Advertisement

Governing Higher Education: The PURE Data System and the Management of the Bibliometric Self

  • Miguel Antonio LimEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

This article reflects on the ‘quantified self at work’ (Moore and Robinson in New Media Soc 18(11):2774–2792, 2016), neoliberal government (Miller and Rose in Econ Soc 19(1):1–31, 1990; Rose and Miller in Br J Sociol 43(2):173–205, 1992; Ball in J Educ Policy 18(2):215–228, 2003), and the use of bibliometric technologies that record research output. It charts and reflects upon the development of the ‘bibliometric self’ by presenting an analysis of the case of PURE – a data management system increasingly used in higher education. PURE is an important case to study because it (1) requires academics to engage with the software and actively update their own profiles and (2) aims to capture all academic activities and not only publication records. Its design – both category-bound but also open to other inputs – allows it to become a ‘total’ management system. It is becoming central to the work of research managers and heads of departments who rely on PURE to provide data for internal and external assessments (such as the UK’s Research Excellence Framework). The article shows how users engage with the software as well as the context in which PURE was designed and continues to develop. It concludes by reiterating the need for a critical but hands-on engagement with the everyday technologies in use in higher education policy.

Keywords

higher education PURE governance policy instruments performativity bibliometrics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the European Commission FP7 People programme: Marie Curie Initial Training Network UNIKE (Universities in the Knowledge Economy) under Grant Agreement Number 317452.

References

  1. Aarhus University. (undated) Research Strategy, internal communication.Google Scholar
  2. Altbach, P. and de Wit, H. (2018) ‘Too much academic research is being published’, University World News, 7 September. http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20180905095203579. Accessed 15 Nov 2018.
  3. Ball, S. J. (2003) ‘The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity’, Journal of Education Policy 18(2): 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baltodano, M. (2012) ‘Neoliberalism and the demise of public education: the corporatization of schools of education’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 25(4): 487–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burrows, R. (2012) ‘Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy’, The Sociological Review 60(2): 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davies, B. and Bansel, P. (2007) ‘Neoliberalism and education’, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 20(3): 247–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dean, M. (2010) Governmentality: power and rule in modern society, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Decuypere, M. and Simons, M. (2016) ‘What screens do: the role (s) of the screen in academic work’, European Educational Research Journal 15(1): 132–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Rond, M. and Miller, A. N. (2005) ‘Publish or perish: bane or boon of academic life?’, Journal of Management Inquiry 14(4): 321–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elsevier. (2016) Elsevier. https://www.elsevier.com/. Retrieved 15 August 2016.
  11. European Summer School for Scientometrics. (undated). http://www.scientometrics-school.eu/. Retrieved 31 January 2018.
  12. Gerrard, J. (2015) ‘Public education in neoliberal times: memory and desire’, Journal of Education Policy 30(6): 855–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grek, S. (2009) ‘Governing by numbers: the PISA ‘effect’in Europe’, Journal of Education Policy 24(1): 23–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunter, H.M., Hall, D. and Mills, C. (2015) ‘Consultants, consultancy and consultocracy in education policymaking in England’, Journal of Education Policy 30(4): 518–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall, G. (2013) ‘# Mysubjectivation’, New Formations 79: 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hazelkorn, E. (2015) Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: the battle for world-class excellence, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lim, M.A. (2017) ‘The building of weak expertise: the work of global university rankers’, Higher Education.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0147-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lim, M.A. and Williams Øerberg, J. (2017) ‘Active instruments: on the use of university rankings in developing national systems of higher education’, Policy Reviews in Higher Education 1(1): 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lupton, D. (2013) ‘Quantifying the body: monitoring and measuring health in the age of mHealth technologies’, Critical Public Health 23(4): 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Macdonald, S. and Kam, J. (2007) ‘Ring a ring o’roses: quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies’, Journal of Management Studies 44(4): 640–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Magalhães, A., Veiga, A., Ribeiro, F. and Amaral, A. (2013) ‘Governance and institutional autonomy: governing and governance in Portuguese higher education’, Higher Education Policy 26(2): 243–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McGrail, M.R., Rickard, C.M. and Jones, R. (2006) ‘Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates’, Higher Education Research and Development 25(1): 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller, P. and O’Leary, T. (2007) ‘Mediating instruments and making markets: capital budgeting, science and the economy’, Accounting, Organizations and Society 32(7-8): 701–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, P. and Rose, N. (1990) ‘Governing economic life’, Economy and Society 19(1): 1-31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitchell, K. (2006) ‘Neoliberal governmentality in the European Union: education, training, and technologies of citizenship’, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24(3): 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Moore, P.V. (2017) The quantified self in precarity: work, technology and what counts, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moore, P. and Robinson, A. (2016) ‘The quantified self: what counts in the neoliberal workplace’, New Media and Society 18(11): 2774–2792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Morley, L., Marginson, S. and Blackmore, J. (2014) ‘Education and neoliberal globalization’, British Journal of Sociology of Education 35(3): 457–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nedeva, M., Boden, R. and Nugroho, Y. (2012) ‘Rank and file: managing individual performance in university research’, Higher Education Policy 25(3): 335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Keeffe, C. (2016) ‘Producing data through e-assessment: a trace ethnographic investigation into e-assessment events’, European Educational Research Journal 15(1): 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Olssen, M. and Peters, M.A. (2005) ‘Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism’, Journal of Education Policy 20(3): 313–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Osterloh, M. (2010) ‘Governance by numbers. Does it really work in research?’, Analyse and Kritik 32(2): 267–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ozga, J. (2016)’ Trust in numbers? Digital education governance and the inspection process’, European Educational Research Journal 15(1): 69–81.Google Scholar
  34. Ozga, J., Dahler-Larsen, P., Segerholm, C. and Simola, H. (eds) (2011) Fabricating quality in education: data and governance in Europe, Abdingdo, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Peters, M. (1996) Poststructuralism, politics, and education. Critical studies in education and culture, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  36. Pusser, B. and Marginson, S. (2013)’ University rankings in critical perspective’, The Journal of Higher Education 84(4): 544–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Regeringen. (2009) AFTALE mellem regeringen (Venstre og Det Konservative Folkeparti), Socialdemokraterne, Dansk Folkeparti og Det Radikale Venstre om ny model for fordelingen af basismidler til universiteterne 30. juni 2009. http://ufm.dk/uddannelse-og-institutioner/videregaende-uddannelse/universiteter/okonomi/basismidler-efter-kvalitet/aftale-om-basismidler-efter-resultat.pdf. Retrieved 28 October 2014.
  38. Regeringen. (2006) Fremgang, fornyelse og trykhed. Strategi for Danmark i den globale økonomide vigtigste initiativer. http://www.stm.dk/multimedia/Fremgang_fornyelse_og_tryghed.pdf. Retrieved 28 October 2014.
  39. Rose, N. and Miller, P. (1992) ‘Political power beyond the state: problematics of government’, British Journal of Sociology 43(2): 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salmi, J. (2009) The challenge of establishing world-class universities, Washington, DC: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scott, J.C. (1998) Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed, Binghamton, NY: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Sellar, S. and Lingard, B. (2013) ‘The OECD and global governance in education’, Journal of Education Policy 28(5): 710–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shore, C. and Wright, S. (1999) ‘Audit culture and anthropology: neo-liberalism in British higher education’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 5(4): 557–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sivertsen, G. and Schneider, J. (2012) Evaluering av den bibliometriske forskningsindikator, Oslo: NIFU Report 17/2012.Google Scholar
  45. Welch, A. (2016) ‘Audit culture and academic production’, Higher Education Policy 29(4): 511–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Williamson, B. (2015) ‘Governing software: networks, databases and algorithmic power in the digital governance of public education’, Learning, Media and Technology 40(1): 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Williamson, B. (2016) ‘Digital education governance: data visualization, predictive analytics, and ‘real-time’ policy instruments’, Journal of Education Policy 31(2): 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilsdon, J. (2016) The metric tide: independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Wright, S. (2009) ‘What counts? The skewing effects of research assessment systems’, Nordisk Pedagogik 29(Special): 18–33.Google Scholar
  50. Wright, S. and Shore, C. (eds) (2017) Death of the public university? Uncertain futures for higher education in the knowledge economy (vol 3), New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Institute of EducationThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations