Introduction

Higher education in the world has experienced a drastic change in the last few decades. Through those changes, a new model of research universities has been identified. In describing Yale's future mission and role, Levin (2003) used the term 'global university', and in presenting the new developmental trend of higher education, Newman et al. (2004) used the term 'global institutions'. In the 10 September 2005 issue of the Economist (Wooldridge, 2005), an article entitled 'The brains business: a survey of higher education' captured the term 'global research universities'. It observed that 'a most significant development in higher education is the emergence of a super-league of global universities', which is so 'revolutionary in the sense that these institutions regard the whole world as their stage, but also evolutionary in that they are still wedded to the ideal of a community of scholars who combine teaching with research'. In the fall of 2005, at the orientation of the Fulbright New Century Scholars program at Boston College, a group of researchers in higher education from the United States, China and Finland came to the same conclusion that a new kind of research university has already emerged, that has developed more comprehensive academic programs, adopted a new way of university management, and changed the academic profession by allowing faculty to become more engaged in entrepreneurial research. The driving forces for the emerging model of research- universities are multiple. For this case analysis, the focus is on how federal government science policy and R&D investment transformed those research-intensive universities in the United States.

Function of Federal R&D Investment in Knowledge Production

Current knowledge production is quite different from the traditional knowledge production process. This change is closely related to federal government science policy and R&D investment in the United States. At University of California Berkeley the knowledge production change actually took place in the mid-20th century, when UC Berkeley and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) started a new institutional pattern of university research with the establishment of the E.O. Lawrence Laboratory and the MIT Radiation Laboratory. Before that, UC Berkeley and MIT resembled other universities in scientific research in the Unit. These two labs were heavily funded by the federal government during World War II, when the acquisition of new knowledge for national security was an urgent issue. Large-scale mobilization of university research for war has often been taken as the origin of modern 'big science'. It is because the invention of the atom bomb not only changed the world in which we live, but it also changed the way of knowledge production. 'Emphasis has moved away from free inquiry to problem solving and, more generally, in the direction of problem-oriented research' (Gibbons et al., 1994, 21). Gibbons identified the techniques of team research as an essential characteristic of large wartime laboratories because the research problems were too big for an individual to handle. At E.O. Lawrence Laboratory, the interdisciplinary research team organized and led by E.O. Lawrence worked day and night to solve frustrating problems as well recorded in Helmholz's memoir (Helmholz, 1993).

More importantly, research in laboratories and centers has become multi-disciplinary. As Seidel (1992, 35) observed 'if the line between science and technology blurred, so did those between the disciplines, as chemists, biologists, and physicians joined to exploit new radioactive substances, higher voltage X-rays and neutron beams against disease'. One result was a new interdisciplinary enterprise — nuclear science, which combined radiochemistry, radiobiology, nuclear physics, and nuclear medicine. The traditional formulation of knowledge production, 'basic vs. applied', became 'basic to applied'. A good example is the cooperation between EO Lawrence and JR Oppenheimer at UC Berkeley. As a theoretical physicist, Oppenheimer provided the conceptual foundation while Lawrence, as an experimentalist, achieved one million electron volts in his cyclotron. This cooperation made 'the axis of "basic-applied" research a continuum which corresponded with the activities underlying the proliferation of organized research' (Geiger, 1993, 48–49).

Since the mid-20th century, scientific research has been focused not only on the development and acquisition of new knowledge but also on the transmission of this knowledge into productivity. The terms 'dual integration' and 'entrepreneurial science' (Pan, 2003, 119–125) are often used to describe the difference between the traditional system of creating new knowledge and the new priority of pushing the whole process to the end of the market. At UC Berkeley, the development of entrepreneurial science is related to postwar federal science policy and university academic expansion. After World War II, the GI Bill and the growth of population in California brought a great opportunity for the university. In 1952, the traditional institution became a university system with multiple campuses.

Especially with the help of federal loans and money from state reserves, the university constructed a chemistry building and established the School of Forestry in 1946. By the end of 1949, the total postwar construction expenditures of the university had reached $109 million (Stadtman, 1970, 349). Other areas of expansion included biochemistry, virology, and molecular biology in 1948 and 1964. The campus expansion no doubt helped to host more academic programs and departments. In addition, the University established the Survey Research Center, opened the Institutes of Industrial Relations, and created the Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering during that period.

