To Örebro University

Existing theorizations on how the proliferation of market-based technologies within universities come to foster so-called academic performer subjectivities have mainly drawn attention to their coercive and seductive powers. However, while these theorizations help explain why researchers either unwillingly adapt to, or identify with and cherish, their neoliberal ideals, they are less useful to explain recent empirical results showing that many researchers willingly comply yet are very critical of the very same ideals. Drawing upon an interview study of Swedish researchers, we address this theoretical gap in the literature by analytically disentangling three important qualities of the technologies per se, in terms of them producing performance numbers characterized by Specificness, Ongoingness, and Emptiness (SOE). These three qualities do not only have the dual power to interchangeably provoke bitter and sweet feelings, but also to foster the adoption of an academic performer subjectivity. In fact, it is precisely by provoking bittersweet feelings that these qualities break the sharp edges of pure coercion and seduction, thereby fostering a type of low-affective, yet highly persuasive form of reasoning about pros and cons of market-based technologies, which make their neoliberal ideals seem acceptable and reasonable at the end of the day.

Syllabus-boundness constitutes an important attribute of a so-called surface approach to learning, whereby students are seen as highly assessment-oriented, doing what is minimally required from them, and wanting well-organized courses and clear instructions. When this concept emerged in the late 1960ies, it was linked to a discussion on issues of authoritarianism and the ways in which the boundaries of the syllabus are tightly linked to authoritative knowledge and authority figures. However, over the years, this particular aspect of syllabus-boundness has largely faded away in the literature. Based on this turn in the literature, the purpose of this paper is twofold, namely: (1) To argue for a reintroduction of issues related to authoritarianism into the debate on syllabus-boundness, and (2) Based on a qualitative study of higher education students at a Swedish university, to identify and discuss how the conceptual borders of syllabus-boundness can be widened to include aspects of authority-boundness.

In the literature on the relationship between learning environments and students' approaches to learning, much attention has been directed to aspects that foster a deep approach. Considerably less attention has been directed to aspects that result in the opposite, namely a surface approach. Indeed, there is a small literature focusing on how learning environments can frustrate the basic psychological needs of individuals and, as a result, foster a surface approach. However, hitherto, this stream has focused on controlling elements in learning environments. We add to this latter literature, through focusing on learning-environment uncertainty. This notion emerged from a qualitative study of 19 students at a Swedish university, where we identified three types of learning-environment uncertainty, related to the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The findings suggest that a surface approach to learning can be understood as a coping strategy that students adopt to reduce such uncertainties.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe and theorize the type of hate-love relationship to performance measurement systems (PMSs) that individual researchers tend to develop in academia. To this end, the paper draws upon Foucault's writings on neoliberalism to analyse PMSs as neoliberal technologies holding certain qualities that can be expected to elicit such ambivalent views. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a qualitative interview study of researchers from three Swedish universities, who were asked to reflect upon questions related to three overall themes, namely, what it means to be a researcher in contemporary academia, the existence and use of PMSs at their universities and if/how such PMSs affected them and their work as researchers. Findings The empirical findings show that the hate-love relationship can be understood in terms of how PMSs are involved in three central moments of governmentality, where each such moment of governmentality tends to elicit feelings of ambivalence among researchers due to how PMSs rely on: a restricted centrifugal mechanism, normalization rather than normation and a view of individual academics as entrepreneurs of themselves. Originality/value Existing literature has provided several important insights into how the introduction and use of PMSs in academia tend to result in both negative and positive experiences and reactions. The current paper adds to this literature through theorizing how and why PMSs may be expected to elicit such ambivalent experiences and reactions among individual researchers.

Neoliberalism has emerged as a key concept for understanding how contemporary universities around the world are organized and managed. As a rationality of government, this political-economic ideology is grounded in the belief that human activities in general, and educational ones in particular, are best orchestrated when left to the rationality of the market. The authors discusses how extant research within several scientific fields such as accounting, management, sociology and higher education has provided a number of important insights into the unintended and largely detrimental effects that such a market-based rationality of government has tended to bring about in contemporary universities. Notwithstanding the many important insights generated in this literature though, extant research is according to the authors mostly based on smaller sample studies, which raises the question of whether they are generalizable to a larger sample of academics. Related to this, there is a lack of cross-sectional evidence of the extent to which Swedish universities and researchers display the same type of effects as described in the international literature. Also, the authors claim we know fairly little about whether these alleged effects are universal in character or differ between different categories of academics. After all, recent findings suggest that certain groups of researchers, not least junior researchers and/or women, may be even more negatively affected by the increasing reliance on market-based controls. Based on this, and drawing upon evidence from a survey among a large number of researchers at Swedish universities, the aim of this chapter is to more systematically map out the effects of market-based controls on research(er) quality, autonomy and innovation, motivation and stress, and furthermore, explore the extent to which these alleged effects are more prevalent among junior researchers and women, respectively. In brief, the authors present empirical evidence suggesting that today's reliance on neoliberally oriented forms of governance is perceived as negatively affecting research quality, academic freedom and stress. They also show that these negative effects are generally perceived to be more accentuated among junior academics and women as opposed to men and academics holding senior positions.

Foucault-oriented research has since long argued that the proliferation of performance measurement systems (PMSs) within academia threatens perceived researcher autonomy and identity through normalization and stigmatization of deviants. The theoretical model developed in this study nuances these claims by suggesting that effects of PMSs will differ depending on whether they are enacted as important for superiors (vertical control), colleagues (horizontal control), the researchers themselves (self  control), and  how  they  are  constructed by  these very  systems. Overall, the structural equation modelling analyses conducted on questionnaire data from some 700 Swedish researchers strongly confirm the model developed. Specifically, they show that PMSs enacted as a vertical form of control indeed threatens perceived autonomy and identity, and that horizontal control in the form of publish and peer pressure among colleagues works as a mediating mechanism which strengthens these effects. However, our analyses also show that when PMSs are enacted as important means of self control, this in fact increases perceptions of autonomy and reduces feelings of identity threat. We also find that the extent to which these systems construct researchers as high-performing is an important antecedent explaining how come they can be enacted in so different ways, and the effects thereof.

Neoliberalism has become a highly dominating and taken-for-granted way of organising the university sector around the world. In the critical educational literature, this market-based rationality has been scrutinised in detail over the past decades. However, rather scant attention has been directed to how university managers and administrators, apart from setting up quasi-markets, may intervene more directly to give the invisible hand of the market a helping hand. Aiming to address this lacuna, the purpose of the current article is to develop an empirically grounded taxonomy of different types of such interventions, and to theorise them in terms of the different facets of the neoliberal milieu that they reproduce and the various forms of subjectivising work among academics that they seek to engender. We do so by means of a qualitative study of so-called 'Grants Offices' at three Swedish universities. The findings arguably add to and problematise our understanding of how neoliberal markets work in academia in three different ways. First, while extant research has noted that university managers and administrators may intervene beyond the setting up of neoliberal markets per se, our study is to our knowledge the first one that identifies and systematises a broad array of such interventions. Second, it problematises the view of neoliberal markets as a form of monolithic entity that produces a uniform competitive pressure on academics. Third, and related, it furthers our understanding of the type of subjectivity that competitive milieus are assumed to bring about.

Previous research has concluded that it is quite common among higher education students to adopt a surface approach to their learning. To better understand how this phenomenon can be countered, this study of 19 business students at a Swedish university aimed at identifying qualities in the learning environments that may contribute to provoke such a surface approach. The results point to three types of learning environment uncertainty that students may experience, due to how such environments tend to frustrate one or more of their basic psychological needs to feel autonomous, competent, and related. And importantly, we find that adopting a surface approach to learning constitutes an important strategy for reducing or handling such experienced uncertainty.   

Lärares arbetsprestationer mäts och utvärderas alltmer på individnivå. I artikeln undersöks förekomst och användning av instrument för att mäta lärares arbetsprestationer. Baserat på en enkät till 2 000 svenska grundskole- och gymnasielärare visar artikeln på en högst varierande förekomst av prestationsmätningar. Instrument som uppföljnings- och utvecklingssamtal, kursutvärderingar, prestationsbaserad lönesättning förekommer i högre grad än föräldraenkäter, klassrumsobservationer och kollegial bedömning. Instrumenten används mest i aktiebolagsdrivna friskolor. Skolledningar använder sådana instrument i olika syften, främst som underlag för individuell lönesättning. I artikeln relateras resultaten till differentiering inom lärarprofessionen. Styrning är en delförklaring till varför lärarprofessionen differentieras. 

The study concerns the extent and use of instruments for evaluating teachers’ work performance. Based on a questionnaire to 2,000 Swedish teachers, the article points to a varying extent and use of performance measurement techni-ques. Coaching talks, course evaluations, and performance-based remuneration are more common than parent surveys, classroom observations and collegial assessments. The instruments are more common when the principal education organiser is a stock company. The instruments are used by school management for different purposes, primarily for individual salary negotiations. Based on these differences, it is argued that control is a partial explanation for the ongoing differentiation of the teaching profession. 

Anthony Giddens is generally considered one of the most prominent sociologists of moderntime. In this paper, we draw upon a micro-process case study to explore how his theory ofstructuration (ST) can be used to analyze the interplay between strategy and accounting inday-to-day-organizational life. In short, we find that strategizing and accounting shouldnot be viewed as two separate practices, but rather as two aspects ofoneand the samepractice, which form and feed each other in a recursive manner over time. Based on thesefindings, we also elaborate on how ST may be usefully applied to understand continuityand transformation of strategizing practices more generally. An overall conclusion is thatST not only provides a strong and consistent ontological framework for theorizing aboutthese practices, but also offers a rich conceptual toolbox which can be usefully appliedto better understand how and why structural continuity and change may coexist and inter-mingle in daily organizational life.