Abstract
For centuries, the processes of social differentiation associated with Modernity have often been thought to intensify the need for site-specific forms of role training and knowledge production, threatening the university’s survival either through fragmentation or through failure to adapt. Other lines of argument emphasize the extent to which the Modern system creates and relies on an integrated knowledge system, but most of the literature stresses functional differentiation and putative threats to the university. And yet over this period the university has flourished. In our view, this seeming paradox is explained by the fact that modern society rests as much on universalistic cosmological bases as it does on differentiation. The university expands over recent centuries because – as it has from its religious origins – it casts cultural and human materials in universalistic terms. Our view helps explain empirical phenomena that confound standard accounts: the university’s extraordinary expansion and global diffusion, its curricular and structural isomorphism, and its relatively unified structure. All of this holds increasingly true after World War II, as national state societies made up of citizens are increasingly embedded in a world society constituted of empowered individuals. The redefinition of society in global and individual terms reduces nationally bounded models of nature and culture, extends the pool of university beneficiaries and investigators, and empowers the human persons who are understood to root it all. The changes intensify universalization and the university’s rate of worldwide growth. For the university’s knowledge and “knowers,” and for the pedagogy that joins them together, the implications are many. The emerging societal context intensifies longstanding processes of cultural rationalization and ontological elaboration, yielding great expansions in what can and should be known, and in who can and should know. These changes in turn alter the menu of approved techniques for joining knowledge and knower as one. The “knowledge society” that results is distinguished by the extraordinary degree to which the university is linked to society. But it is also distinguished by the degree to which society is organized around the university’s abstracted and universalized understandings of the world and its degree-certified graduates.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Already a century ago, the range of university subjects was sufficiently extended to include, for example, courses in Bandaging and Cattle Feeding at Tokyo Imperial University and degrees in Brewery Engineering at Belgium’s l’Université Catholique de Louvain.
One finds many examples of the university’s universalizing tendencies. For example in the 1879–80 Catalogue of the University of Wisconsin, a course in Agricultural Botany – addressed to Wisconsin’s farm-raised youth – is presented in highly abstracted and scientized terms. “Agricultural Botany: Botanical characteristics and geographical distributions of the natural orders, with their relative importance. The genera and species having agricultural value; those having commercial or medical value; those having ornamental value; and those which are noxious or detrimental, as weeds or poisonous plants.”
Note however that in arguments closely akin to those developed here, Ernest Gellner (1983) observed that the extreme differentiation of modern society is accompanied by the least specialized and most standardized educational system in history. We are indebted to the editor for this point and reference.
Wolfe (1996) uses businesses and states as foils for the university’s “feudal culture.” Architectural dramatizations of the university’s continuity – e.g., in the brand new Gothic buildings at Korea University – are striking and commonplace.
Early on, U.S. land-grant universities often explicitly recognized the university’s inability to replace on-the-job training. For example in the 1879–80 Catalogue of the University of Wisconsin, the department of mining and metallurgy conceded: “It is not claimed that the [program] turns out experts...but that it produces the proper kind of raw material to make experts from.” Likewise, the civil engineering department modestly sought, “to give its students such instruction...as shall fit them, after a fair share of experience, to fill responsible positions in the profession.”
This imagery is commonplace. For instance, “A knowledge-based society is one where knowledge diffusion, production and application become the organizing principle in all aspects of human activity: culture, society, the economy, politics and private life” (UNDP 2003: 2).
Recent discussions of the fragmentation of knowledge seem overstated given the extent to which university curricula in fact expand on universalistic bases. “Higher education has atomized knowledge by dividing it into disciplines, subdisciplines, and sub-subdisciplines – breaking it up into smaller and smaller unconnected fragments of academic specialization, even as the world looks to colleges for help in integrating and synthesizing the exponential increases in information....We must reform higher education to reconstruct the unity and value of knowledge...[which] is really just shorthand for saying that the complexity of the world requires us to have a better understanding of the relationships and connections between all fields that intersect and overlap” (Gregorian 2004).
Dewey made this point in his 1916 classic, Democracy and Education, which Winther-Jensen (1998) summarizes thus: “[E]ducation became a civic function and the civic function was identified with the realization of the ideal of the national state. The ‘state’ was substituted for humanity; cosmopolitanism gave way to nationalism. To form the citizen, not the ‘man,’ became the aim of education.”
A principles-based rationalization of nature seems subjective and therefore arbitrary, while a science-based rationalization of God seems reductionist and therefore arbitrary.
