Advertisement

Journal of Management and Governance

, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 869–899 | Cite as

Moving towards digital governance of university scholars: instigating a post-truth university culture

  • Lennart Nørreklit
  • Lisa Jack
  • Hanne NørreklitEmail author
Article

Abstract

Governance models are increasingly driven by information technology (IT) and are being applied to measure the performance of all kinds of organisational activity including that of universities. This paper investigates whether the language embedded in the production and use of data for governance models based on IT facilitates a governance culture that excludes the scholarly insights of university professionals. Drawing on the language philosophy of the live language games of capable habitus-based practices and that of the digital language of IT systems, we argue that the reductive, digital language embedded in IT-based performance measures might destroy the live language game through which scholars of universities produce and develop complex cognitive conceptual habitus. Managers in thrall to the digital language of control accessible via IT can use it to create operational paths that crowd out the free cognitive conceptual habitus of the university scholars. Accordingly, the culture of the corporate university is moving towards a post-truth state. The situation suggests that the role of universities as the foundation for the whole project of enlightenment and knowledge-based society is threatened.

Keywords

Performance measurement Habitus-based language University scholars Digital language Post truth 

Notes

References

  1. AACSB International—The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2018). Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation. https://www.aacsb.edu/-/media/aacsb/docs/accreditation/standards/2018-business-standards.ashx?la=en.
  2. Adler, N. J., & Harzing, A.-W. (2009). When knowledge wins: Transcending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings. Academy of Management Learning and Education,8, 1.Google Scholar
  3. Agyemang, G., & Broadbent, J. (2015). Management control systems and research management in universities: An empirical and conceptual exploration. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,28(7), 1018–1046.Google Scholar
  4. Alvesson, M., & Spicer, A. (2016). (Un) Conditional surrender? Why do professionals willingly comply with managerialism. Journal of Organizational Change Management,29(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
  5. Anderson, G. (2008). Mapping academic resistance in the managerial university. Organization,15(2), 251–270.Google Scholar
  6. Archambault, E., & Larivière, V. (2009). History of the journal impact factor: Contingencies and consequences. Scientometrics,79, 635–649.Google Scholar
  7. Aristotle (367 BC-322 BC). (1991). The Art of Rhetoric (τέχνη ῥητορική), translated by H. Lawson, Penguin, London.Google Scholar
  8. Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language truth and logic. London: Gollancz.Google Scholar
  9. Baldvinsdottir, G., Mitchell, F., & Nørreklit, H. (2010). Issues in the relationship between theory and practice in management accounting. Management Accounting Research,21(2), 79–82.Google Scholar
  10. Barcan, R. (2013). Academic life and labour in the new university: Hope and other choices. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Barthélemy, J. (2018). Le Monde.Google Scholar
  12. Benson, R., Constable, G., & Lanham, C. D. (1991). Renaissance and Reneval in the 12century. Canada: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  13. Boje, D. M., Rosile, G. A., Dennehy, R., & Summers, D. J. (1997). Restorying reengineering some deconstructions and postmodern alternatives. Communication Research,24(6), 593–630.Google Scholar
  14. Bolander, T. (2019). Human vs machine intelligence. Proceedings of Pragmatic Constructivism,9(1), 17–24.Google Scholar
  15. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Burges, T. F., & Shaw, N. E. (2010). Editorial board membership of management and business journals. British Journal of Management,21(3), 627–648.Google Scholar
  17. Burgess, A., Senior, C., & Moores, E. (2018). A 10-year case study on the changing determinants of university student satisfaction in the UK. PLoS ONE,13(2), e0192976.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burrows, R. (2012). Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review,60(2), 355–372.Google Scholar
  19. CABS. (2018). Academic Journal Guide 2018: Methodology, London: CABS. https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2018/.
  20. Clayson, D. E., & Haley, D. A. (2011). Are students telling us the truth? A critical look at the student evaluation of teaching. Marketing Education Review,21(2), 101–112.Google Scholar
  21. Craig, R., Amernic, J., & Tourish, D. (2014). Perverse audit culture and accountability of the modern public university. Financial Accountability and Management,30(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  22. D’Ancona, M. (2016). Post-Truth: The new war on truth and how to fight back. London: Ebury Press.Google Scholar
  23. European Quality Improvement System. (2018). https://efmdglobal.org/accreditations/business-schools/equis/.
  24. Franco-Santos, M., & Doherty, N. (2017). Performance management and well-being: A close look at the changing nature of the UK higher education workplace. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,28(16), 2319–2350.Google Scholar
  25. Frege, G. (1879). Begriffsschrift, eine der arithmetischen nachgebildete Formelsprache des reinen Denkens. Nebert, Halle (Reprinted in Angelelli (ed.) (1988, I–88)).Google Scholar
  26. Gendron, Y. (2015). Accounting academia and the threat of the paying-off mentality. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,26, 168–176.Google Scholar
  27. Gill, R. (2009). Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries of neo-liberal academia. In R. Flood & R. Gill (Eds.), Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections (pp. 228–244). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Heckman, J., & Moktan, S. (2018). Reliance on the T5 to screen talent incentivizes careerism over creativity. IZA Institute of Labor Economics. ftp.iza.org/dp11868.pdf.
  29. Humphrey, C., & Gendron, Y. (2015). What is going on? The sustainability of accounting academia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,26, 47–66.Google Scholar