Federal scientific policies also influenced the development of scientific research at UC Berkeley. In order to motivate university researchers to disclose their discoveries and findings, the Patent and Trademark Amendment, commonly known as Bayh-Dole Act, was enacted in 1980, allowing universities to retain property rights for discoveries made through federally funded research. Following the Act, UC's average annual number of invention disclosures was 237, well above their average level of 140 annually between 1975 and 1979 (Mowery et al., 1999, 297). Biomedical research funding and scientific advances grew rapidly during the 1970s and 1980s. While other government funding agencies faced either budget cuts or modest increases, the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was soaring. Especially in the last 10 years, the NIH budget rose from $12.7 billion in 1997 to $23.2 billion in 2002. In contrast, the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget was $3.3 billion in 1997 and $4.8 billion in 2002 (Brainard and Southwicr, 2001). No doubt, in developing strong academic programs in biology and public health, UC Berkeley received more money from NIH than from any other federal agencies. And at the same time, UC's biochemistry inventions occupied 70% of UC's patenting and licensing (Mowery et al., 1999, 289).

The shift in the research agenda from the traditional physical sciences in the 1940s to biochemical research in the 1970s, according to Martin Trow (1999), was the university's response to the rapid changes in the biological sciences. The emergence of molecular genetics and the understanding of the genetic code, the Cohen-Boyer DNA splicing technique disclosed in 1974, the utilization of genetic engineering opened frontiers in research and brought new opportunities for industry. In California, especially in the San Francisco Bay area, new companies emerged to take advantage of university discoveries in the pharmaceutical and chemical areas. Since the 1970s, industrial firms have invested heavily in the application of biological technology, which strengthened UC Berkeley's research in that area, too. In fact, biological research at UC Berkeley has a long history with the zoology and botany departments established in the late 19th century and the departments of bacteriology and plant pathology created at the beginning of the 20th century. As noted above, the biochemistry and virology department was established in 1948, and then followed by the department of biological control in the 1950s, and molecular biology in 1964. This long-term research in biology at UC Berkeley has spearheaded the Bay area's dominance in the information technology and biotechnology industries.

More recently, in response to the federal government's initiatives in research for public health, in 2003, UC Berkeley constructed a 285,000 square foot building, the Stanley Biosciences and Bioengineering Facility, with an initial investment of $162.3 million (Ma, 2004). The facility is named after Wendell Meredith Stanley (1904–1971), the father of UC Berkeley's department of biochemistry, who shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1946 for his research on the tobacco mosaic virus. The facility is the home of a new brand of cutting-edge interdisciplinary research: the California Institute for Quantitative Biomedical Research. Scientists in structural biology, bioengineering, chemical biology, computational biology, magnetic imaging, tissue engineering, and other fields are working together in this facility. Many descriptions have been used by the university to rationalize such a large capital-intensive facility with the most sophisticated research technologies: to keep academic research intellectually vital, to realize a field of dreams for health sciences, to create a world-class environment in which scientists will make those discoveries, and to meet the American society's scientific needs. Besides those university aspirations, California Governor Gray Davis' speech is more revealing: 'Out of this building will come new ideas, new industries, and much-needed medical cures' (http://healthscience.berkeley.edu). Here the utilitarian purpose of establishing such a facility is clearly expressed by the governor.

Now, scientific research in many universities shows similar characteristics and patterns as UC Berkeley, but the beginning of large-scale, multi-disciplinary, and entrepreneurial scientific research should be in UC Berkeley and MIT when the federal government started to invest in those national labs in the United States.

Academic Profession Change and the Entrepreneurial Faculty

In their research, Slaughter and Leslie (1997) used the term 'academic capitalism' to describe one aspect of the changes in the academic profession. As universities become more entrepreneurial and more focused on applied sciences, more and more faculty are pushed to participate in market-oriented activities. Once responsible only for teaching and research, professors now often assume additional obligations to extra-departmental research groups within the university and to funding agencies outside the university. Faculty now become the producers of new knowledge, consultants on scientific advisory boards and entrepreneurs in obtaining patents. This change has shifted professors from traditional individual thinkers to members of team-oriented and cross-disciplinary organizations. This is also well presented by E.O. Lawrence at UC Berkeley, who consulted on different boards, and at the same time was busy with the coordination of researchers from different universities.

