IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/amsocr/v89y2024i1p88-125.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Social Foundations of Academic Freedom: Heterogeneous Institutions in World Society, 1960 to 2022

Author

Listed:
  • Julia C. Lerch
  • David John Frank
  • Evan Schofer

Abstract

This article analyzes academic freedom worldwide with newly available cross-national data. The literature principally addresses impingements on academic freedom arising from religion or repressive states. Academic freedom has broadly increased since 1945, but we see episodic reversals, including in recent years. Conventional work emphasizes the uniformity of international institutional structures and their influence on countries. We attend to the heterogeneity of international structures in world society and theorize how they contribute to ebbs and flows of academic freedom. Post-1945 liberal international institutions enshrined key rights and norms that bolstered academic freedom worldwide. Alongside them, however, illiberal alternatives coexisted. Cold War communism, for instance, anchored cultural frames that justified greater constraints on academia. We evaluate domestic and global arguments using regression models with country fixed effects for 155 countries from 1960 to 2022. Findings support conventional views: academic freedom is associated positively with democracy and negatively with state religiosity and militarism. We also find support for our argument regarding heterogeneous institutional structures in world society. Country linkages to liberal international institutions are positively associated with academic freedom. Illiberal international structures and organizations have the opposite effect. Heterogeneous institutions in world society, we contend, shape large-scale trajectories of academic freedom.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia C. Lerch & David John Frank & Evan Schofer, 2024. "The Social Foundations of Academic Freedom: Heterogeneous Institutions in World Society, 1960 to 2022," American Sociological Review, , vol. 89(1), pages 88-125, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:amsocr:v:89:y:2024:i:1:p:88-125
    DOI: 10.1177/00031224231214000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00031224231214000
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00031224231214000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:amsocr:v:89:y:2024:i:1:p:88-125. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.