Skip to main content

Academic Centrarchy: a Political System of Governing Education and Technology

Abstract

This article relies on two international projects to argue for the existence of a ‘centrarchy’ in the fields of education and technology (and beyond). Centrarchy denotes a power structure in which power rests with ‘the Centre’. The Centre signifies well-respected departments, top-tiered journals, the best editors, critical reviewers and leading authors; the Periphery denotes anyone else. The Centre has assigned itself the mission of guiding the Periphery out of its underdevelopment. It has served as a proxy for quality scholarship and believes that Periphery’s societies require a saviour (the Centre). It has ignored the knowledge that has (and could have) been produced by the Periphery’s researchers. Its ways of researching the world have been internalised and taken for granted by the Periphery’s academics, who have come to see these ways as the natural order and common sense. It has seen the Periphery’s societies as outliers appropriate merely for local case studies, whereas its case studies transcend locality and have universal value. The Centre–Periphery ‘wall’ is unbreachable because of empirically uninspected factors, which are unearthed here. This article, furthermore, shows some academics to be on ‘the periphery of the Periphery’.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Adams, H. (1976). The academic tribes. New York, NY: Liveright.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alcadipani, R., Khan, F. R., Gantman, E., & Nkomo, S. (2012). Southern voices in management and organization knowledge. Organization, 19(2), 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvares, C. (2002). The multiversity enterprise. Penang: Inaugural Conference of Multiversity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrighi, G. (2001). Global capitalism and the persistence of the north-south divide. Science and Society, 65(4), 469–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. McGraw-hill education (UK).

  • Chant, S., & McIlwaine, C. (2009). Geographies of development in the 21st century: An introduction to the global south. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, B. (2004). Managing the third world. Organization, 11(5), 603–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C. (1993). There are survivors: Telling a story of a sudden death. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 711–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 4(138), 273–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanon, F. (1986). Black skin, white masks. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glass, R. L. (2000). A letter from the frustrated author of a journal paper. Journal of Systems and Software, 54(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gramsci, A. (1995). Further selections from the prison notebooks. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harzing, A., & Metz, I. (2013). Practicing what we preach: The geographic diversity of editorial boards. Management International Review, 53(2), 169–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayano, D. M. (1979). Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems and prospects. Human Organization., 38(1), 99–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, G. M., & Rothman, H. (1999). The editors and authors of economics journals: A case of institutional oligopoly? The Economic Journal, 109(453), 165–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, K. (2005). The inferior science and the dominant use of English in knowledge production: A case study of Korean science and technology. Science Communication, 26, 390–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Islam, G. (2012). Can the subaltern eat? Anthropophagic culture as a Brazilian lens on post-colonial theory. Organization, 19(2), 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, T. (2012). Postcolonialism and organizational knowledge in the wake of China’s presence in Africa: Interrogating south-south relations. Organization, 19(2), 181–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keim, W. (2011). Counter-hegemonic currents and internationalization of sociology. International Sociology, 26, 123–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (2012). The birth of academic subalterns: How do foreign students embody the global hegemony of American universities? Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(5), 455–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, N., & Greenley, G. (2010). Brief reflections. European Journal of Marketing, 44, 697–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meriläinen, S., Tienari, J., Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2008). Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences from publishing from the periphery. Organization, 15, 584–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montaigne, M. D. (1991). The essays of Michel de Montaigne trans. and ed. MA Screech. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, J., & Zhu, J. (2012). Neo-colonialism in the academy? Anglo-American domination in management journals. Organization, 19(6), 915–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, M., & Thomas, R. (2011). What is a critical journal? Organization, 18(4), 419–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peekhaus, W. (2012). The enclosure and alienation of academic publishing: Lessons for the professoriate. tripleC: Communication, capitalism & critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 10(2), 577–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raelin, J. A. (2008). Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 124–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M. (2002). Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education, 32(2), 215–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • So, A. (1990). Social change and development: Modernization, dependency, and world-systems theory. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tadajewski, M. (2016). Academic labour, journal ranking lists and the politics of knowledge production in marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(1–2), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tietze, S., & Dick, P. (2013). The victorious English language: Hegemonic practices in the management academy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(1), 122–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Bamber, R. (Eds.). (2012). Tribes and territories in the 21st-century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willmott, H. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: Reactivity and the ABS list. Organization, 18, 429–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author (i.e. the mediator of the crowd-authoring project and the first crowd-author) would like to thank the other crowd-authors for their collaboration and critical engagement with the project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdulrahman Essa Al Lily.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al Lily, A.E. Academic Centrarchy: a Political System of Governing Education and Technology. J Acad Ethics 20, 23–38 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09374-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09374-1

Keywords

  • Education
  • Technology
  • International organisation
  • International politics
  • Academia
  • Management