These market pressures bring greater differentiation among disciplines. Some knowledge and discoveries can be capitalized, while others cannot. Currently, in most research universities as well as at UC Berkeley, the imbalance between some fields of humanities and the applied sciences is obvious. As a matter of fact, the academic profession has been very much differentiated, diversified, and fragmented. Faculty in applied fields and professional schools are very much better off in many aspects than faculty in the fields less funded by the federal government and by industry.

Especially in recent years, in the evaluation of faculty accomplishments, the ability to attract funded research projects over non-funded research projects has become one of the key characteristics of the faculty reward system. This is especially the case for faculty in public health and biology in UC Berkeley. The traditional concept of 'publish or perish' still plays an important role at UC Berkeley; it also shows a trend in the academic profession to be more competitive and more market oriented in the process of entrepreneurial science and competitive excellence. In order to get funded projects, faculty are pressed to extend their responsibilities not only to grant writing but also to looking for grant information and to get to know related people. Those funded research projects in many disciplines mean more attention to applied research and real-world problems. These phenomena are not unique at UC Berkeley but faculty at UC Berkeley are pushed harder to teach, to conduct research, to provide service to the university, and to use their knowledge for the benefit of local and national communities.

Meanwhile organized research often requires faculty of leadership capacity, collaborative skills, and multi-cultural understanding. As a result, 'it drives research investigators to shift their commitments away from their institutions and their teaching and education and responsibilities' (Duderstadt, 2000, 116). With the increased priority on knowledge discovery, university campuses began to increase the proportion of researchers with entrepreneurial aspirations and investigative responsibilities but no teaching duties. According to Stadtman (1970), at UC Berkeley, more than 3,200 people were employed in research centers and institutes in 1966–1967; now the number is much higher. Those people working in the laboratories and research centers are often not tenure-track faculty but research fellows and contracted scientists. They are employed by the university, but they are paid through industry, federal government, or other private grants. They do not have to teach, but they have obligations to get more grants for the continuation of their employment and their research. Such a big body of non-teaching academic staff have eventually changed the campus culture and academic profession — the commercialization of the campus and the capitalization of academic work. The situation is not specific to UC Berkeley; many public and private research universities have become more entrepreneurial. This will further differentiate the academic profession by decreasing the attention paid to and importance of humanities and social sciences, and increasing the attention paid to scientific and technological innovation.

Between University Autonomy and Public Accountability

The changing academic landscape in emerging global research universities contributes to the complexity of the university organization in academic research and university administration. Especially in recent years, universities have expanded substantially by adding new programs to existing departments, establishing professional schools, launching new research centers, adding new research facilities, and developing science parks to transfer new innovations. The extension of university missions and roles has created a complicated pattern of academic and administrative responsibilities one could not have imagined 50 years ago. The increasing complexity of university organization at UC Berkeley can be observed in the following two aspects: complexity of university organization and de-centralization of university governance. In his memoirs, former chancellor Glenn Seaborg (1994) noted that he had only 1.28 vice chancellors working for him in 1960. In contrast, now there are seven vice chancellors, dozens of administrative directors, and thousands of assistants, holding offices from human resources to animal rights, from internal affairs to government and industry relations.

Just under the Office of Vice Chancellor for Research, there are nine different offices. Of these nine offices, the Office of Intellectual Property and Industry Alliances itself consists of more than 20 specialists working in IP and industry partnerships. In 1915, in order to coordinate limited research funds, UC Berkeley established a campus committee on research but the mission and responsibilities of that committee was quite different from what is understood as the duties of the Office of Vice Chancellor of Research and even the meaning of 'research'.

