{"id":6974,"date":"2020-01-02T22:31:19","date_gmt":"2020-01-02T22:31:19","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/arielsheen.com\/?p=6974"},"modified":"2020-01-02T22:31:19","modified_gmt":"2020-01-02T22:31:19","slug":"notes-from-complexities-challenges-and-implications-of-collaborative-work-within-a-regime-of-performance-measurement-the-case-of-management-and-organisation-studies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/arielsheen.com\/index.php\/2020\/01\/02\/notes-from-complexities-challenges-and-implications-of-collaborative-work-within-a-regime-of-performance-measurement-the-case-of-management-and-organisation-studies\/","title":{"rendered":"Notes from Complexities, challenges and implications of collaborative work within a regime of performance measurement: the case of management and organisation studies"},"content":{"rendered":"

Complexities, challenges and implications of collaborative work within a regime of performance measurement: the case of management and organisation studies <\/strong><\/p>\n

By Emma Jeanes, Bernadette Loacker & Martyna \u015aliwa <\/strong><\/p>\n

https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03075079.2018.1453793<\/p>\n

ABSTRACT<\/strong><\/p>\n

The current demands on higher education institutions (HEIs) to become more efficient and effective have led to increasing performance pressures on researchers, and consequently on the practices and outcomes of researcher collaborations. In this paper, based on a qualitative study of collaborative experiences of management and organisation studies scholars, we explore the complexities and challenges of researcher collaborations under the current regime of academic performance measurement. Our study suggests that researcher collaborations are underpinned by four main rationalities: traditional-hierarchical, strategic-instrumental, scholarly-professional and relationship-orientated. We find that strategic-instrumental rationalities are the most prevalent and typically infuse other rationalities. Our research demonstrates that there are potential adverse consequences for the quality and purpose of outputs, the effects on collegial relationships and risks of exploitation and reinvoked hierarchies in collaborative relationships. The study reveals some of the problematic implications for academics and HEIs that emerge as a consequence of research productivity measurement.<\/p>\n

KEYWORDS<\/strong><\/p>\n

Academic hierarchy; business schools; New Public Management; researcher collaboration; research performance measurement<\/p>\n

Critics of academic performance management, and especially research productivity measurement, have highlighted that it gives rise to individualistic behaviours and practices, reinforcing competitive- ness and potentially undermining collegiality (Ball 2012). Lynch (2015, 199) warns that those who have internalised the productivity imperative are likely to develop an \u2018actuarian and calculative mindset\u2019, and to adopt a way of relating to the university organisation and to other academics, including collaborators, in purely transactional, career-oriented terms.<\/p>\n

This incentivises collaborative publications since both quality and quantity of output matter for assessing research productivity and can even impact global rankings.However, questions have been raised about the quality of outputs produced under the regime of \u2018excellence\u2019. For example, it has been argued that as a result of these measurements, academics might be more concerned with producing publications that conform to external quality evaluation criteria rather than striving to produce what they consider their \u2018best work\u2019<\/p>\n

The increasing predominance of journal lists and rankings as performance measurement tools tends to exert a \u2018homogenizing impact\u2019, stifling scholarly diversity and innovation. A specific study of management scholars has further shown a tendency to approach writing for academic publication as a \u2018game\u2019 rather than a process of critical inquiry<\/p>\n

Collaboration is commonly considered a vehicle for building professional networks, sharing knowledge, ideas, skills, experiences, workload, resources and risks associated with the research process, and for improving future employment prospects as well as attracting research funding for the collaborating parties<\/p>\n

A variety of rationalities inform prevalent practices of researcher collaboration. Below we critically discuss these rationalities, which we term as:<\/p>\n

(a) traditional-hierarchical<\/p>\n

(b) strategic-instrumental<\/p>\n

(c) scholarly-professional<\/p>\n

(d) relationship-oriented.<\/p>\n

Interpersonal Problems: <\/strong><\/p>\n

Even though his name (senior collaborator) is last in the alphabet, he puts his name first … I\u2019ve tried to address it but there\u2019s been no response. So you kind of feel like the hierarchy has been slipping in … I didn\u2019t really know how to handle that.<\/p>\n

