The Commercialization of Humanities Research: An Epistemological Critique of Market Logic and University Values

Document Type : پژوهشی

Authors

Akbar Amrahi ¹

Ali Noferesty ²

¹ Assistant Professor, Department of Educational Administration, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Departmet of Islamic Education, Institute of Islamic Studies in the Humanities, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

10.22067/fedu.2026.95750.1488

Abstract

Abstract
The present study was conducted to critique the evaluation system and assist in decision-making in order to promote the disciplines of social sciences, in comparison to other branches of science, based on a research commercialization approach. The critical research method was used to achieve this goal. Examining the challenges of the neoliberal approach in Iran's higher education system - with the emergence of "wealth-creating universities" and "internationalization of universities" and its consequences for social sciences - reveals that increased competition and reduced space for collaboration, an instrumentalist view of humans, the transformation of knowledge into a commodity for profit, incompatibility of social sciences knowledge with social and cultural contexts, deviation from scientific identity, decreased motivation of social sciences students and professors, the neglect of ethics, and the perception of social sciences as useless are among these challenges. In additionthe emphasis on economic success and labor-market preparedness as major motivations for students has reduced their inclination to undertake theoretical and fundamental research, since students tend to perceive their future career prospects as lying in disciplines and research areas that are closer to the market. as concrete examples of the prevalence of market culture and commercialization in higher education, especially in social sciences, in Iran. particularly in the field of social sciences. Consequently, to overcome this crisis in the social sciences, a return to the university’s fundamental mission of producing “meaning” and “truth,” rather than “products” and “prices,” is an epistemic necessity

Synopsis
Within the knowledge-based economy paradigm, the production, dissemination, and utilization of knowledge have assumed fundamental importance, reshaping expectations of scientific and academic institutions. Alongside teaching and research, universities have taken on greater responsibility for economic growth, knowledge transfer, and wealth creation. Consequently, research commercialization and university internationalization have become integral to higher education development policies. By extending market mechanisms into educational institutions, neoliberalism has contributed to changes in universities’ missions, values, and evaluation criteria. Knowledge is increasingly assessed in terms of its exchangeability, capacity to attract funding, and economic returns, placing disciplines capable of generating direct revenue and tangible products in a more favorable position.
Research commercialization has largely developed in fields closely connected to industry and technological production. However, the nature of research in the humanities, its problems, and the application of its findings differ from those fields. Much of its contribution lies in understanding the human condition, generating meaning, advancing social critique, and reconsidering cultural and ethical relations. These contributions do not necessarily yield products with immediate economic returns. Applying uniform evaluation criteria across disciplines may therefore undermine the humanities, particularly their fundamental research. This study critically examines research evaluation to inform decisions concerning the advancement of the humanities. It asks how commercialization within neoliberal ideology affects the nature and functions of fundamental research in these disciplines and what challenges arise when their legitimacy is grounded in market logic.
The study adopted a critical research approach. Drawing on theoretical discussions and research concerning higher education commercialization, neoliberalism, and the valuation of knowledge, it examined the assumptions and consequences of the dominance of market logic in universities. The analysis began with the foundations of higher education commercialization and proceeded to explore neoliberalism’s internal contradictions and its incompatibilities with the nature and mission of the humanities. Within this framework, the study addressed the reification of knowledge, epistemic reductionism, paradoxes of university governance, and the crisis of valuation in the humanities. It also considered the conditions for strengthening academic autonomy and the emancipatory capacity of these disciplines.
The analysis indicates that commercialization extends beyond changes in university financing to encompass changes in the criteria by which knowledge is valued. When marketability, returns on investment, and quantifiable outputs become dominant criteria, the epistemic, ethical, cultural, and public value of knowledge risks being reduced to instrumental and economic value. The growing influence of customers and funding providers shapes research problems and priorities, marginalizing truth-seeking and critical understanding of the social world. In the humanities, this transformation restricts opportunities to investigate fundamental questions and problems that possess social and epistemic significance but lack short-term economic returns.
The findings also reveal contradictions within neoliberal university governance. While emphasizing freedom of choice and decentralization, this approach simultaneously directs universities toward uniform frameworks through standardization, rankings, and performance indicators. Reduced direct intervention does not necessarily increase academic autonomy; it may instead introduce new forms of control through accountability and performance measurement. This contradiction is particularly consequential for the humanities, whose research problems and processes are embedded in social, historical, and cultural contexts. Uniform criteria can therefore weaken epistemic diversity and responsiveness to local concerns.
In research evaluation, excessive reliance on publication counts, citation metrics, and other quantitative indicators creates a divergence between producing valid knowledge and acquiring professional recognition. Researchers are encouraged to maximize measurable outputs, while the quality of argumentation, theoretical depth, and conceptual innovation receive less attention. Competitive pressures and dominant quantitative incentives create conditions conducive to declining research originality and increasingly formalistic practices in knowledge production and publication. Research, as an activity of truth-seeking and critical reflection, consequently risks becoming an exercise in the mass production of outputs.
At the human and educational levels, the challenges include intensified competition, diminished collaboration, instrumental treatment of academics and students, weakened moral agency, and the subordination of academic autonomy to economic interests. A preference for disciplines and research closely aligned with market demands reduces motivation for theoretical and fundamental inquiry and reinforces perceptions of the humanities as unproductive. These developments conflict with the humanities’ mission to cultivate critical judgment, responsibility, and sensitivity to public concerns. They also challenge human dignity and morally grounded freedom as understood within Islamic conceptions of the human person.
Conclusion
Improving the contribution of the humanities and strengthening their societal role are defensible objectives. Nevertheless, the benefits and usefulness of knowledge cannot be confined to market profitability. Although the humanities share important characteristics with other fields of inquiry, differences in their subject matter, purposes, and applications require appropriate evaluation criteria. Their practical relevance and contribution to societal problems do not entail accepting the market as the authority determining their value and legitimacy. Practical effectiveness and truth-seeking can reinforce one another, provided that the value of knowledge is not reduced to its marketability.
Accordingly, research evaluation must recognize the quality of argumentation, theoretical depth, originality, and long-term social contributions. Financial and institutional support for fundamental research and the protection of academic autonomy against direct market pressures are also necessary. Interdisciplinary collaboration directed toward understanding the human and cultural dimensions of problems, alongside renewed attention to fundamental questions, can strengthen the emancipatory capacity of the humanities. Analytical engagement with Islamic foundations, emphasizing justice, human dignity, cooperation, and social responsibility, further provides grounds for reconsidering the relationship between knowledge and the common good. Ultimately, commercialization requires fundamental critique when it reconstructs the university’s epistemological foundations around profit and price. Recognizing the university’s responsibility for producing meaning and pursuing truth, together with the public value of knowledge, is essential to sustaining the critical and social role of the humanities.