Increasing the complexity of university organization has been a common phenomenon in the past decades. But in research universities, the complexity in most cases skewed to science, knowledge transfer, and technology application. For UC Berkeley, the creation of Office of Vice Chancellor for Research has many meanings. One is to provide a research environment conducive to creating and freely disseminating the very best scholarly contributions and scientific discoveries. The increasing intensity of university research requires administrators and support staff with specialized experience and knowledge to manage such issues as patents, international cooperation, and program assessment. Most of the 20 specialists working in IP and industry partnerships are also required to specialize in licensing and financing law. Compared to the number of students and academic staff on the campus, the 20 specialists in IP and industry relationship do not seem to be so many — only 0.1% of the total staff. Many faculties in social science and humanities may not know who they are, but they are more important in establishing linkages between the university and industry.

No doubt expansion in academic research and administration has made research universities more crowded than before. In the spring of 2005, at UC Berkeley, the total number of students was 33,558, including professional and graduate students, whereas there were 20,446 faculty and staff. Among the 20,446 faculty and staff, there were only 1,214 teaching faculty holding track ladder-ranks (http://ope.ucbf.berkeley.edu/i
nstitutionaldata/data.cfm). Comparing those numbers, it is easy to decide that over-staffing has already become a problem to the university. Current complaints of an over-bureaucratic administration might be the result of over-staffing.

The complexity of university organization also brought in new mechanisms for campus operation. Performance-based management strategies have been widely adopted. As a matter of fact, the management of research universities is becoming much more challenging. Recent research shows that the life span of the presidency of these institutions is about 5–7 years (Brodie and Keith, 2005). In fact, since 1952, when UC Berkeley established the chancellorship, there have been 10 chancellors, including the current one, but only Ira Michael Hayman served as long as 10 years from 1980 to 1990. The rest averaged about six years. This rapid turnover demonstrates that current research universities become harder to lead than ever before, because of the complexity of the administrative environment. This may indicate that for a public research university like UC Berkeley, it is becoming more and more difficult to be autonomous in decision-making and more difficult in achieving public accountability.

A 'Triple-Helix' Relationship with Federal Government and Industry

University autonomy and academic freedom are two characteristics specifically valued in American research universities. Since 1862, when the Morrill Act granted the responsibility for higher education to state governments, there is no single agency from the US federal government that can claim control of universities. A decentralized system of higher education provides a great opportunity both for the diversity of American research universities and for the flexibility of the federal government to select the most suitable institutions for the needs of the security of the country during wartime and economic development in times of peace. In order to get universities involved with the needs of the nation, federal government, instead of using direct control, adopted two strategies: research investment and legislation.

UC Berkeley's heavy involvement with federal research began in the 1940s, and in 1945 the university received 106 research contracts from the Office of Strategic Research and Development for $57 million worth of government-sponsored World War II research (Geiger, 1993). It was those contracts that started the partnership between UC Berkeley and the federal government. Such partnership continued the high level of research, and transformed UC Berkeley into a major research university. It should be recognized that in the middle of the 20th century, the growth of American research universities was heavily linked with military research. This is a unique characteristic that is not found in universities in other countries.

Legislation is another strategy permitting the federal government to work with universities. Especially in recent years, governmental direct investment in research has slowed down. A new approach has emerged to facilitate partnerships between research universities and corporate entities. The federal government published a series of acts to stimulate business and industry's interest in university research. In 1977, for example, the Department of Energy Organization Act was created to help universities to transfer energy-related research discoveries and findings to the Department of Energy. In 1981, the Economic Recovery Tax Act was enacted, allowing many kinds of tax breaks for R&D expenditures, even including a deduction for charitable contributions of R&D equipment to universities. In 1984, the National Cooperative Research Act was enacted to stimulate industry R&D to the universities. And in 1989, the National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act was used to allow government-owned, contractor-operated laboratories to enter into cooperative R&D agreements. Although not all of those acts were aimed at universities, there are both direct and indirect effects on research campuses. After the publication of the National Cooperative Research Act, for example, there was a steady increase of industry R&D support to universities. In 1980, industry R&D support to university research was $510 million and it increased to $1.6 billion by 1995 (Gladieux and King, 1999, 159). In this way, the federal government has become less of a sponsor and more of a facilitator for partnerships between universities and industry.

Traditionally industry's primary interest in universities focused on the supply of an educated workforce. Then industry's support to higher education came mostly through donations and internship for students, but now the commercial value of university research has increased industry's interest in cooperation with universities. At UC Berkeley, industry cooperation has a long history, but the intensity in the past has nothing to compare with the current situation. Now industry and university cooperation is not only large in scope but also complicated in organization and in interests.