The state-centric impulse appears clearly, e.g., in political science and development economics (as in manpower planning [e.g., Livingstone 1998]).
The reconfiguration of “society” shows in the changing contents of Colonial Studies. In the early twentieth century, these stressed the colonizing nation-state’s objectives. For instance in 1930, a Colonial Sciences degree from the Université Catholique de Louvain required courses in Congolese Languages, Colonial Law, Cultures of the Congo (Farming, Hunting, and Fishing), Political Economy and Tools of the Colony, Ethnology and Ethnography (Indigenous Politics), Colonial Hygiene, and the Catholic Missions. In universities now, Colonial Studies highlight the experiences of colonized individuals.
An 1891 letter from future University of Chicago president Harry Judson to then president William Harper suggests the nation-state’s curbs on knowledge: “I dislike the idea of a foreigner at the head of such a department in an American university. It seems to me that departments involving American history, American literature, and American politics should be in charge of Americans.... I must confess that I don’t fancy having to work under a German. I doubt if many American professors would” (Boyer 2003).
Thus, for example, the University of Zululand’s 2006 degree offerings are largely conventional (imaginable in Kansas or Bosnia). In the Faculty of Arts, one may study Afrikaans, Anthropology, Arts and Culture, Communications, Criminal Justice, English, Linguistics, Geography and Environmental Studies, German, History, Intercultural Communication, IsiZulu, Language Studies, Library Science, Nursing, Philosophy, Psychology, Recreation and Tourism, Social Work, Sociology, Theology, and Human Movement Sciences. The 1999 Bologna Declaration seeks unprecedented organizational homogeneity among the historically distinct universities of Europe (Krücken 2005; Lenhardt 2002, 2005; Teichler 2002).
The recent displacement of novels by memoirs on U.S. best-seller lists suggests the contemporary blanket relevance of private lives. While the rationalization of knowledge may seem at odds with pedagogical emphases on experience, in fact experiential knowledge takes on highly rationalized forms. Given the primordiality of the human individual, experience can be tightly specified and highly generalized.
We describe the university’s changes as if they occurred simultaneously everywhere. The implicit assumption is that expansive rationalization and liberalizing ontological construction are very widespread, as are their university consequences. This is not entirely unreasonable – changes in the university indeed occur in parallel worldwide. But it is also true that much variation remains at lower levels of analysis – at national levels, amongst individual universities, and at departmental and program levels (see Jepperson 2002 for an illustrative general analysis and Lenhardt 2005 for a specific discussion of cross-national university variations).
Until 1961, the world’s oldest university, Al-Azhar in Egypt (founded 975), encompassed only three faculties: Theology, Shariat (Islamic canon law), and Arabic Language. Now, there are also faculties of Commerce, Education and Instruction, Languages and Translation, Sciences, Medicine, Chemistry, Engineering, Dentistry, Agriculture, Islamic and Arab Studies, and Islamic Da’awa (spiritual awakening).
Of Harvard’s three history courses in 1853, none focused on the American Revolution, despite the university’s location in the cradle thereof.
Hamburger University shows just how far the process has gone. In Leidner’s account (1993), Hamburger universalizes products and services under heavily theorized rationales. Consultancies such as the Corporate University Xchange give advice on such issues as Corporate University Design and Development.
For example, the reinterpretation of female genital cutting on universalistic medical and psychological grounds transforms a local custom into a global women’s rights violation (Boyle 2002).
Gibbons et al. (1994) describe the evolving theory of knowledge as a shift from “mode 1” knowledge (pure, disciplinary, homogeneous, expert-led, supply-driven, hierarchical, peer-reviewed, university-based) to “mode 2” knowledge (applied, problem-centered, trans-disciplinary, heterogeneous, hybrid, demand-driven, entrepreneurial, network-embedded). Harrington (2007) analyzes the investment-club phenomenon.
Hirsch (1999) and others stand by the value of such pedagogical techniques.
At China’s Imperial Tientsen University in 1900, e.g., penmanship and military drill were mandatory. The Yale Report of 1828, written to rebut critics of the classical curriculum, summarizes the discipline-oriented view: “The two great points to be gained in intellectual culture, are the discipline and the furniture of the mind; expanding its powers, and storing it with knowledge. The former of these is, perhaps, the more important of the two. A commanding object, therefore, in a collegiate course, should be, to call into daily and vigorous exercise the faculties of the student. Those branches of study should be prescribed, and those modes of instruction adopted, which are best calculated to teach the art of fixing the attention, directing the train of thought, analyzing a subject proposed for investigation; following, with accurate discrimination, the course of argument; balancing nicely the evidence presented to the judgment; awakening, elevating, and controlling the imagination; arranging, with skill, the treasures which memory gathers; rousing and guiding the powers of genius....The habits of thinking are to be formed, by long continued and close application.... If a dexterous performance of the manual operations, in many of the mechanical arts, requires an apprenticeship, with diligent attention for years; much more does the training of the powers of the mind.”
