Research Selectivity, Managerialism, and the Academic Labor Process: The Future of Nonmainstream Economics in U.K. Universities

Abstract

This paper reports the results of empirical research designed to explore the impact of research selectivity on the work and employment of academic economists in U.K. universities. Research selectivity is seen as part of the general trend toward "managerialism" in higher education in both the U.K. and abroad. Managerialism based on performance indicators and hierarchical control has been contrasted with collegiate control-based or informal peer review. However, analysis of the academic labor process has idealized collegiate relations at the expense of professional hierarchies and intellectual authority relations. We argue that in the U.K., there has evolved a mainstream economics which is located within a well-defined neoclassical core. We find that the existence of lists of core mainstream journals which are believed to count most in the periodic ranking exercise poses a serious threat to academic freedom and diversity within the profession, institutionalizing the control which representatives of the mainstream exercise over both the academic labor process and job market. In this way, managerialism combines with peer review to outflank resistance to new forms of controlling academic labor at the same time as reinforcing disciplinary boundaries through centralized systems of bureaucratic standardization and control.

Perish or Publish in China: Pressures on Young Chinese Scholars to Publish in Internationally Indexed Journals

“…These negative consequences of the emerging publish-or-perish culture as observed in this specific Chinese context echo previous criticisms of other HE appraisal systems, such as the Research Assessment Exercise and Research Evaluation Framework in the UK, that are largely characterised by counting numbers of recognised publications [23]. For example, an emphasis on productivity can "come at the expense of innovation, boldness, heterogeneity, and, ultimately, so-called scientific progress" [22] (p. 150).…”

“…Negative consequences of the academic culture promoted by publish-or-perish have been reported by researchers in Sweden [20], Australia and Canada [21], the US [22] and the UK [23]. For example, Alvesson & Sandberg [20] (p. 182) observe a "serious shortage" of imaginative and innovative research in management studies despite a sharp increase of academic publications in the field.…”

“…Similarly, Adler & Harzing [21] (p. 3) believe that the academic assessment system based on quantitative measurement has pushed researchers away from "genuinely fostering" original knowledge. Another adverse effect of pressure to publish, as identified by Bouchikhi & Kimberly [22], is a growing homogeneity in research, in which researchers tend to report research results in line with dominant paradigms, so as to maximize the acceptance rate of papers (see also [23]). In worst-case situations it is also found that researchers may fabricate data to get their articles published [24].…”

The UK Research Assessment Exercise and the narrowing of UK economics

“…However, for the 1989 RS E and the 1992 RAE up to two publications from each full-time member of the faculty were RAE and subsequent exercises (Harley and Lee, 1997;Lee and Harley, 1998;and Lee, 2007). It is not difficult to discern why Diamond's list of 27 journals obtained such an elevated status among UK economists: those journals appeared repeatedly as top quality journals in journal ranking studies and in articles that used 'professional judgment' journals to identify the top, blue ribbon, or 'everyone would agree are core, mainstream, highly respected, quality' journals prior to 1989 and since 1989 up to the present day (Lee, 2006;Schneider and Ursprung, 2008;Ritzberger, 2008;Da Silva 2009;Halkos and Nickolaos, 2011;Kalaitzidakis, Mamuneas, and Stengos, 2011); and they appeared to be sanctioned by Economics and Social Research Council, the RES, and CHUDE since they represent ed 16 of the 22 high impact journals identified in their jointly sponsored study, International…”

“…The negative impact of the 1992, 1996, and 2001 UK research assessment exercises on heterodox economics is well documented (Harley and Lee 1997;Lee and Harley 1998;Lee 2007); and as will be shown below, the 2008 RAE reinforced the efforts of the last two decades to free British economics of economists and their theories that exist beyond the pale, outside of the society of decent, respectable economists. The elimination of heterodox economics occurred at the same time that the concentration and homogenization of economic research and the dissemination of economic ideas of a elite group of economic departments took place.…”