  30. Hussain, S. (2011). Food for thought on the ABS academic journal quality guide. Accounting Education,20(6), 545–559.Google Scholar
  31. Hussain, S. (2015). Journal list fetishism and the ‘sign of 4’in the ABS guide: A question of trust? Organization,22(1), 119–138.Google Scholar
  32. Kalfa, S., Wilkinson, A., & Gollan, P. J. (2018). The academic game: Compliance and resistance in universities. Work, Employment & Society,32(2), 274–291.Google Scholar
  33. Kaplan, R. (2018). Reverse the Curse of the Top-5. Harvard Business School, Working Paper 19-052.Google Scholar
  34. Kristensen, J. E., Nørreklit, H., & Raffnsøe-Møller, M. (2011). University performance management at Danish universities. Copenhagen: DJOEF.Google Scholar
  35. Manochin, M., Brignall, S., Lowe, A., & Howell, C. (2011). Visual modes of governmentality: Traffic lights in a housing association. Management Accounting Research,22(1), 26–35.Google Scholar
  36. McCulloch, S. (2017). The importance of being REF-able: academic writing under pressure from a culture of counting. Available online at: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/02/09/the-importance-of-being-ref-able-academic-writing-under-pressure-from-a-culture-of-counting/.
  37. McNay, I. (2015). Learning from the UK Research Excellence Framework: Ends and means in research quality assessment, and the reliability of results in Education. Higher Education Review, 47(3), 2.Google Scholar
  38. Mejlgaard, N., Aagaard, K., & Siune, K. (2002). Politik og Forskning forskningspolitik mellem autonomi og heteremoni (p. 8). Danish: Analyseinstitut for Forskning.Google Scholar
  39. Merchant, K. (2012), Making management accounting research more useful. Pacific Accounting Review, 24(3), 334–356.Google Scholar
  40. Merchant, K. A. (2010). Paradigms in accounting research: A view from North America. Management Accounting Research,21(2), 116–120.Google Scholar
  41. Messner, M. (2009). The limits of accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society,34(8), 918–938.Google Scholar
  42. Mingers, J., & Willmott, H. (2012). Taylorizing business school research: On the ‘one best way’ performative effects of journal ranking lists. Employee Relations,6(8), 1051–1073.Google Scholar
  43. Murphy, T., & Sage, D. (2014). Perceptions of the UK’s research excellence framework 2014: A media analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2014.957890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Neary, M. (2016). Teaching Excellence Framework: A critical response and an alternative future. Journal of Contemporary European Research,12, 3.Google Scholar
  45. Newton, J. D. (1988). Using student evaluation of teaching in administrative control: The validity problem. Journal of Accounting Education,6(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  46. Nørreklit, L. (2011). Actors and reality: A conceptual framework for creative governance. In M. Jakobsen, I.-L. Johanson, & H. Nørreklit (Eds.), An Actor’s Approach to Management: Conceptual Framework and Company Practices (pp. 7–37). Copenhagen: DJOEF.Google Scholar
  47. Nørreklit, L. (2017a). Paradigm of Pragmatic Constructivism. In H. Nørreklit (Ed.), A philosophy of management accounting: A pragmatic constructivist approach (pp. 21–94). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Nørreklit, L. (2017b). Paranoia and Control. A Narrative about the Social Factory. In R. D. Hepp, D. Kergel, & R. Riesinger (Eds.), Social Vulnarability. Hyperprecarization and Social Structural Transformations in European Societies. Wiesbaden: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Nørreklit, H., Nørreklit, L., & Mitchell, F. (2010). Towards a paradigmatic foundation for accounting practice. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal,23(6), 733–758.Google Scholar
  50. O’Neil, K. (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction. New York: Crown Random House.Google Scholar
  51. Payne, G., & Williams, M. (2005). Generalisation in qualitative research. Sociology,39(2), 295–314.Google Scholar
  52. Pianezzi, D., Nørreklit, H., & Cinquni, L. (2019). Academia after virtue: An inquiry into the moral character(s) of academia. Journal of Business Ethics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04185-w.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pidd, M., & Broadbent, J. (2015). Business and management studies in the 2014 Research Excellence Framework. British Journal of Management,26(4), 569–581.Google Scholar
  54. Readings, B. (1996). The university in ruins. Boston: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Searle, J. (1980). Minds, brains and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,3(3), 417–457.Google Scholar
  56. Teas, R. K., & Palan, K. M. (1997). The realms of scientific meaning framework for constructing theoretically meaningful nominal definitions of marketing concepts. The Journal of Marketing,61(2), 52–67.Google Scholar
  57. Thrift, N. (2005). Knowing capitalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Uttl, B., White, C. A., & Gonsales, D. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies Educational Evaluation,54, 22–42.Google Scholar
  59. Walker, J. T., Fenton, E., Salter, A., & Salandra, R. (2018). What Influences Business Academics’ Use of the Association of Business Schools (ABS) List? Evidence from a Survey of UK Academics. British Journal of Management.,30, 730–747.Google Scholar
  60. Weitz, B. A., & Wensley, R. (2002). Handbook in Marketing. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  61. Whitehead, A. R., & Russell, B. B. (1910-13). Principia Mathematica.Google Scholar
  62. Wittgenstein, L. (1921). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. In D. F. Pears, & B. F. McGuinnes (Eds.), Annalen der Naturphilosophie. Routledge and Kegan Paul: London and Henley.Google Scholar
  63. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  64. Worthington, F., & Hodgson, J. (2005). Academic labour and the politics of quality in higher education: a critical evaluation of the conditions of possibility of resistance. Critical Quarterly,47(1–2), 96–110.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lennart Nørreklit
    • 1
  • Lisa Jack
    • 2
  • Hanne Nørreklit
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Aalborg UniversityAalborgDenmark
  2. 2.Portsmouth Business SchoolPortsmouthUK
  3. 3.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations