ILPC2014paper-Academic Work and the Neo Corporate University ILPC_20140402_095104

d.balsamo@chester.ac.ukAcademic Work and the Neo Corporate University This paper presents findings of a study of the management of teaching and research withinfour English universities..

Not to be reproduced without author’s consent d.balsamo@chester.ac.uk

Academic Work and the Neo Corporate University

This paper presents findings of a study of the management of teaching and research withinfour English universities Based on semi structured interviews, the account examines how thepressures of mass provision are reflected in attempts to intensify the performance of academiclabour The idea of 'hybridisation' of management methodologies is developed and empiricallyexamined Traditionally, teaching and research are depicted as constituted by process andoutput respectively (Barnett,1992); evidence of 'hybridisation', found particularly in tworesearch intensive institutions, unsettles existing conceptualisations of research and teaching's'inner structures' and questions pre existing assumptions about how autonomy is constructed

in the academy However, despite the emergence of new management technologies, asuniversities attempt to manage the totality of their operations in an environment of increasedneo liberal competition, (Olsen and Peters, 2005) the distinctive qualities of key aspects ofwork in higher education: 'knowledge production', rather than 'knowledge produced forproduction' (Harney and Moten, 1998), and most notably the resistance of academics, wasfound to render managerial control restricted and incomplete The concept of 'responsibleautonomy' (Friedman,1977) is deployed to understand the current situation of academic work,particularly the construction of autonomy within the boundaries of institutions, rather than as

a resource brought in from the outside - a traditional, definitive, trait of professional work This is seen as congruent with the arrival of the neo corporate university (Musselin, 2007)where emphasis on corporate loyalty attenuates the influence of the subject specialism andcompliance with institutional priorities becomes an overriding concern Finally, theconclusions are briefly related to Hardt and Negri's understanding of 'immaterial labour'

Teaching and research endure as the foundational components of academic work withinuniversities, often appearing as the substantive targets of attempts to increase performance inthe face of new ‘realities’ However, less is known about how these ‘constants’ are managedwithin the changing environment of higher education Whilst a wealth of complex narrativescharting the transformative, often deleterious, effects of managerialism in the academy exist,for example, Chandler et al (2002; Deem and Brehony, 2005), these stop short of eitherempirical description or comprehensive analysis of the ‘on the ground’ mechanisms andprocesses by which academic labour is subject to management control and regulation In fact,with the exception of some notable examples, Miller, 1991; Willmott, 1995; Harney andMoten, 1998) there appears to be somewhat of an analytic blind spot when it comes tounderstanding how teaching and research are managed

This lack of analysis is not easy to reconcile with the burgeoning literature on highereducation A significant proportion of which does focus on the inter relationship betweenteaching and research, as universities are shaped by exogenous forces, transforming, in turn,their internal modes of operation (Barnett, 2003) Alternative analyses, relate teaching andresearch to an evolving understanding of pedagogy, Colbeck (1998) providing a classicexample A missing ingredient in both types of approach is the lack of focus on those that dothe work and critically how they are managed Whilst there is widespread acknowledgement

of change, as mass higher education modulates traditional ideas of the structure and purpose

of the university, current understandings of the management of the core components ofteaching and research remain underdeveloped, based largely on analysis of ‘labour process’undertaken in the nineteen nineties

A distinguishing, prevalent, dynamic in contemporary U.K higher education, is the attempt

by institutions to gain management control over their complete range of functions This isnecessary in order to secure effective survival within the framework of competition generatedand secured by neo liberal governance (Olsen and Peters, 2005) and has determinate effects

on the work of academics League tables provide the codified outward manifestation ofcompetition, designed to provide apparently easy access to the complex facts informing

‘consumer’ choice, by disguising the knowledge asymmetries existing between producer andconsumer under the guise of simple metrics Whilst not in themselves definitive of

competition, league tables are an important component in understanding the current realities

of academic work and will be returned to later More generally, the competitive context ofEnglish higher education can be seen at a sector wide and institutional level, as an attempt tocreate universities as neo corporate entities For the purposes of the discussion that followsthis means: (i) as institutions U.K universities are concerned with the aforementioned attempt

to secure control of their across the board activities (ii) in doing this they need to deploymanagement techniques that increasingly promote identification and commitment toorganisationally defined objectives Both can involve attempts to intensify the conditionsunder which academic work is performed and this is potentially resisted by academics

Musselin (2007) in her description of the “late industrialisation” of higher education expressesthe shift from the idealised collegial institution to the neo corporate entity indicated above:

The affiliation to one’s institution is progressively transformed in to a work relationship The responsibilities and duties of academics are not only defined by their professional group but also by their institutional work arrangements Musselin, 2007:6).