These \u2018less mutually collaborative research teams that come together more because of employ- ment and institutional relationships\u2019 (Louis-MCR-BC) were widely evident. Such tolerance for inequality results in systematic burdens and challenges placed on those lacking an established institutional position, who are compelled to collaborate.<\/p>\n

Where seniority-based collaborations have been experienced as problematic, some researchers have developed a \u2018calculative mindset\u2019 towards collaborations.<\/p>\n

Rather than collaborations achieving greater creativity and pluralism, under the current regime of academic performance measurement, it is likely that collaborative practices foster a scholarly \u2018monoculture\u2019 and thus lead to narrow, incremental, often self-referential and superficial projects being embarked upon \u2013 i.e. ones that are seen to hold the promise of bringing highly evaluated, quantifiable and thus \u2018excellent\u2019 outputs, and contributing to researchers\u2019 career progression.<\/p>\n

This output-orientation in relation to the main objectives of collaborations reflects a broader observation stemming from our study in that strategic-instrumental rationalities underpinning col- laborations were the most widespread in our sample of participants. This demonstrates that, in a \u2018partnership or perish climate\u2019 (Berman 2008, 167), strategic-instrumental considerations tend to sup- press other collaborative rationalities such as those focusing on scholarly activities, projects and relationships. Even where academics claim a relationship- and friendship-based \u2018ethics of care\u2019 and \u2018gift giving\u2019 to be core to collaborations, they simultaneously express an instrumental approach to collaboration and, specifically, an underlying need for the creation of \u2018added value\u2019 (Macfarlane 2017) through publications.<\/p>\n

Problematic collaborative practices and relations are, however, not limited to \u2018vertical\u2019 collaborations.<\/p>\n

Strong performance cultures in HEIs tend to encourage academic malpractices, delineated by a lack of contributions, reliability, mutual responsiveness, trust and, thus, a lack of collegiality and engagement within collaborations.<\/p>\n

Scholarly responsibility appears to be replaced by a sense of institutional accountability, mainly defined by meeting performance targets and metrics.<\/p>\n

Our study demonstrates that current performance and research productivity pressures in HEIs \u2018crowd out\u2019 some important academic values and ideals, such as the pursuit of research out of scholarly curiosity and an aspiration for critical inquiry, and the cultivation of diverse and mutually supportive collegial relationships \u2013 in support of an unquestioning acceptability of demands for strategic, output-oriented and career objectives-driven academic practices.<\/p>\n

We see the ascent of the opportunistic, career-driven scholar who cultivates strategic, low-risk high-output collaborations, which may foreclose more interesting, inventive and valuable forms of research and jeopardize collegial relationships informed by critical reflexivity, equality and mutual trust.<\/p>\n

While we do not argue against the aspiration to produce high-quality research, our study of researcher collaborations among MOS academics underlines that the (un)intended con- sequences of the prevailing performance management regime and its emphasis on efficiency, excellence, relevance and accountability are far-reaching, for academics and for HEIs.<\/p>\n

References <\/strong><\/p>\n

Aarrevaara, T., I. R. Dobson, and C. Elander. 2009. \u201cBrave New World: Higher Education Reform in Finland.\u201d Higher Education Management and Policy 21 (2): 1\u201318.<\/p>\n

Adcroft, A., and D. Taylor. 2013. \u201cSupport for New Career Academics: An Integrated Model for Research Intensive University Business and Management Schools.\u201dStudies in Higher Education 38 (6): 827\u201340.<\/p>\n

Ball, S. J. 2012. \u201cPerformativity, Commodification and Commitment: An I-spy Guide to the Neoliberal University.\u201d British Journal of Educational Studies 60 (1): 17\u201328.<\/p>\n

Bammer, G. 2008. \u201cEnhancing Research Collaborations: Three Key Management Challenges.\u201d Research Policy 37 (5): 875\u201387.<\/p>\n

Barrett, L., and P. Barrett. 2011. \u201cWomen and Academic Workloads: Career Slow Lane or Cul-de-Sac.\u201d Higher Education 61 (2): 141\u201355.<\/p>\n