The cooperative relationship between university and industry has been very much institutionalized as discussed before. The purpose of industry–university cooperation at UC Berkeley is considered as 'to enhance relationship other than for revenue source', although these partnerships do help the university to generate research funds. The new Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS) has teamed more than 20 supporting companies with more than 100 faculty members at UC Berkeley and three other UC campuses. They work together, trying to solve current problems in energy, health care, transportation, and education. The center has attracted nearly $300 million in state and industry support (http://www.berkeley.edu/econim
pact/research/html). As a result of industry cooperation in the past few years, UC Berkeley faculty and students have founded over 25% of the 200-plus start-ups that have licensed technology from the UC System's 10 campuses and three government labs. The impact of these start-ups, as the university stated, 'improves our quality of life and economic vitality by creating valuable products and new jobs, as well as paying corporate taxes and purchasing supplies from local industries' (http://www.berkeley.edu/research). In their exploration of the relationship among federal government, university, and industry, Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (1997) used the term 'triple helix' to describe the dynamics of this change.

UC Berkeley's research excellence in information technology and biotechnology contributes to the development of related industry in the Bay Area, but the negative side may not be overlooked. The commonly discussed question is the conflict of interest between university researchers and industries. Kirp (2003) has discussed the problem of recent cooperation of the university with a Swiss pharmaceutical corporation on a project 'Novartis'. The issue of scientists' free exchange of ideas has been challenged by the company's unwillingness to let university researchers release their research results to the public. This is an example of multi-national corporations that not only invest their multi-millions in research universities, but also try to monopolize the research findings, a conflict of interest between university values of open inquiry and the financial goals of industry. The concerns about industry–university partnerships have been frequently challenged and debated, and there are different attitudes and views. As a public policy professor at UC Berkeley, Kirp considered that the university should not be used by private enterprises, whereas the former provost of University of California, J King (2007) considered that the interactions between universities, industry, and the government should and must occur to reap the gains, and to minimize the concerns. As a matter of fact, the current debate on 'public good and private benefit' is the result of research university and industry cooperation.

National and Regional Economic Competitiveness as Extended Mission

At the celebration of Yale's 300th anniversary, President Richard Levin announced that four of the last six presidents of the United States have Yale degrees and many members of the Cabinet and the Congress do as well. In the years ahead, however, Yale has even greater ambitions. Levin (2003) said that when Yale enters its fourth century, the university is going to be a truly global university in educating leaders and advancing the frontiers of knowledge not simply for the United States, but also for the entire world. Levin's ambition is representative of the broader mission of EGM universities to educate the future leaders from nations around the world. Similarly, UC Berkeley has already extended its mission from agricultural research for the well-being of farmers in California to America's national security and economic competitiveness in the world.

The term 'multi-versity' that Clark Kerr (1963) outlined well expressed the change of mission and role in the research university. As a former chancellor of UC Berkeley and former president of the UC system, Kerr experienced the tremendous increase in federal expenditures on research since 1945, UC Berkeley's greater involvement with industry, and the growing demand for higher education in California. He also witnessed the fact that the university had been 'increasingly integrated into the economics and culture of the rest of society and having a responsibility to apply its knowledge the problems of the world outside its walls' (O'Mare, 2005, 58). In return for these contributions, the university also advances its own prestige worldwide. Especially for UC Berkeley, the embrace of scientific research and the national defence contributed to the development of science in the 1950s. In the later 1970s, due to the slowdown of economic growth, industry competition from other countries, and the end of the Cold War, the university has also been concerned about ensuring America's economic competitiveness through university research. Douglass (2007), a senior research fellow at the Center for the Studies of Higher Education at UC Berkeley, observed that governments and policy makers ubiquitously frame science policy and the productivity and interrelationships of universities with industry and innovation as the essential means for maintaining or advancing economic competitiveness within a globalizing economy. Even issues of access and degree production are increasingly discussed largely in terms of national or regional economic competitiveness.