Musselin suggests an important rationale for examining how work in universities is managed

under the changing conditions Her signification of a “work relationship” is of vitalimportance Firstly, it underscores that what academics do in universities is work – potentiallysimilar in a number of respects to work that is undertaken in other settings Secondly, it allowsthe possibility of providing specific form to phenomena identified in the literature such ascommodification and marketisation, for example, Naidoo (2005) which hitherto appear asstructural trends not anchored to the university as a specific type of institution The first acts

as a corrective to the neglect of academic labour as work, perhaps because it is seen asprivileged; therefore ‘immune’ from the contingencies affecting the labour processes ingeneral The second updates perspectives constructed in the nineteen nineties whenuniversities were in the earlier stage of transition away from their collegial roots

This paper presents the summary findings of a study of the management of teaching andresearch based on a study of four English universities In order to provide necessarycontextualisation to the existing literature, some specific characteristics of teaching andresearch are outlined along with a review of labour process theory and its application tohigher education The problems associated with ‘degradation’ and ‘deskilling’ in the context

of higher education, are also highlighted Finally, a tentative conclusion, linking academicwork and its management to the neo corporate university, is provided.

Teaching and Research as the Core of Academic Labour: The Antimonies of Process and Output

Teaching and research are often regarded as different and incommensurate activities seen withthe corollary, assumption that they are managed differently Incommensurability is explained

as a function of their ostensibly different nature, delineated by a focus on process and output

respectively These terms are important in understanding the management of teaching andresearch because they represent the material and symbolic consolidation of the innerstructures of both activities as academic labour They also produce the potential thatconditions either susceptibility or resistance to management control Wilson (1991)emphasised the latter point when accounting for the variable ‘proletarianisation’ of academiclabour to argue that research is based upon “creativity” and “knowledge” consequently:

the skill that is involved therefore includes the ability to think in various ways and possession of a vast body of knowledge it is hard to conceive how ‘thought’ itself could be deskilled (1991:259).

By contrast, teaching is susceptible to the pressures of control and externalised managementdirection ‘Proletarianisation’ is facilitated by institutional policies to separate teaching fromresearch, where shorn of the protection offered from relatively impenetrable reserves ofknowledge, it can be managed a routine manner For example, modularisation allows thedelivery ‘off the shelf’ knowledge and its re packaging by apparently research deskilledacademics

Process/output distinctions, as taxonomies for understanding the organisation of academicwork, are most highly developed in Barnett (1992) where an influential conceptualisation ofteaching and research is presented These are distinct activities, subject to differing types anddegrees of institutional regulation Barnett is clear that teaching (“higher education” in his

terminology) is unambiguously concerned with matters of process as it is concerned with the

continuous development of individuals, without determinate outcome Writing in the early1990s, at the dawn of the emergence of developed technologies of accountability, he doesconcede that the government and employers may have an interest in what he, somewhatconfusingly, describes as the output of the process, namely the emergent graduate, but has

little to say about how this interest may translate in to the detailed management of teaching.