Beaver, D., and R. Rosen. 1979. \u201cStudies in Scientific Collaboration Part III. Professionalization and the Natural History of Modern Scientific Coauthorship.\u201dScientometrics1 (3): 231\u201345.<\/p>\n

Berman, J. 2008. \u201cConnecting with Industry: Bridging the Divide.\u201dJournal of Higher Education Policy and Management 30 (2): 165\u201374.<\/p>\n

Birnholtz, J. P. 2007. \u201cWhen Do Researchers Collaborate? Toward a Model of Collaboration Propensity.\u201d Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 58 (14): 2226\u201339.<\/p>\n

Bogt, H. J., and R. W. Scapens. 2012. \u201cPerformance Management in Universities: Effects of the Transition to More Quantitative Measurement Systems.\u201dEuropean Accounting Review 21 (3): 451\u201397.<\/p>\n

Bozeman, B., and E. Corley. 2004. \u201cScientists\u2019 Collaboration Strategies: Implications for Scientific and Technical Human Capital.\u201d Research Policy 33 (4): 599\u2013616.<\/p>\n

Butler, N., and S. Spoelstra. 2014. \u201cThe Regime of Excellence and the Erosion of Ethos in Critical Management Studies.\u201d British Journal of Management 25 (3): 538\u201350.<\/p>\n

CABS. 2015. Academic Journal Guide. Chartered Association of Business Schools. Accessed September 13, 2017. https:\/\/ charteredabs.org\/academic-journal-guide-2015\/.<\/p>\n

Cadez, S., V. Dimovski, and M. Z. Groff. 2017. \u201cResearch, Teaching and Performance Evaluation in Academia: The Salience of Quality.\u201d Studies in Higher Education 42 (8): 1455\u201373.<\/p>\n

Cheek, J. 2008. \u201cResearching Collaboratively: Implications for Qualitative Research and Researchers.\u201d Qualitative Health Research 18 (11): 1599\u20131603.<\/p>\n

Christensen, T., and P. L\u00e6greid. 2007. Transcending New Public Management: The Transformation of Public Sector Reforms. Aldershot: Ashgate.<\/p>\n

Chubb, J., and R. Watermeyer. 2017. \u201cArtifice or Integrity in the Marketization of Research Impact? Investigating the Moral Economy of (Pathways to) Impact Statements Within Research Funding Proposals in the UK and Australia.\u201dStudies in Higher Education 42 (12): 2360\u201372.<\/p>\n

Clarke, C. A., and D. Knights. 2015. \u201cCareering Through Academia: Securing Identities or Engaging Ethical Subjectivities?\u201d Human Relations 68 (12): 1865\u201388.<\/p>\n

CWTS Leiden Ranking. 2017. \u201cIndicators.\u201d Universiteit Leiden Centre for Science and Technology Studies. accessed February 5, 2018. http:\/\/www.leidenranking.com\/information\/ indicators.<\/p>\n

Davies, A., and R. Thomas. 2002. \u201cManagerialism and Accountability in Higher Education: The Gendered Nature of Restructuring and the Costs of Academic Service.\u201dCritical Perspectives on Accounting 13: 179\u201393.<\/p>\n

Deem, R., S. Hillyard, and M. Reed. 2007. Knowledge, Higher Education, and the New Managerialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

De Vita, G., and P. Case. 2016. \u201c\u2018The Smell of the Place\u2019: Managerialist Culture in Contemporary UK Business Schools.\u201d Culture and Organization 22 (4): 348\u201364.<\/p>\n

Engstrom, J. L. 1984. \u201cUniversity, Agency and Collaborative Models for Nursing Research: An Overview.\u201d Image: The Journal of Nursing Scholarship 16 (3): 76\u201380.<\/p>\n

Engwall, l. 2007. \u201cUniversities, the State and the Market: Changing Patterns of University Governance in Sweden and Beyond.\u201d Higher Education Management and Policy 19 (3): 1\u201318.<\/p>\n

Fernando, W. D. A. 2016. \u201cExploring Character in the New Capitalism: A Study of Mid-level Academics\u2019 in a British Research-Intensive University.\u201dStudies in Higher Education 2: 1\u201313. doi:10.1080\/03075079.2016.1212327.<\/p>\n

