preponderant, should it not already be so.

Hierarchical pluralism echoes the "war of metatheories or worldviews" described by Collins (1986, p. 1341). This "war" results from the fact that professors consider that the research practices associated with their own particular subfield provide a better understanding of social phenomena than those of other subfields. This judgment leads to the wish to impose their research principles upon sociology as a whole and denigrate the rest of the field as "profoundly misguided" (Collins 1984, p. 1341). If, indeed, this "war of metatheories" constitutes a mode within which the struggle for the imposition of a hierarchical organization principle for academics is played, our study nevertheless demonstrates that it is not the only one. In fact, we have distin-

173

MATHIEU ALBERT

guished at least three other modes, or evaluation systems, competing within the field of sociology, namely fragmented pluralism, universal standardization and limited pluralism. Moreover, the PFP/PFNP opposition traverses these three systems, which only adds to the number of competing hierarchical organization principles.

These four evaluation systems, individually and in combination, offer alternatives to those associated with the PFP/PFNP opposition. In matters of evaluation, sociology must come to terms with differing practices: on the one hand are the evaluation frameworks stemming from the fragmentation of the discipline and, on the other, those resulting from the clash between the two production poles. This constant trade-off is a distinctive trait of the dynamics of knowledge production in sociology and, hence, a feature that sets sociology apart from economics. The vagueness apparent when one tries to use professors' judgments to ascertain the symbolic value of the different categories of production underscores the present fragmentation of the discipline and the accompanying plurality of evaluation systems.

The midpoint between the two production poles and the 'tripolar' opposition

In spite of the fragmentation of their discipline, sociologists, whatever their research areas and the positions they hold therein, cannot avoid the pressures favorable to collaboration and the instrumentalization of knowledge production. Thus, despite everything, the struggle between the PFP and PFNP poles occupies an important place in the dynamics of knowledge production. It remains marked by the opposition between professors who advocate increased collaboration with non-university actors and those who favor a greater distancing in the face of external demands for knowledge.

The following two excerpts illustrate the stances upheld by actors in each of the two poles. In the first, a PFNP supporter underlines the importance of collaborating with non-university actors to conduct research aimed at solving problems that would ensure social and economical progress:

Economic progress follows social progress. [...] Some professors fear that by borrowing a little from the competitiveness discourse, one has to adhere to the whole neoliberal agenda. [...] They think that opening that door means you have to buy everything inside. Personally, I think that you have to take some and leave some. [...] I think we have a major role to play, without being foolishly taken over by the trappings of social engineering.

In the second excerpt, a PFP advocate argues against researchers' collaborative practices and against the concomitant instrumentalization of the

174


research process by maintaining that such practices are at odds with the criticism role that sociology should play:

I believe that quality plummets because it is a selective/targeted type of production; they are answers to social requests. [...] I think there is an erosion; the institution itself is losing some of its autonomy. [...] The university is a place of research, a place where a knowledge synthesis is developed, in and for society; not for sponsors or for particular needs. [...] A look at the place occupied by sociology within the SSHRC reveals that it has been buried within the social sciences, which are, by definition, sciences of social intervention. I do not understand why sociologists have put up with this. Sociology is becoming an interventionist discipline within the behavioral sciences.

All the same, most professors, while remaining sensitive to these points of view, advocate and practice what could be qualified as a 'mixed' type of scientific activity, i.e., aimed as much at producers as at non-producers. This group of professors occupies a position halfway between the PFP/PFNP poles, forming a third pole. Jointly with the multiple oppositions stemming from the fragmentation of the discipline, this third pole acts as a counterbalance to the hegemonic designs of the two extreme poles.

On the basis of the data in Table 2, some professors practicing this dual production stand out fairly clearly. At UdeM, they are subjects 3, 5, 6 and 7; at UQAM, they are subjects 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14. Some of their work, in various proportions, is intended for peers (e.g., articles in peer-reviewed journals, books and book chapters), while other work is meant for non- university actors (e.g., research reports, popular scientific work or work with political overtones and conferences for non-academic audiences).

According to numerous interviewees, this 'mixed' type of production is explained by the fact that for many professors there is no airtight boundary between the two extreme poles, that is, between production for peers and production in collaboration with non-academic actors. On the contrary, they see them as complementing each other. These professors believe that besides having to gain peer recognition to ensure their scientific legitimacy, they must also, through their production, contribute to social debates.

Knowledge production in sociology and the "new production of knowledge" and "entrepreneurial science" models

This analysis of the transformation of knowledge production in sociology does not provide support for the thesis that research intended for peers (Mode 1) would have been relegated to a lesser rank than that centered on problem resolution (Mode 2). Rather, the shift in research practices seems to have

175

MATHIEU ALBERT

been characterized by an increase in the number of studies employing both production modes and by a certain predominance in the volume of production related to Mode 1. As in economics, this predominance can be accounted for by the fact that knowledge production intended for peers has acquired a greater symbolic value than that intended for non-academic actors. Contrary to what was observed in economics, however, to the extent that they acquire a scientific legitimacy based on Mode 1-type production, sociology professors are not penalized for undertaking Mode 2-type production at the beginning of their academic careers.

Our results thus suggest that sociology has not been transformed according to the "new production of knowledge" model. Added to the quashing of the hypothesis noted in economics, this leads to a challenge of the capacity of the NPK model to satisfactorily account for the transformations taking place in knowledge production in the social sciences.

In regard to the "entrepreneurial science" model, our results indicate that neither the scientific production, nor the rationales stated by academics in order to account for their research practices, allow us to discern the advance of an entrepreneurial tendency. In fact, the research activities of academics in the 89-98 cohort seem no more motivated by economic preoccupations than those in the 74-83 cohort and, on this point, sociology professors do not differ from their colleagues in economics.

Conclusion

This study aimed to examine, within the context of the intensifying pressure to 'instrumentalize' knowledge, the transformation of the knowledge production dynamic in sociology and economics.

The results showed that, since the 1970s in Quebec, economics departments have been marked by strong paradigmatic unity stemming from the ascendancy of the production for producers pole. This unity most notably induces university researchers to modulate those pressures in favor of collaboration and the 'instrumentalization' of knowledge. In this discipline, faculty members defer collaborative production with non-university actors until later in their careers, after they have produced for producers in accordance with explicitly structured rules. They thus contribute to their discipline's reputation for axiological neutrality and at the same time ensure a sound basis for their own scholarly reputations. Therefore, economics forms a highly structured field of scientific production with strictly defined conditions of access. Evaluation of producers and their productions is based on selected criteria that barely allow any room for heterodoxy.

176


As a discipline, sociology has quite a different tradition. It is at once multiparadigmatic and strongly influenced, through its subfields, by a variety of other disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. It does not offer the same kind of resistance to pressures in favor of collaboration and of the 'instrumentalization' of knowledge and it is not characterized by the sequential arrangement of production categories throughout its practitioners' careers.

Our results have also indicated that the dynamics of knowledge production in sociology cannot be thoroughly understood - as economics can more easily be - through the structuring of the discipline into two production poles (PFP/PFNP). Although the opposition between these two poles is fundamental to the dynamics of knowledge production in the current socioeconomic context, it alone is not sufficient to an understanding of all of its aspects. To bring out the desired subtleties, two distinctive characteristics of sociology must be taken into account. The first concerns the fragmentation of the discipline into separate specialized subfields, none of which has managed to impose its legitimization criteria on the discipline as a whole; each subfield thus retains its own distinct production dynamic. The second is the large number of professors who engage in dual production, i.e., intended for both producers and non-producers. These two particularities help explain why the PFP pole, while predominant, has not succeeded in establishing the conditions necessary for exercising hegemony over the entire field.

The coexistence of several modes of knowledge production and various conceptions of scientific quality that has been observed among professors in economics and sociology echoes the results obtained in recent studies of "disciplinary cultures" (Ylijoki 2000) and the evolution of university professors' research practices over the course of the last decades (Hakala and Ylijoki 2001; Slaughter and Leslie 1997; Shinn 2000). These studies demonstrate that academic research can not be envisaged as a homogenous unit. On the one hand, several "scientific and technical research regimes" coexist within universities (Shinn 2000). On the other, the various disciplines form a heterogeneous whole, each endowed with values and standards of quality specific to it alone (Ylijoki 2000). This heterogeneity in effect modu- lates the pressures exercised by the outside environment because social needs for knowledge are filtered through the specific culture of each discipline. Our results support recent studies indicating that the 'instrumentalization' of knowledge does not constitute a universally widespread phenomenon among the whole range of academic disciplines. If a certain number of them, such as engineering and the more applied branches of the natural sciences, have been able to develop practices characteristic of "academic capitalism" (Slaughter and Leslie 1997), others, the majority of which can be found

177

MATHIEU ALBERT

within the humanities and social sciences, have not undergone this transformation (Albert 2000; Hakala and Ylijoki 2001; Shinn 2000; Ylijoki 2000). The results of our study indicate that the humanities and social sciences have not reduced the place given to knowledge production intended for peers in order to increase research targeted at problem resolution; indeed, those results tend to suggest the very opposite.

The relative autonomy of the disciplines studied, as well as the multifar- ious nature of academic research, challenge such too-inclusive explanatory models as Mode 1/Mode 2 (Gibbons et al. 1994; Nowotny et al. 2001) and "entrepreneurial science" (Etzkowitz 1996, 1998; Etzkowitz et al. 2000; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000). In fact, if one wishes to adequately account for the transformations taking place in academic knowledge production, one must avoid forming generalizations about the ensemble of academic disciplines based on observations that only apply to a few - in this case, to the natural and biomedical sciences and engineering. The specificities that we have observed in sociology and economics demonstrate that it is preferable to first study each discipline as an autonomous field of activity and then posit conclusions about similarities and differences. In this way, a more accurate understanding of the changes affecting academic research may be attained.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Paul Bernard participated in the development of this project.

Notes

1. It should be noted that the Slaughter and Leslie study (1997) included a qualitative component.

2. In applying for tenure in Canadian universities, faculty members must update their curricula vitae and submit them to various levels of authority for evaluation. The initial decision-making level is the university department.

3. For more details concerning these principles, see Albert (1999). 4. These interviews have been analyzed in such a way as to identify a logic corroborated by

all of the available data. Those quotations used as examples thus represent broader trends than the mere opinions of the individuals concerned.

5. For an analysis of the growth of the social sciences in Quebec, together with the transformation of the power relations between the economic and political fields during the period preceding economics' breakaway from the utilitarian tradition, see Fourier (1973, 1974) and Foumier et al. (1975). These studies show how the social sciences gained new prestige following the rise of the "new petite bourgeoisie" to political power during the 1960s.

178


That prestige was accompanied by an increase in research budgets and infrastructures - a prerequisite for the establishment of an autonomous field of scientific production endowed with its own specific apparatus for production, distribution and recognition.

6. The journals most frequently mentioned by the UdeM economists during the interviews were Econometrica, Journal of Political Economy and American Economic Review. They occupied the 2nd, 3rd and 7th positions respectively in the 1994 JEL ranking (Table 2, Rankings Based on Impact Adjusted Citations per Article, pp. 664-667, in Laband and Piette, 1994).

7. Initially, UQAM was given the mission of contributing to the 'democratization' of university education in Qudbec. The significant involvement of faculty in research projects aimed at answering the needs of local communities was one way of carrying out that mission. As a result, production for non-producers was encouraged and valued from the outset.

8. The grants awarded by the Fonds FCAR, however, seem to have a lower symbolic value than those awarded by SSHRC. The Fonds FCAR relies on pluridisciplinary committees, and PFP pole economists are of the opinion that some committee members do not have the required competency to properly judge research projects in economics. This lower symbolic value points to the essentially 'unidisciplinary' character of 'authorized' scientific production in economics.

9. Note, however, that subject 8 (Table 1) obtained a much larger number of grants without peer evaluation (n = 10) than with peer evaluation (n = 1). As will be seen later, this professor does not constitute an exception. On the contrary, based on this lack of evaluation, he was subjected to reprisals.

10. The refusal to accord legitimacy to articles in economics published in scholarly journals from other fields bears witness to the PFP pole's reluctance to acknowledge the scientific character of the research methods and results in the other social sciences. On that subject, one of the interviewees belonging to the PFP pole let it be known that sociology was not a science because it had not adopted the evaluation methods specific to the (natural) sciences, contrary to economics, which has adopted a 'universal' standard of measurement in the JEL ranking system.

