Policy, the Universities and (the loss of) Creativity Maria Nedeva, MIoIR, MBS, the University of...

Policy, the Universities and (the loss of) Creativity

Maria Nedeva,

MIoIR, MBS, the University of Manchester

UNIKE Workshop 4

University of Roehampton, London 8-10 September

I am going to:

• Outline the policy space in the UK• Universities as strategic actors• Limitations to creativity through

reduction of variety and flexibility• So what?

Discourses around the benefits of competition have underpinned the changing organisation, structure and funding practices of science during the last several decades.

Increased competition for research funding

• Two modalities of funding (block grants and project based)

• Block grants are competitive by being highly selective

• Increased relative proportion of project based funding

While competition for research funding is increasing its positive effects on science are

far from certain!

Project based Funding

Selective Block Grants

Individuals

Universities

Knowledge networks

Knowledge

Funding unpredictability

Wastefulness

Reduction of variety

Substitution of goals

Game playing

Localisation

Conservatism bias

Fragmentation

Competition paradox

There is accumulating evidence that maintaining high and all pervading levels of competition in research spaces has adverse effects for scientific organisations, researchers, knowledge networks and for knowledge.

One specific adverse effects is that…

Radical intellectual innovation and initiating research lines that depart from the mainstream has become problematic.

The REF in the UK

UK government’s game: further concentration of research funding in the guise of ‘quality’ and ‘accountability’ (impact agenda)

Universities’ game: play the system to maximise your gain.

REF: the overall rules

• Universities and their sub-units submit research output for assessment;

• A number of specialist panels consisting of research elites peer review the outputs;

• Panels assign ratings from 1 to 4 stars;• Funding is distributed using a secret (?)

formula

Universities prepare for the REF by:

• Using shortcuts for ‘quality’• Using peer review at organisational level• Assessing discrete outputs

Using shortcuts

• Ranked lists of journals

Example: the ABS list in the UK Business SchoolsEffect 1: reduces organisational variety

Effect 2: reduces knowledge variety and dilutes peer review of top journals

Effect 3: damages academics and their careers

What is the ABS list

• A list of ranked journals in Business and Management

• An attempt at standardisation• A guide to excellence• A selection for excellence

Our study

• Senior academics in six UK business schools• Electronic interviews• Balance of research fields

Our findings

• Extensive use within the ‘just below the top’ organisations

• Used for preparation for the REF (excellence)

• Permeates promotion and recruitment practices

• Academic compliance• Resistance is sabotage

Compliance

[I] feel I have to try and get things in higher ranked journals even when I don’t think they’re the best ones for the topics’ (Lecturer, female, post-92 university)

So when I'm looking both at research projects and research outputs, potential for publication in ABS ranked journals is an important consideration - I'd like to say it isn't but... (Senior Lecturer, female, post-1992 university)

Some grumpiness:

I know perfectly well how to publish my work. I don't need a stupid list to inform me. (Professor, male, pre-1992 university)

Resistance

[By] playing a difficult and exhausting double game, publishing in outlets that are relevant to my personal research community irrespective of the ‘list’, but also trying to publish in ‘highly’ rated journals notwithstanding that certain contortions in content/approach may be necessary. (Reader, female, pre-1992 university)

Our conclusions

• Use of the ABS list could have effects on:– Universities– Academics and their

behaviour– Knowledge

• Reduction of variety and flexibility

Using peer review at organisational level

• Effect 1: Conservative bias• Effect 2: Power of elites and established research

trajectories• Effect 3: Bias against smaller, un-usual and

emerging research groups

The problem of epistemic distance!

Assessing discrete outputs

What is assessed is articles; their importance is impossible to judge outside long-term research lines.

(Impact cases?)

Most of all:

Such evaluation exercise shifts the organisational focus from pushing at the frontiers of knowledge to winning a losers’ game.

Are universities in the UK becoming classical bureaucracies?

So what?

• Intellectual issues• Policy concerns• The link between the two

Thank you for listening!

maria.nedeva@mbs.ac.uk