O presente trabalho elabora uma biografia coletiva dos professores e alunos da Universidade de São Paulo, que, em 1958, começaram a ler O Capital de Karl Marx. Contrastadas as leituras esparsas anteriores e posteriores à constituição desse grupo, esta se caracteriza pela convergência de esforços de áreas diferentes, pela insubordinação à disciplina partidária e às vulgatas dela decorrentes pari passu a adesão e defesa da disciplina scholar; pela ênfase em questões de método e pendor teórico, mobilizadas, segundo a área de cada um dos participantes, para a elaboração de teses que dialogam entre si. A reconstituição das linhas de força condicionantes dessa inovação pressupõe acompanhar percursos de mobilidade social, filiações magistrais, tensões geracionais, gradiente de autonomização, profissionalização e diferenciação disciplinar. A cristalização das relações horizontais com os amigos de seminário; e verticais com os catedráticos a que estão ligados encontra-se em seus doutoramentos. Para que a análise realçasse tais dimensões, refizemos o percurso dos seminaristas, da graduação ao doutorado, acompanhando rotações institucionais que marcaram o itinerário coletivo. O exame se concentra mais detidamente entre o início das atividades e a publicação da última tese oriunda desses estudos (1958-1978). / The present work develops a group biography of the professors and students from the University of São Paulo which started to read Karl Marxs Capital. Having contrasted the sparse readings made before and after the constitution of this group, this study is characterized by the converging of endeavors from different areas, by the insubordination to the party discipline and to the vulgates due to them simultaneously to the adhesion and support of the scholar discipline, by the emphasis in questions of method and theoretical penchant, mobilized, according to the area of each of the participants, to the elaboration of thesis which dialogue among themselves. The reconstitution of the conditioning lines of force of this innovation assumes following trajectory of social mobility, magisterial affiliations, generational tensions, gradient of empowerment, professionalization and discipline differentiation. The crystallization of horizontal relations with friends from the seminar; and verticals with the professor who they are connected with is present in their doctorate works. In order to enhance the analysis of such dimensions, the trajectory of the seminar students was retaken, from the undergraduate course to the doctorate, following institutional rotations which marked the group itinerary. The examination concentrates itself more accurately between the beginning of the activities and the publishing of the last thesis originated from these studies (1958-1978).

Knowledge production has changed considerably in the past few decades. This transformation has notably affected universities both as unique institutions and citadels of knowledge. These changes are being brought by a number of factors, such as the globalization of the economy, the rise of technologies based on generic forms of knowledge, and the ability of universities to hold and exploit patents. In both scale and intensity, these alterations have led policy makers to reflect more on how scientific and technological innovation can and should be enhanced by policy decisions that would improve university-industry and government cooperation. This new fusion of three complementary societal sectors has been described by sociologists as the triple helix. As an analytical and normative concept, the triple helix is derived from the changing role of government in different societies in relation to academia and industry. Its basis is the recognition that the interaction among university-industry-government as relatively independent, yet inter-dependent institutional spheres is critical to improving the conditions for innovation in a knowledge-based society. The study reveals that commercial research funding significantly affects the perceptions of university-industry collaboration and academic knowledge capitalization. The analysis showed that academic scientists who received commercial research funding have relatively positive views about university-industry relations than those who do not receive such funds. However, one cannot conclude that commercial activities of academic scientists are harming the core functions of the university or that intellectual autonomy is being surrendered to industrial partners. Based on the findings of the study, and the contours of the triple helix model, it is argued that the growth of university-industry-government collaboration is not necessarily pre-determined in favour of either private corporations or the state, nor is it necessarily at the expense of universities. It is further contended that the growing notion that academic capitalism is harming the core functions of the university is perhaps a bit simplistic in that the issue is more complex and multifaceted than usually acknowledged. <p>In light of the above, the study asserts that the future viability of policies encouraging universities to be entrepreneurial may, if approached strategically, be catalysts for the science-based knowledge economy. For that to be realistic there is the need to understand the university as a differentiated social system rather than a unified whole. This will avoid the situation whereby all university activities are subordinated under a homogenous policy of one size fits all. In the context of triple helix relations, conceptualizing the university as a differentiated social system means a deep-seated and continually growing purposeful specialization such as the adoption of an economic development function in addition to teaching, research and community engagement.

Knowledge production has changed considerably in the past few decades. This transformation has notably affected universities both as unique institutions and citadels of knowledge. These changes are being brought by a number of factors, such as the globalization of the economy, the rise of technologies based on generic forms of knowledge, and the ability of universities to hold and exploit patents. In both scale and intensity, these alterations have led policy makers to reflect more on how scientific and technological innovation can and should be enhanced by policy decisions that would improve university-industry and government cooperation. This new fusion of three complementary societal sectors has been described by sociologists as the triple helix. As an analytical and normative concept, the triple helix is derived from the changing role of government in different societies in relation to academia and industry. Its basis is the recognition that the interaction among university-industry-government as relatively independent, yet inter-dependent institutional spheres is critical to improving the conditions for innovation in a knowledge-based society. The study reveals that commercial research funding significantly affects the perceptions of university-industry collaboration and academic knowledge capitalization. The analysis showed that academic scientists who received commercial research funding have relatively positive views about university-industry relations than those who do not receive such funds. However, one cannot conclude that commercial activities of academic scientists are harming the core functions of the university or that intellectual autonomy is being surrendered to industrial partners. Based on the findings of the study, and the contours of the triple helix model, it is argued that the growth of university-industry-government collaboration is not necessarily pre-determined in favour of either private corporations or the state, nor is it necessarily at the expense of universities. It is further contended that the growing notion that academic capitalism is harming the core functions of the university is perhaps a bit simplistic in that the issue is more complex and multifaceted than usually acknowledged. <p>In light of the above, the study asserts that the future viability of policies encouraging universities to be entrepreneurial may, if approached strategically, be catalysts for the science-based knowledge economy. For that to be realistic there is the need to understand the university as a differentiated social system rather than a unified whole. This will avoid the situation whereby all university activities are subordinated under a homogenous policy of one size fits all. In the context of triple helix relations, conceptualizing the university as a differentiated social system means a deep-seated and continually growing purposeful specialization such as the adoption of an economic development function in addition to teaching, research and community engagement.

Are foreign-born scientists different from native-born scientists with respect to research activity and performance? This question has important policy implications not only for immigration policy but also for science policy because a substantial part of scientific research in the United States is conducted by foreign-born scientists. This study examines the differences between foreign-born and native-born scientists in research collaboration, grants, and publication productivity. The data for this study are 443 curricula vitae (CVs) and survey of scientists and engineers that Research Value Mapping Program (RVM) at Georgia Tech conducted from 2000 to 2001. By using the multiple indicators, the findings show that foreign-born scientists do not differ significantly in research collaboration and grants from their native-born counterparts. But in terms of publication productivity, foreign-born scientists are consistently more productive than their native-born counterparts. This study also examines the impact of being foreign-born on research collaboration, grants, and productivity, and which factors account for the differences between foreign-born and native-born scientists in collaboration, grants, and productivity. When other relevant variables are controlled for, being foreign-born still has a strong positive effect on publication productivity. Collaboration and grants have a significant positive effect only on the productivity of native-born scientists, whereas strong research preference of foreign-born scientists contributes to their relatively higher productivity. Differences are also found among foreign-born scientists, largely depending on their national origin categorized by the similarity of language and culture. The theoretical and policy implications are also discussed.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2001. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 673-700).

Title from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on March 10, 2010). The entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file. Thesis advisor: Dr. Lee Wilkins. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D)--History, Technology and Society, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2010. / Committee Chair: Pearson, Willie, Jr.; Committee Member: Bauchspies, Wenda; Committee Member: Damarin, Amanda; Committee Member: Shapira, Philip; Committee Member: Wong, Raymong. Part of the SMARTech Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Collection.

published_or_final_version / English / Doctoral / Doctor of Philosophy

Professional development is an essential component to maintaining quality teaching in mathematics and science (Monk, 1994; Milken, 2000; Loucks-Horsley et al, 2003). University mathematics and science faculty have been subject to criticism regarding professional development and teaching practices (CSMEE, 2000; NRC, 1999; NSES, 1996). Undergraduate students in secondary pre-service Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) teacher training programs adopt the models that they have experienced as learners in the university setting (NRC, 1999). This qualitative case study followed a team of three research faculty, one lecturer, one master teacher, and two graduate teaching assistants who team taught an upper level inquiry- based science research methods science course in a STEM teacher preparation program in the College of Natural Sciences at a large public Midwestern research university. Course instructor dialogue between members was recorded, transcribed and triangulated with teaching sequences, course materials, and student interaction during two semesters. The study detailed how faculty members’ and graduate teaching assistants’ content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about teaching and learning were confronted, challenged, and transformed using interdependent disquisition via regular weekly meetings and team teaching practices. Examples of actual dialogue and meeting characteristics are presented compared and discussed against best practices in science education. Four themes emerged from the data: (1) students’ inquiries drive the conversation, (2) confrontations sort out what works from what doesn’t, (3) leadership seems to contribute to learning opportunities for the team and (4) humor indicates the divergent creative abilities of the members of the team and engaging in humorous episodes facilitates learning between team members. Students were directly connected to team members’ developmental processes. This analysis suggests that measurable professional development opportunities exist in team meetings for science faculty and graduate teaching assistants when team teaching inquiry based undergraduate science courses. / text

This dissertation consists of three essays in applied microeconomics. These essays investigate different aspects of the impact of technology on labor market outcomes and firm strategy. The first essay, co-authored with Ronald L. Oaxaca, is in the area of labor economics and it investigates the relation between non-neutral technological change and the gender gap in wages. This essay is the first to address the issue of the recent narrowing of the gender wage gap in the context of technological change by using a novel approach to separately estimate the effects of technological change and discrimination on the gender wage gap. Using a constant elasticity of substitution production function and Current Population Survey data on employment and wages by industry and occupation, the results show that changes in non-neutral technological change explain between 5% and 9% of the narrowing of the wage gap between 1979 and 2001. The latter two essays span topics across applied industrial organization, firm strategy and labor economics. The second component of my dissertation investigates the relation between technological knowledge diffusion through the labor mobility of scientists and the organization of R&amp;D activities by innovative firms. Using a labor mobility measure from the Current Population Survey March Supplements as a measure for inter-firm technology spillovers and a panel of R&amp;D alliance data for 18 U.S. industries between 1989 and 1999, a Poisson estimation shows that firms facing a 10% increase in the labor mobility of scientists have a 5% increase in the annual number of R&amp;D collaborations. The third essay is an empirical analysis of the impact of knowledge dissemination generated by the labor mobility of scientists and engineers on a measure of the pace of innovation. Using an unbalanced panel of firms containing patent data matched with firm data across eight innovative industries, from 1989 to 1998, along with a measure of the labor mobility of scientists and engineers, this essay provides evidence that firms in industries exposed to levels of labor mobility of scientists and engineers that differ by 1%, have an expected time lag between sequential generations of technologies that differs by 0.56 years.