Gill, R. 2014. \u201cAcademics, Cultural Workers and Critical Labour Studies.\u201dJournal of Cultural Economy 7 (1): 12\u201330. Gordon, C. 1991. \u201cGovernmental Rationality: An Introduction.\u201dInThe Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality, edited byBurchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller, 1\u201352. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.<\/p>\n

Harvie, D. 2004. \u201cCommons and Community in the University: Some Notes and Some Examples.\u201d The Commoner 8: 1\u201310. Jeanes, E., B. Loacker, and M. \u015aliwa. 2014. \u201cResearcher Collaboration: Learning from Experience.\u201dInCritical Management<\/p>\n

Research. Reflections from the Field, edited by E. Jeanes and T. Huzzard, 41\u201360. London: Sage.
\nJohn-Steiner, V. 2000. Creative Collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n

Kallio, K.-M., T. J. Kallio, J. Tienari, and T. Hyv\u00f6nen. 2016. \u201cEthos at Stake: Performance Management and Academic Work in Universities.\u201d Human Relations 69 (3): 685\u2013709.<\/p>\n

Katz, J. S., and B. R. Martin. 1997. \u201cWhat Is Research Collaboration?\u201dResearch Policy 26 (1): 1\u201318.
\nKnobel, M., T. P. Sim\u00f5es, and C. Henrique de Brito Cruz. 2013. \u201cInternational Collaborations Between Research Universities:<\/p>\n

Experiences and Best Practices.\u201dStudies in Higher Education 38 (3): 405\u201324.
\nLather, P. 1991. Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy with\/in the Postmodern. New York: Routledge.<\/p>\n

Laudel, G., and J. Gl\u00e4ser. 2008. \u201cFrom Apprentice to Colleague: The Metamorphosis of Early Career Researchers.\u201d Higher Education 55 (3): 387\u2013406.<\/p>\n

Leahey, E., and R. C. Reikowsky. 2008. \u201cResearch Specialization and Collaboration Patterns in Sociology.\u201d Social Studies of Science 38 (3): 425\u201340.<\/p>\n

Leathwood, C., and B. Read. 2013. \u201cResearch Policy and Academic Performativity: Compliance, Contestation and Complicity.\u201d Studies in Higher Education 38 (8): 1162\u201374.<\/p>\n

Lei\u0161yt\u0117, L. 2016. \u201cNew Public Management and Research Productivity \u2013a Precarious State of Affairs of Academic Work in the Netherlands.\u201d Studies in Higher Education 41 (5): 828\u201346.<\/p>\n

Lynch, K. 2015. \u201cControl by Numbers: New Managerialism and Ranking in Higher Education.\u201d Critical Studies in Education 56 (2): 190\u2013207.<\/p>\n

Macfarlane, B. 2017. \u201cThe Ethics of Multiple Authorship: Power, Performativity and the Gift Economy.\u201d Studies in Higher Education 42 (7): 1194\u20131210.<\/p>\n

Melin, G. 2000. \u201cPragmatism and Self-organization: Research Collaboration on the Individual Level.\u201d Research Policy 29 (1): 31\u201340.<\/p>\n

Merton, R. 1973. \u201cThe Matthew Effect in Science (Originally Published in 1968).\u201d InThe Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by N. W. Storer, 439\u201359. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.<\/p>\n

Morrison, P. S., G. Dobbie, and F. J. McDonald. 2003. \u201cResearch Collaboration among University Scientists.\u201d Higher Education Research and Development 22 (3): 275\u201396.<\/p>\n

M\u00fcller-Camen, M., and S. Salzgeber. 2005. \u201cChanges in Academic Work and the Chair Regime: The Case of German Business Administration Academics.\u201dOrganization Studies 26 (2): 271\u201390.<\/p>\n

Musselin, C. 2005. Le March\u00e9 des Universitaires. Paris: Science Po.
\nNielsen, M. W. 2017. \u201cGender Consequences of a National Performance-Based Funding Model: New Pieces in an Old<\/p>\n

Puzzle.\u201d Studies in Higher Education 42 (6): 1033\u201355.
\nNikunen, M. 2012. \u201cChanging University Work, Freedom, Flexibility and Family.\u201d Studies in Higher Education 37 (6): 713\u201329. Nygaard, L. P. 2017. \u201cPublishing and Perishing: An Academic Literacies Framework for Investigating Research<\/p>\n