11. The following agencies could be cited as examples. In Qu6bec: the Ministry of Industry and Commerce; the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology; the Ministry of Education. In Canada: the Department of Human Resources Development; the Office of the Auditor-General. Internationally: the World Bank.

12. See Abbott (2001) on sociology's tendency to welcome all areas of knowledge pertaining to it.

References

Abbott, A. (2001). Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

Albert, M. (2000). 'Strategies d'adaptation des organismes subventionnaires en sciences humaines et sociales au Canada et au Quebec face aux compressions budg6taires gouvemementales', Canadian Journal of Higher Education 30(3), 1-32.

Albert, M. (1999). Transformations des pratiques de recherche en sciences economiques et en sociologie dans deux universites quebecoises: instrumentalisation du savoir? Doctoral dissertation. Universite de Montreal. http://www.pum.umontreal.ca/theses/catalogue.html.

179

MATHIEU ALBERT

Barber, W.J. (1997). 'Postwar changes in American graduate education in economics', in Coats, A.W. (ed.), The Post-1945 Internationalization of Economics. Durham andLondon: Duke University Press, pp. 12-30.

Beaud, M., and Dostaler, G. (1993). La pensee economique depuis Keynes. Paris: Seuil. Bourdieu, P. (1999). 'Understanding', in Bourdieu, P. (ed.), The Weight of the World: Social

Suffering in Contemporary Society. trans. P. Parkinson. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 607-626.

Bourdieu, P. (1997). Les usages sociaux de la science: Pour une sociologie clinique du champ scientifique. Paris: Institut national de la recherche agronomique.

Bourdieu, P. (1996). The Rules of Art: Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field. trans. S. Emanuel. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1991). 'The peculiar history of scientific reason', Sociological Forum 6(1), 3-26. Bourdieu, P. (1975). 'La sp6cificite du champ scientifique et les conditions sociales du progres

de la raison', Sociologie et societes 7(1), 9 -117. Bourdieu, P. (1971). 'Le marche des biens symboliques', L'annee sociologique 22, 49-126. Bourdieu, P. and Wacquant, L. (1992). An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press. CQRS (1997). Plan stratdgique 1997-2000: Pour une politique de recherche et developpement

en matiere sociale. Quebec: Conseil qu6becois de la recherche sociale. Collins, R. (1994). 'Why the social science won't become high-consensus' rapid-discovery

science', Sociological Forum 9(2), 155-177. Collins, R. (1986). 'Is 1980s sociology in the doldrums?', American Journal of Sociology

91(6), 1335-1355. Crespo, M. (2001). 'Tendances actuelles des politiques publiques a l'egard de l'enseignement

superieur: une analyse comparative', Canadian Public Policy 37(3), 279-295. CSTQ (2000). Social Innovation and Technological Innovation: The Contribution of Research

in the Social Sciences and the Humanities. Qu6bec: Conseil de la science et de la technologie du Qu6bec.

Dalpe, R. and Anderson, F. (1995). 'National priorities in academic research-strategic research and contracts in renewable energies', Research Policy 24, 563-581.

deAngelis, R. (1998). 'The last decade of higher education reform in Australia and France: Different constraints, differing choice, in higher education politics and policies', in Currie, J. and Newson, J. (eds.), Universities and Globalization: Critical Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 123-139.

Elzinga, A. (1993). 'Universities, research, and the transformation of the State in Sweden', in Rothblatt, D. and Wittrock, B. (eds.), The European and American University since 1800: Historical and Sociological Essays. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 191-233.

Etzkowitz, H. (1998). 'The norms of entrepreneurial science: Cognitive effects of the new university-industry linkage', Research Policy 27, 823-833.

Etzkowitz, H. (1996). 'From knowledge flows to the Triple Helix: The transformation of academia-industry relations in the USA', Industry & Higher Education 10(6), 337-342.

Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2000). 'The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and "Mode 2" to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations', Research Policy 29, 109-123.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C. and Cantisano Terra, B.-R. (2000). 'The future of the university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm', Research Policy 29, 313-330.