Public rankings and humiliations once were common. For example, the Dublin University Calendar of 1914–15 lists the Order of Rank in the College: “Provost; Fellows; Noblemen, Sons of Noblemen, and Baronets; Doctors and Masters in the several Faculties; Bachelors; Fellow-Commoners; Scholars; Pensioners; and Sizars, who are students of limited means.” Additionally, Dublin held regular Corrections: “At half-past ten o’clock on Saturday mornings, the Junior Dean attends in the Hall, and reads out the names of all Students who have been punished for neglect of duties or other offences.”
In particular, one may argue that our ideas pertain to elite universities more than lower-status institutions. We have explored this argument preliminarily, with materials from the historically black Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute (now Tuskegee University) from around World War I. So far it is not supported.
References
Altbach, P. G. (1998). Comparative higher education: Knowledge, the university and development. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Antonian, L. A. (2000). Armenia: Higher education problems and perspectives. International Higher Education, 19, 19–20.
Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., & Milem, J. F. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15, 507–510.
Beck, U. (1992). The risk society. London: Sage.
Bell, D. (1973). The coming of post-industrial society: A venture in social forecasting. New York: Basic.
Berg, G. A. (2005). Lessons from the edge: For-profit and nontraditional higher education in America. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Berg, I. E. (1971). Education and jobs: The great training robbery. Boston: Beacon.
Bloom, A. (1987). The closing of the American mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Boli, J. (2005). Contemporary developments in world culture. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 46, 383–404.
Boyer, J. (2003). Judson’s war and Hutchins’s peace: The University of Chicago and war in the 20th century. Occasional papers on higher education XII. Chicago: College of the University of Chicago.
Boyle, E. H. (2002). Female genital cutting: Cultural conflict in the global community. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Boyle, E. H., & Meyer, J. W. (1998). Modern law as a secularized and global model: Implications for sociology of law. Soziale Welt-Zeitschrift Fur Sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung Und Praxis, 49, 275–294.
Bradley, K., & Ramirez, F. O. (1996). World polity and gender parity: Women’s share of higher education, 1965–1985. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 11, 63–92.
Bridges, D., Juceviciene, P., Jucevicius, R., & Mclaughlin, T. H. (2006). Higher education and national development: Universities and societies in transition. London: Routledge.
Brint, S. (2002). The rise of the ‘practical arts’. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect (pp. 231–259). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Brown, D. K. (2001). The social sources of educational credentialism: Status cultures, labor markets, and organizations. Sociology of Education (Extra Issue), 74, 19–34.
Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society, volume 2: The Information Age. Oxford: Blackwell.
Chabbott, C. (1999). Defining development: The making of the international development field, 1945–1990. In J. Boli & G. M. Thomas (Eds.), Constructing world culture: International non-governmental organizations since 1875 (pp. 222–248). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Collins, R. (1979). The credential society. New York: Academic.
de Botton, A. (1999). What are the humanities for? European Review, 7, 19–25.
Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., & Hwang, H. (Eds.) (2006). Globalization and organization. Oxford: Oxford University.
Drori, G. S., Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., & Schofer, E. (2003). Science in the modern world polity: Institutionalization and globalization. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Drori, G. S., & Moon, H. (2006). The changing nature of tertiary education: Cross-national trends in disciplinary enrollment, 1965–1995. In D. P. Baker & A. W. Wiseman (Eds.), The impact of comparative education research on institutional theory. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Durkheim, E. ([1898] 1969). Individualism and the intellectuals. (Trans. S. Lukes). Political Studies, 17, 14–30.
Durkheim, E. ([1957] 1975). Professional ethics and civic morals. (Trans. C. Brookfeld). London: Routledge.
Frank, D. J. (1997). Science, nature, and the globalization of the environment, 1870–1990. Social Forces, 76, 409–435.
Frank, D. J., & Gabler, J. (2006). Reconstructing the University: Worldwide changes in academia in the 20th century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. W. (2002). The profusion of individual roles and identities in the post-war period. Sociological Theory, 20, 86–105.
