ABSTRACT
This study is based on analysis of copyright policies and 26 interviews with science and engineering faculty at three research universities on the topic of copyright beliefs, values, and practices, with emphasis on copyright of instructional materials, courseware, tools, and texts. Given that research universities now emphasize increasing external revenue flows through marketing of intellectual property, we expected copyright to follow the path of patents and lead to institutional emphasis of policies and practices that enhanced universities' intellectual property portfolios, accompanied by an increase in copyrighting by professors. Although this pattern occurred with regard to institutions, professors offered a more varied pattern, with some fully participating in commercialization of copyright and embracing entrepreneurial values, while others resisted or subverted commercial activity in favor of traditional science and engineering values.
Subject(s)
Biological Science Disciplines/ethics , Chemical Engineering/ethics , Chemistry/ethics , Copyright/ethics , Faculty , Universities/ethics , Attitude , Biological Science Disciplines/education , Biological Science Disciplines/organization & administration , Chemical Engineering/education , Chemical Engineering/organization & administration , Chemistry/education , Chemistry/organization & administration , Commodification , Entrepreneurship/ethics , Ethics, Institutional , Ethics, Research , Faculty/organization & administration , Female , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Humans , Male , Organizational Policy , Ownership/ethics , Patents as Topic/ethics , Professional Autonomy , Social Values , Surveys and Questionnaires , Teaching Materials , Textbooks as Topic , Universities/organization & administrationABSTRACT
RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES RECEIVE INCREASING amounts of income from intellectual property, which makes institutional conflict of interest (ICOI) policies increasingly important. We analyzed the content and scope of ICOI policies at 60 research universities in the U.S. Association of American Universities. In particular, we focused on the following categories: disclosure, review, management, and prohibited or constrained activities. Most of the plans were relatively unelaborated, but 8 were elaborated "university as firm" policies that addressed the way officers and managers acting as agents for the university handled commercial activity through an array of management tools. However, even elaborated current ICOI policies may not be sufficient to manage ICOI because this type of commercial activity is not routine for universities in that faculty discovery or creation of intellectual property is not predictable. Thus, nearly all ICOI is managed on a case-by-case basis by various committees or senior institutional officials. As a result, institutional policy is only as strong as these committees and officers and the management plans they develop and monitor to handle conflicts.