Federalization and Privatization: A Dual Process for Funding

The emerging global research university is not only labor intensive but also very costly. Faculty salaries, books, facilities, equipment, office space, and laboratories are but a few of the expenditures to be named here. The multi-billion dollar operational budget for a research university is no longer a fiction but a reality; the 2007–2008 budget for UC Berkeley is about $17 billion, including externally funded laboratories, with only $3.3 billion coming from California state funds. So how to finance a university becomes such an issue that each institution has to take seriously. In the face of these financial challenges, many research universities have diversified their approaches for funding; the most frequently used methods are increasing tuition, suspending hiring, aggressive funding raising, and recruiting full-fee paying students. Even in the search for a new president of a university, fund-raising ability has become a critical requirement at both private and public research universities. Since the founding of UC Berkeley, the need for money has always been an issue. As a land grant university, state support has been an important part of the university. But the massive demand for higher education, the gradual reduction of state support, and the increasing need for money for research have led campus administrators to turn to research and fund-raising as the most effective means to get support.

Private giving to UC Berkeley has a long history. At the original stage of the university, many private donors, such as James Lick and Phoebe A. Hearst, helped UC Berkeley to overcome financial difficulties. Foundation contribution is another source. From 1924 to 1928, UC Berkeley received $295,000 from the Rockefeller Foundation (Geiger, 1986). When he was chancellor of the university between 1990 and 1997, Tien Chang-Lin launched Berkeley's second capital campaign. During his chancellorship, Chancellor Tien successfully raised $470 million, the most raised by a chancellor in UC Berkeley's history (http://www.berkeley.edu/about/
history/chancellors). While private wealth flows into American research universities in the form of individual gifts, private industry support is important, too. It is recorded that one-third of the funding of the new 3Q research facility at UC Berkeley is from private industry.

Many analysts have discussed the severe competition for federal grants among research universities and the compromises of universities to private donors by adding different programs to attract financial support. In fundraising, UC Berkeley has never been left behind. Even before 1940, Berkeley received 22% of its capital and operating budget from the federal government, 40% from the state of California, and 38% from private philanthropy (Galison, 1992, 3). In recent years, this picture seems to have changed. Lee (2006) presents the university's 2003–2004 operating budget as composed of 30% general funds from the state, 20% from federal research funds, 17% private funds, 19% of tuition and fees, and 14% from industry and other sources. Also according to Lee, the university's research funding in 2005 totalled $585 million. Of this amount, 71% came from federal support, 15% from non-profit organizations, 9% from the state, 3% from the university's own funds, 2% from industry, and 1% from other sources. Due to the distribution patterns of research funds, some analysts use the term 'federal-supported' university rather than 'state-supported' to describe the changes of UC Berkeley's finance patterns.

The dependence upon the federal government for research support has no doubt changed the nature of traditional American public research universities in the United States. Many scholars have used the term 'privatization' to describe public university's financial situation. But from the case of UC Berkeley, one can easily observe that it has gone through a dual process: federalization and privatization.

In understanding how federal money influences the change of research and teaching in land-grant universities, Rosenstone (2003) presents three sets of data as explanations (Table 1).

Table 1 - Disciplinary changes over time.

Full table

By comparing the changes over time, one can easily notice that the changes in various disciplines follow the changes in the federal government's research investment. As discussed in the previous section, federal government research priorities also contribute to the changes in the academic profession between the traditional disciplines of the arts and sciences, on the one hand, and applied sciences and professional programs on the other.

Global Orientation and Collaboration

In his letter to Chancellor Glenn Seaborg in the 1960s, Paul Taylor, Professor of Economics and director of the Institute of International Studies at UC Berkeley, wrote, 'Can we long remain a university, in the world's understanding of the full meaning of this term, unless we expand greatly our participation in the research for solutions of international problems at many levels?' (Seaborg and Colvig, 1994, 66). Taylor's question was answered when the federal government began to develop international aid programs in the 1950s and by foreign students' greater access to American higher education in these years. Current statistics show that in 2006/07, there were 582,984 foreign students studying in the United States, and the total number of foreign students who studied in the United States from 1999/00-2006/07 was 15,023,346 (http://opendoors.iienetwork.
org/page/115641).