Frank, D. J., & Meyer, J. W. (2006). Worldwide expansion and change in the university. In G. Krücken, C. Castor, A. Kosmützky, & M. Torka (Eds.), Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions (pp. 17–42). Bielefeld, Germany: transcript Verlag.
Frank, D. J., Wong, S.-Y., Meyer, J. W., & Ramirez, F. O. (2000). What counts as history: A cross-national and longitudinal study of university curricula. Comparative Education Review, 44, 29–53.
Gabler, J., & Frank, D. J. (2005). The natural sciences in the university: Change and variation over the 20th century. Sociology of Education, 78, 183–206.
Geiger, R. L. (2004). Knowledge and money: Research universities and the paradox of the marketplace. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Gellner, E. (1983). Nations and nationalism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwarzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Gregorian, V. (2004). Colleges must reconstruct the unity of knowledge. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(39), B12.
Gumport, P. J., & Snydman, S. K. (2002). The formal organization of knowledge: An analysis of academic structure. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 375–408.
Habermas, J. (1987). The idea of the university – Learning processes. New German Critique, 41, 3–22.
Hale, F. W. Jr. (Ed.) (2003). What makes racial diversity work in higher education: Academic leaders present successful policies and strategies. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Harrington, B. E. (2007). Pop finance: Investment clubs and the new ownership society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Hatakenaka, S. (2004). University – Industry partnerships in MIT, Cambridge, and Tokyo: Storytelling across boundaries. New York: Falmer.
Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (1987). Cultural literacy – What every American needs to know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hirsch, E. D. Jr. (1999). The schools we need: And why we don’t have them. New York: Anchor.
Hofstadter, R. (1963). Anti-intellectualism in American life. New York: Knopf.
Hofstadter, R., & Smith, W. (Eds.) (1961). American higher education: A documentary history. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Hymans, J. E. C. (2005). What counts as history and how much does history count? The case of French secondary education. In H. Schissler & Y. N. Soysal (Eds.), The nation, Europe, and the world: Textbooks and curricula in transition (pp. 61–81). New York: Berghahn.
Jackson, A. W., & Davis, G. A. (2000). Turning points 2000: Educating adolescents in the 21st century. New York: Teachers College.
Jencks, C., & Riesman, D. (1968). The academic revolution. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Jepperson, R. L. (2002). Political modernities: Disentangling two underlying dimensions of institutional differentiation. Sociological Theory, 20, 61–85.
Karabel, J. (2005). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kerr, C. (1963). The uses of the university. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Kerr, C. (1991). The great transformation in higher education 1960–1980. Albany, NY: SUNY.
Kerr, C., Dunlop, J. T., Harbison, F. H., & Myers, C. A. (1960). Industrialism and industrial man: The problem of labor and management in economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Kirp, D. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein and the bottom line. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Kors, A. C., & Silverglate, H. A. (1998). The shadow university: The betrayal of liberty on America’s campuses. New York: Free.
Krücken, G. (2005). The Europeanization of higher education and the bachelor/master reform: Some lessons from the German case. Department of Sociology, University of Bielefeld.
Krücken, G., Castor, C., Kosmützky, A., & Torka, M. (Eds.) (2006). Towards a multiversity? Universities between global trends and national traditions. Bielefeld, Germany: transcript Verlag.
Krücken, G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. Chapter 10. In G. S. Drori, J. W. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organization. Oxford: Oxford University.
Leidner, R. (1993). Fast food, fast talk: Service work and the routinization of everyday life. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Lenhardt, G. (2002). Europe and higher education between universalisation and materialist particularism. European Educational Research Journal, 1(2), 274–289.
Lenhardt, G. (2005). Hochschulen in Deutschland und in den USA. Wiesbaden, Germany: Vs Verlag.
Livingstone, D. W. (1998). The education – jobs gap: Underemployment or economic democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Maassen, S., & Weingart, P. (Eds.) (2005). Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Magolda, M. B. (1999). Creating contexts for learning and self-authorship: Constructive developmental pedagogy. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Mann, M. (1990). The rise and decline of the nation state. Oxford: Blackwell.
McEneaney, E. H. (2003). Elements of a contemporary primary school science. In G. S. Drori, J. W. Meyer, F. O. Ramirez, & E. Schofer (Eds.), Science in the modern world polity: Institutionalization and globalization (pp. 136–154). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
McEneaney, E. H., & Meyer, J. W. (2000). The content of the curriculum: An institutionalist perspective. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of sociology of education (pp. 189–211). New York: Plenum.
Meyer, J. W. (1977). Effects of education as an institution. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 55–77.
Meyer, J. W., Boli, J., Thomas, G. M., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation-state. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 144–181.
Meyer, J. W., & Jepperson, R. (2000). The ‘actors’ of modern society: The cultural construction of social agency. Sociological Theory, 18, 100–120.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Paul, T. V., Ikenberry, G. J., & Hall, J. A. (Eds.) (2003). The nation-state in question. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Ramirez, F. O. (2002). Eyes wide shut: University, state and society. European Educational Research Journal, 1, 256–272.
Ramirez, F. O. (2006). The rationalization of universities. In M.-L. Djelic & K. Shalin-Andersson (Eds.), Transnational governance: Institutional dynamics of regulation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
Readings, B. (1996). The university in ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Riddle, P. (1989). University and state: Political competition and the rise of universities, 1200–1985. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Sociology, Stanford University.
Riddle, P. (1993). Political authority and university formation in Europe, 1200–1800. Sociological Perspectives, 36, 45–62.
Robertson, R. (1992). Globalization: Social theory and global culture. London: Sage.
Robinson, K. (2005). The rise of individualism and the elective system in higher education. Department of Sociology, University of California-Irvine.
Rojstaczer, S. (1999). Gone for good: Tales of university life after the Golden Age. Oxford: Oxford University.
Schmidt, P. (2005). From special ed to higher ed. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(24), A26.
Schofer, E. (1999). The rationalization of science and the scientization of society: International science organizations, 1870–1995. In J. Boli & G. M. Thomas (Eds.), Constructing world culture: International nongovernmental organizations since 1875 (pp. 249–266). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the 20th century. American Sociological Review, 70, 898–920.
Shulman, L. S. (1999). Taking learning seriously. Change, 31, 10–17.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.
Soares, J. A. (1999). The decline of privilege: The modernization of Oxford University. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Stichweh, R. (2004). Knowledge society and the system of science. Swiss Journal of Sociology, 30, 147–166.
Suárez, D. (2007). Education professionals and the construction of human rights education. Comparative Education Review, 51, 48–70.
Sullivan, W. M. (2005). Work and integrity: The crisis and promise of professionalism in America (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Teichler, U. (2002). Towards a ‘European higher education area’: Visions and realities. Centre for Research on Higher Education and Work, University of Kassel.
Thomas, G. M., Meyer, J. W., Ramirez, F. O., & Boli, J. (1987). Institutional structure: Constituting state, society, and the individual. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Treiman, D. J., & Ganzeboom, H. B. G. (2000). The fourth generation of comparative stratification research. In S. R. Quah & A. Sales (Eds.), The international handbook of sociology (pp. 123–150). London: Sage.
Tsutsui, K., & Wotipka, C. M. (2004). Global civil society and the international human rights movement: Citizen participation in international human rights nongovernmental organizations. Social Forces, 83, 587–620.
UNDP (2003). The Arab human development report 2003: Building a knowledge society. New York: United Nations Development Programme.
UNESCO (2005). Statistical yearbook. Paris: UNESCO.
Washburn, J. (2005). University, Inc.: The corporate corruption of American higher education. New York: Basic.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Windolf, P. (1997). Expansion and structural change: Higher education in Germany, the United States, and Japan. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Winther-Jensen, T. (1998). Society, individual man, and education. Paper presented at the conference on Education in Late Modernity. Institute of Education, University of London.
Wolfe, A. (1996). The feudal culture of the postmodern university. The Wilson Quarterly, 20, 54–66.
World Bank (2000). Higher education in developing countries: Peril and promise. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Acknowledgments
For suggestions and guidance, we owe thanks to many colleagues, including Gerhard Casper, Gili Drori, Patti Gumport, Georg Krücken, Gero Lenhardt, Alex McCormick, Francisco Ramirez, Uwe Schimank, Evan Schofer, and Manfred Stock. The ideas presented here reflect collaborative work carried out over many years, as referenced in the text. Some relevant empirical illustrations are presented in Frank and Meyer (2006). Work on the article itself was supported by grants to Francisco O. Ramirez and John W. Meyer from Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute and from the Spencer Foundation (20060003) and to David John Frank from the Spencer Foundation (200700213) and from the Center for the Study of Democracy at the University of California, Irvine.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Frank, D.J., Meyer, J.W. University expansion and the knowledge society. Theor Soc 36, 287–311 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9035-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-007-9035-z