Keywords

Commercialization

internationalization

neoliberalism

marketization

advancement of the humanities

Subjects

• Foundations of Education

---

References

Abbassi, B., Gholipour, A., & Pirannejad, A. (2023). Unanticipated consequences of customerism and commercialization in higher education.Quarterly journal of research and planning in higher education, 13(4), 155-182.

Alibašić, H., L.Atkinson, C., & Pelcher, J. (2024). The liminal state of academic freedom: Navigating corporatization in higher education.Discover education, 3(1), 7.

Altbach, P.G., & Knight, J. (2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities.Journal of studies in international education, 11(3-4), 290-305.

Amit, V. (2000). The university as panopticon: Moral claims and attacks on academic freedom. In M. Strathern (Ed.), Audit culture: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy, . Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/52394/1/32

Aparicio, G., Iturralde, T., & Rodríguez, A.V. (2023). Developments in the knowledge-based economy research field: a bibliometric literature review.Management Review Quarterly, 73(1), 317-352.

Apple, M.W. (2013). Educating the right way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality.Routledge.

Bagheri, K. (2013). A reflection on the relationships of the culture of marketization of knowledge and the university.Journal of educational sciences, 19(2), 7-22.

Bagheri, K., Sajadieh, N., & Tavassoli, T. (2011). Research approaches and methods in philosophy of education.Tehran: Institute for Cultural and Social Studies. (In Persian).

Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities’ patenting activities between 1965 and 2002.Research policy, 35(4), 518-532.

Ball, S.J. (2012). Performativity, commodification and commitment: An I-spy guide to the neoliberal university.British journal of educational studies, 60(1), 17-28.

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215-228. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0268093022000043065

Bauwens, T., Reike, D., & Calisto-Friant, M. (2023). Science for sale? Why academic marketization is a problem and what sustainability research can do about it.Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 48, 100749.

Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education.International journal of qualitative studies in education, 20(3), 247-259.

Dora. (2012). San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/read/

Fakour, B. (2009). Entrepreneurial University; Concepts, Backgrounds and How to Achieve.