Internationalization of US higher education helps foreign students develop advanced knowledge and cross-cultural understanding. In order to promote US students' experiences and understanding of foreign cultures, area study programs with federal grants were established on many US campuses beginning in the 1970s. At UC Berkeley, students can participate in more than 150 study abroad programs in 35 countries through the coordination of Education Abroad Programs at UC system level (Lee, 2006). Based on student need, 13 new programs were added to the existing overseas study programs in 2005–2006. Through these study abroad programs, graduate and undergraduate students can study for one or two semesters at several Australian universities, a language and culture program in Bahia, Brazil, and a new program at Fudan University in China to study Chinese economics and business with classes taught in English.

Internationalization of higher education has a long history, while higher education globalization is a new phenomenon. The traditional understanding of internationalization usually refers to individual scholars or students who travel around the world looking for advanced knowledge and new ideas. But now in economic globalization, higher education has been considered as an important service industry and the proliferation of agreements throughout the world, such as Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), reflects the development trends of new regional integration. In higher education, there is also regional integration, such as the establishment of the Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU). The reduction in government regulation barriers has also been beneficial to openness and trade liberalization, which together increase integration of the world. Current discussions on many forms of transnational education are part of the globalization of higher education and regional integration.

Along with the establishment of transnational education programs, UC Berkeley offers visiting scholar positions as leadership training opportunities to senior-level civil servants and public officials from other countries. In order to increase the university's global reach, a bi-annual Asian Leadership Conference with rotating venues in various countries was launched by the international relations office of the university. Besides those exchange projects and programs, international conferences, and symposia, UC Berkeley is an active member of several multi-national university associations. APRU is one such organization. To UC Berkeley, there are many reasons to be a member of multi-national university associations, from increasing multi-lateral cooperation to increasing access for UC students to the best foreign university programs.

Multiple international activities promote an image of educational interdependence and connectivity with other universities worldwide. This highly desired objective suggests that in the current global environment, individual institutions can no longer function independently or through traditional bilateral alliances. The benefits are multiple for a university to be globally collaborative: to improve access to international resources, to facilitate collaborative research, and to provide a global dimension to the curriculum to its students. For UC Berkeley, like other emerging global institutions, the globalization process will lead to even more intense competition with other research universities worldwide.

Conclusion

Many characteristics analyzed above may not be specific to UC Berkeley; they represent the developmental trend of many emerging global research universities. In higher education, many researchers consider university autonomy and free competition as the two important factors to the success of American research universities. Through the discussion, one can see that federal government science policy and R&D investment are more decisive. UC Berkeley was representative in using federal government R&D investment to change the nature of knowledge production. As a result of this change, the academic profession at UC Berkeley and other private and public research universities has experienced an adjustment with faculty becoming more entrepreneurial and university organization structure becoming more complicated. Due to the need for more research funding and the gradual reduction of state support, research universities in the United States including UC Berkeley have become more dependent on federal R&D. The dependence has eventually affected the academic structure inside the university. Hard sciences and engineering not only have the most resources but they also attract the most students and get the most attention, while humanities and social sciences are being neglected. With growing dependence on federal government R&D and industry support, university relationships with industry and federal government are undergoing a change, which is having an impact on university autonomy and public accountability.

Federalization and privatization are not unique to UC Berkeley; many public research universities in the United States are strategic in competing for federal and private resources. But the uniqueness for UC Berkeley is its ability to use federal support for regional economic development. Here the tension of knowledge creation and use become much more obvious: what is a university; a place for learning, for pursuing the truth, or a place for utilitarian purposes.

Many people link globalization with the international trade and finance, seemingly unrelated to higher education. Actually, higher education is classified as a service sector in GATS and has been an important industry. But for research universities including UC Berkeley, global reach has much deeper meaning than international trade or finance. One example is the international symposium hosted by UC Berkeley in March 2007, which facilitated a more sophisticated understanding of higher education worldwide and further engaged UC Berkeley in global higher education. The focus was higher education reforms, international trends, and lessons for the US public universities. The conference clearly sent out a message that to be globally competitive, UC Berkeley needs to make new efforts.