180


Fairweather, J.S. (1988). Entrepreneurship and Higher Education. Washington, D.C: Associ- ation for the Study of Higher Education.

Fisher, D., Atkinson-Grosjean, J. and House, D. (2001). 'Change in academic/industry/state relations in Canada: The creation and development of the networks of Centres of excellence', Minerva 39(3), 299-325.

Fisher, D. and Rubenson, K. (1998). 'The changing political economy: The private and public lives of Canadian universities', in Currie, J. and Newson, J. (eds.), Universities and Globalization: Critical Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 77-98.

Foumier, M. (1974). 'La sociologie qu6becoise contemporaine', Recherches sociographiques 15(2-3), 167-199.

Fournier, M. (1973). 'L'institutionnalisation des sciences sociales au Quebec', Sociologie et societes 5(1), 27-57.

Fourier, M., Germain, A., Lamarche, Y. and Maheu, L. (1975). 'Le champ scientifique quebecois: structure, fonctionnement et fonction', Sociologie et societes 7(1), 119-132.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Gingras, Y., Godin, B. and Tr6panier, M. (1999). 'La place des universit6s dans les politiques scientifiques et technologiques canadiennes et quebecoises' in Beaulieu, P. and Bertrand, D. (eds.), L'Etat quebecois et les universit6s: Acteurs et enjeux. Sillery, Quebec: Presses de l'Universit6 du Quebec, pp. 69-99.

Godin, B. (1998). 'Writing performative history: The new New Atlantis?', Social Studies of Science 28(3), 465-483.

Godin, B. and Gingras, Y. (2000). 'The place of universities in the system of knowledge production', Research Policy 29, 273-278.

Gumport, P.J. (2000). 'Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives', Higher Education 39, 67-91.

Hakala, J. and Ylijoki, O.-H. (2001). 'Research for whom? Research orientations in three academic cultures', Organization 8(2), 373-380.

Hiyrinen-Alestalo, M. (1999). 'The university under the pressure of innovation policy: Reflecting on European and Finnish experiences', Science Studies 12(1), 44-69.

Laband, D.N. and Piette, M.J. (1994). 'The impacts of economics journals: 1970-1990', Journal of Economic Literature 32(2), 640-667.

Lebaron, F. (2000). La croyance economique? Paris: Seuil. Lebaron, F. (1997). 'La denegation du pouvoir', Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales

119, 3-26. Lordon, F. (1997). 'Le d6sir de "faire science"', Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales

119, 27-35. Malinvaud, E. (1996). 'Pourquoi les 6conomistes ne font pas de d6couvertes', Revue

d'dconomie politique 106(6), 929-942. MRST (2001). Knowledge to Change the World: Policy on Science and Innovation. Quebec:

Ministere de la Recherche, de la Science et de la Technologie. Newson, J. (1994). 'Subordinating democracy: The effects of fiscal retrenchment and

university-business partnerships on knowledge creation and knowledge dissemination in universities', Higher Education 27, 141-161.

Nowotny, H., Scott, P. and Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-Thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Shinn, T. (2000). 'Axes thematiques et marches de diffusion. La science en France, 1975- 1999', Sociologie et societes 32(1), 43-69.

181

182 MATHIEU ALBERT

Slaughter, S. (1998). 'National higher education policies in a global economy', in Currie, J. and Newson, J. (eds.), Universities and Globalization: Critical Perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 45-70.

Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the

Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Stinchcombe. A.L. (1994). 'Disintegrated disciplines and the future of sociology', Sociolo-

gical Forum 9(2), 279-291. SSHRC (1996). Striking the Balance: Priorities for 1996-2001. Ottawa: Social Sciences and

Humanities Research Council of Canada. SSHRC (1990). A Vision for the Future: A Five-Year Strategy from the Social Sciences and

Humanities Research Council. Ottawa: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Williams, G.L. (1992). Changing Patterns of Finance in Higher Education. London: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Ylijoki, O.-H. (2000). 'Disciplinary cultures and the moral order of studying - A case-study of four Finnish university departments', Higher Education 39, 339-362.

universities and the market economy the differential impact on knowledge production in

Documents

conditions of use

jstor archive

noncommercial use

jstor transmission

sociology andeconomics

economics authors

social cohesion

social programswill