Farasatakhah, M.S.e.a. (2018). Global Perspectives and Iranian Issues (Vol.M.Navid, Ed).

Graafland, J., & Verbruggen, H. (2022). Free-market, perfect market and welfare state perspectives on “good” markets: An empirical test.Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(2), 1113-1136.

Giroux, H. A. (2002). Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the Promise of Higher Education. Harvard Educational Review, 72(4), 425–463.

Guerrero, M., & Menter, M. (2024). Driving change in higher education: the role of dynamic capabilities in strengthening universities’ third mission.Small Business Economics, 63(3), 1321-1337.

Haj Taieb, S. (2024). Measuring the third mission of European Universities: A systematic literature review.Society and Economy, 46(2), 147-167.

Harvey, D. (2007). A brief history of neoliberalism.Oxford university press.

Hasangholipour, H., Gholipour, A., Ghazimahaleh, M.M., & Roshandel Arbatani, T. (2011). Requirements, necessities and mechanisms of knowledge commercializing in Management Schools/Faculties.Journal of Business Management, (24).

Hessels, L.K., & Van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda.Research policy, 37(4), 740-760.

Lyotard, J. F. (1984). Postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, Trans.). Manchester University Press. https://monoskop.org/images/e/e0/Lyotard_Jean-Francois_The_Postmodern_Condition_A_Report_on_Knowledge

Mahmoudpour, B., Rahimian, H., Abbaspour, A., & Delavar, A. (2012). Recognition of challenges facing the commercialization research in humanities with present a grounded theory.

Mikelatou, A., & Arvanitis, E. (2023). Pluralistic and equitable education in the neoliberal era: paradoxes and contradictions.International Journal of Inclusive Education, 27(14), 1611-1626.

Mohammadi, H. (2024). A reflection on Marketisation of Education and Considering Student as Consumer. 14 (1), 99-124.

Mohammadi, H., & Zibakalam, F. (2015). Neoliberalism and commercialization of education: The challenges for moral education.Foundations of Education, 4(2), 95-116.

Mohammadi, M., Esmailzadeh, H., & Ebrahimipour, H. (2006). Management of intellectual property in university-industry relations Conference of university-industry relationship.

Mohammadi, H., & Mirzamohammadi, M. H. (2020). New public management (npm) in the iranian higher education; a moral analysis. Ethics and Education, 15(1), 113-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449642.2019.1700453

 

Molesworth, M., Nixon, E., & Scullion, R. (2011). The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer.Routledge London.

Olssen*, M., & Peters, M.A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism.Journal of education policy, 20(3), 313-345.

Pishghadam, R. (2015). Writings in Scientific, Cultural, Organizational Fields.

Pourezzat, A.A., & Heidari, E. (2011). Studying and sorting the challenges and barriers of knowledge commercialization using Q-methodology.

Reamer, A. (2003). Technology transfer and commercialization: their role in economic development.www.eda.gov/PDF/eda_ttc.pdf.

Richardson, R. A. K., Hong, S. S., Byrne, J. A., Stoeger, T., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2025). The entities enabling scientific fraud at scale are large, resilient, and growing rapidly. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(32), e2420092122. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2420092122

Roga, R., Lapiņa, I., & Müürsepp, P. (2015). Internationalization of higher education: Analysis of factors influencing foreign students’ choice of higher education institution.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 925-930.

Salmi, J. (2009). The challenge of establishing world-class universities.World Bank Publications.

Saunders, D.B. (2010). Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the United States.Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS), 8(1).

Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A., Atwater, L.E., & Link, A.N. (2003). Commercial knowledge transfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university–industry collaboration.The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14(1), 111-133.

Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education.Jhu press.

Tabulawa, R., Polelo, M., & Silas, O. (2013). The state, markets and higher education reform in Botswana.Globalisation, Societies and Education, 11(1), 108-135.

Trueblood, J. S., Allison, D. B., Field, S. M., Fishbach, A., Gaillard, S. D. M., Gigerenzer, G., Holmes, W.R., Lewandowsky, S., Matzke, D., Murphy, M. C., Musslick, S., Popov, V., Roskies, A. L., Schure, J. T., &Teodorescu, A. R. (2025). The misalignment of incentives in academic publishing and implications for ournal reform. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,122 (5), Article e2401231121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2401231121.

Yonezawa, A. (2007). Strategies for the emerging global higher education market in East Asia: A comparative study of Singapore, Malaysia and Japan.Globalisation, Societies and Education, 5(1), 125-136.