Productivity.\u201d Studies in Higher Education 42 (3): 519\u201332.
\nO\u2019Connor, P., and C. O\u2019Hagan. 2016. \u201cExcellence in University Academic Staff Evaluation: A Problematic Reality?\u201d Studies in Higher Education 41 (11): 1943\u201357.<\/p>\n

Ritchie, S. M., and D. L. Rigano. 2007. \u201cSolidarity Through Collaborative Research.\u201dInternational Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 20 (2): 129\u201350.<\/p>\n

Rossiter, M. W. 1993. \u201cThe Matthew Matilda Effect in Science.\u201d Social Studies of Science 23 (2): 325\u201341.<\/p>\n

Sander, N. 2012. Das Akademische Prekariat. Leben zwischen Frist und Plan. Konstanz: UVK.<\/p>\n

Sherry, S. B., P. L. Hewitt, D. L. Sherry, G. L. Flett, and A. R. Graham. 2010.\u201cPerfectionism Dimensions and Research Productivity in Psychology Professors: Implications for Understanding the (Mal)adaptiveness of Perfectionism.\u201d<\/p>\n

Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science\/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement 42 (4): 273\u201383.<\/p>\n

Shore, S., and J. Groen. 2009. \u201cAfter the Ink Dries: Doing Collaborative International Work in Higher Education.\u201d Studies in Higher Education 34 (5): 533\u201346.<\/p>\n

Smith, D. 2001. \u201cCollaborative Research: Policy and the Management of Knowledge Creation in UK Universities.\u201d Higher Education Quarterly 55 (2): 131\u201357.<\/p>\n

Smith, K. 2012. \u201cFools, Facilitators and Flexians: Academic Identities in Marketised Environments.\u201d Higher Education Quarterly 66 (2): 155\u201373.<\/p>\n

Stanley, L., and S. Wise. 1983. Breaking Out: Feminist Consciousness and Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan<\/p>\n

Paul. Thomas, R., J. Tienari, A. Davies, and S. Meril\u00e4inen. 2009.\u201cLet\u2019s Talk About \u2018Us\u2019: A Reflexive Account of a Cross-cultural Research Collaboration.\u201d Journal of Management Inquiry 18 (4): 313\u201324.<\/p>\n

Welte, H., M. Auer, and C. Meister-Scheytt. 2006. Management von Universit\u00e4ten. Zwischen Tradition und (Post-)Moderne. M\u00fcnchen: Rainer Hampp Verlag.<\/p>\n

Willmott, H. 2011. \u201cJournal List Fetishism and the Perversion of Scholarship: Reactivity and the ABS List.\u201d Organization 18 (4): 429\u201342.<\/p>\n

Ylijoki, O.-H. 2013. \u201cBoundary-Work Between Work and Life in the High-Speed University.\u201dStudies in Higher Education 38 (2): 242\u201355.<\/p>\n

Ylijoki, O.-H., and L. Henriksson. 2017. \u201cTribal, Proletarian and Entrepreneurial Career Stories: Junior Academics as a Case in Point.\u201d Studies in Higher Education 42 (7): 1292\u20131308.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Complexities, challenges and implications of collaborative work within a regime of performance measurement: the case of management and organisation studies By Emma Jeanes, Bernadette Loacker & Martyna \u015aliwa https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/03075079.2018.1453793 ABSTRACT The current demands on higher education institutions (HEIs) to become more efficient and effective have led to increasing performance pressures on researchers, and consequently on … Continue reading “Notes from Complexities, challenges and implications of collaborative work within a regime of performance measurement: the case of management and organisation studies”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[122,102],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6974","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-notes","category-phd"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8e7kf-1Ou","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/arielsheen.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6974","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/arielsheen.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/arielsheen.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arielsheen.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arielsheen.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6974"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/arielsheen.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6974\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6975,"href":"https:\/\/arielsheen.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6974\/revisions\/6975"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/arielsheen.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6974"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arielsheen.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6974"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/arielsheen.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6974"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}