References

1. Brainard, J. and Southwicr, R. (2001) 'NIH soars, other science agencies struggle in the president's first budget plan', Chronicle of Higher Education, April.
2. Brodie, H. and Keith, H. (2005) The Research University Presidency in the Late Twentieth Century: A Life Cycle/Case History Approach, Westport, CN: Praeger Publishers.
3. Douglass, J. (2007) 'National and supranational policies, models and rates of success in expanding higher education access', Working paper from the symposium The Crisis of the Publics: An International Comparative Discussion on Higher Education Reforms and Possible Implications for US and Public Universities, 26–27 March 2007;University of California, Berkeley.
4. Duderstadt, J. (2000) A University for the 21st Century, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
5. Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (1997) 'Introduction: Universities in the Global Knowledge Economy', in H. Etzkowitz and L. Leydesdorff (eds.) Universities and the Global Knowledge Economy: A Triple Helix of University–Industry–Government Relations, London: Pinter.
6. Galison, P. (1992) 'The Many Faces of Big Science', in P. Galison and B. Hevly (eds.) Big Science: the Growth of Large-Scale Research, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
7. Geiger, R. (1986) To Advance Knowledge: The Growth of American Research Universities 1900–1940, New York: Oxford University Press.
8. Geiger, R. (1993) Research and Relevant Knowledge: American Research Universities Since World War II, New York: Oxford University Press.
9. 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, London: Sage Publications.
10. Gladieux, L. and King, J. (1999) 'The Federal Government and Higher Education', in P. Altbach, R. Berdahl and P. Gumport (eds.) American Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Social, Political, and Economic Challenges, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
11. Helmholz, C. (1993) Faculty Governance and Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, 1937–1990, Berkeley: Regional Oral History Office, Bancroft Library, University of California.
12. Kerr, C. (1963) The Use of the University, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
13. King, J. (2007) 'University roles in technological innovation in California', Working paper for the symposium, The Crisis of the Publics: An International Comparative Discussion on Higher Education Reforms and Possible Implications for US Pubic Universities, 26–27 March 2007; University of California, Berkeley.
14. Kirp, D. (2003) Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
15. Lee, J. (2006) 'Promoting Research and Innovation', Speech made in March 7, APRU annual senior staff meeting at Peking University, PR China.
16. Levin, R. (2003) The Work of the Universities, New Haven: Yale University Press.
17. Ma, Wanhua (2004) From Berkeley to Beida and Tsinghua: The Governance and Operation of Public Research University in China and the United States, Beijing: Education Science Press (in Chinese).
18. Mowery, D., Nelson, R., Sampat, B. and Ziedonis, A. (1999) 'The Effects of the Bayh-Dole Act on US University Research and Technology Transfer', in L. Branscomb, F. Kodama and R. Florida (eds.) Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, Cambridge: MIT Press.
19. Newman, F., Couturier, L. and Scurry, J. (2004) The Future of Higher Education, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
20. O'Mare, M. (2005) Cities of Knowledge: Cold War Science and the Search for the Next Silicon Valley, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
21. Pan, B. (2003) 'From Knowledge to Innovation: Remodelling Creative and Knowledge Diffusion Process', in G. Breton and M. Lambert (eds.) Universities and Globalization: Private Linkages, Public Trust, Paris: UNESCO Publishing, pp. 119–125.
22. Rosenstone, S. (2003) 'The Idea of a University', in R.L. Darrell and J.C. Hearn (eds.) The Pubic Research University: Serving Public Good in New Times, Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
23. Seaborg, G. and Colvig, R. (1994) Chancellor at Berkeley, Berkeley: University of California Institute of Governmental Studies Press.
24. Seidel, R. (1992) 'The Origins of the Lawrence Berkeley laboratory', in P. Galison and B. Hevly (eds.) Big Science: The Growth of Large-Scale Research, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, pp. 21–45.
25. Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997) Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University, Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
26. Stadtman, V. (1970) The University of California 1868–1968, New York: McGraw-Hill.
27. Trow, M. (1999) 'Biology at Berkeley: A Case Study of Reorganization and its Costs and Benefits', Research and Occasional Paper Series, CSHE 1.99 http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi
    ?article=1054&context=cshe.
28. Wooldridge, A. (2005) 'The brains business: a survey of higher education', Economist 376(8443): 3–4.