Research is solely output oriented according to Barnett He suggests: “except for the

historians and sociologists of knowledge, the process of getting there is signallyuninteresting” (1992: 625) Barnett’s analysis is significantly influenced by the prevailingcontext of its creation Recent developments, driven by the cumulatively closer engagement

of the state with English higher education (Taylor, 2006) and the response of universitymanagement systems in promoting greater accountability were not predicted

Deem (2004) draws attention to the creative capacities of both teaching and research Sheclaims that this quality renders both relatively resistant to the regulatory ingress ofmanagement activity Although stating teaching and research are unified in their immunity toregulation: “not remotely comparable to managing retailing or industrial production” moreprominence is given to the resistive capacities of research (2004:111) Deem suggests thatoutside of laboratory sciences, research is an individual, rather than collective activity It isendowed with resistance to management because it is difficult to keep track of disparate workpractices, which lack central reporting lines Further specifying the resistant nature of bothteaching and research, she indicates how academics have loyalty to their subject area and itsinstitutional location, which is amplified by academic training producing “critical thinkers”,relatively impervious to management direction

Both Barnett and Deem align themselves with the traditional sociological literature on

professional and occupational power For Barnett, although unstated, the idea of process

conveys the actuality and potential for control as indeterminate ‘secrets of production’gradually become revealed to be made subject to rationalised codification By contrast,

research, as an output focussed activity, retains its opaque and indeterminate properties,

resistant to codification and managerial regulation (Jamous and Peloille, 1970; Johnson,1977) Deem similarly emphasises the challenge of subjecting research to management; theway it is organised as work creates less tractability than teaching, which is itself permeated bysubject specific allegiances and a critical ‘consciousness’ rendering it dissimilar to work inother contexts in terms of its susceptibility to management Her analysis suggests themanagement of academic activity is subject to particularistic specificities, as a form of expertlabour, where knowledge, definitive of occupational functioning, carries profoundimplications for the organisation and control of work Work in higher education may besubject to specific conditions, deriving in part from a labour process where subject knowledge

has a primary significance; however, there are questions as to the stability of these conditions

as universities change

Harley and Lee suggest discipline centred collegial relations have been “idealised” andmanagerialism concurrently de-emphasised in analyses of the academic labour process Theirexamination of research selectivity for economics in U.K universities highlights the influence

of subject based performance indicators in establishing a novel intellectual/professionalhierarchy Their impact is ‘managerial’ because the technology registering achievement isfounded on principles of standardisation and control (1997:1427) In addition, the widespread

use of financial performance measures, deployed within academic subject areas to mitigate

risk, and enacted by academics who are also managers also suggests that the discipline canprovide a conduit for control (Johnson, 2002; Deem and Johnson, 2003) Below some of thefactors that may serve to modify the process/output distinction in the neo corporate universityand which also impact upon the academic labour process are explored

Dissolving Antimonies and ‘Hybridisation’

Embedded within Barnett’s epistemologically based separation of process and output is thefoundation for claims that research, in particular, offers resistance to the exercise ofmanagement prerogative An alternative proposition, based on ‘hybridisation’ is suggestedhere: process and outcome do not exist as indissoluble categories, structuring teaching andresearch as separate, bounded, entities Methods for the management of teaching may ‘spillover’ in to the way research is managed Similarly, output based approaches, commonly foundwithin the institutional management of research, can be deployed to manage teaching – ‘spillover’ results in the generation of complementary management methodologies

Two examples illustrate the possible connections between ‘hybridisation’ and mass highereducation in the neo corporate university The first relates to the ways in which demand forgreater accountability, regarding the deployment of funding, may lead to the process outputdistinction in respect of research activity being transgressed A Comprehensive SpendingReview in 1998 established an ongoing Transparency Review to analyse income andexpenditure in higher education The results are returned to the English funding council on ayearly basis The Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) is a particular accounting processdedicated to the analysis of costs associated with teaching TRAC (T) , research TRAC(R) andother core activities (HEFCE,2005) TRAC has been progressively implemented since 2000-

01 and is allied to Full Economic Costing (fEC), which is an attempt to measure and monitorthe ‘real’ costs associated with the range of activities undertaken in higher education(FSSG/TDG, 2009) Originating earlier, the methodology surrounding TRAC (R) is moreadvanced than TRAC (T), currently under development in many universities Initially,institutions were required to detail costs related to research, teaching and ‘other activities’ In

2002 the methodology was refined allowing it to be deployed to discrete projects; from 2005all applications to research councils were required by the government to be TRAC compliantand fEC costed The methodology attempts to account for the inputs to research activity:time, laboratory and support costs, etc and to separate these, direct costs, from the indirect,infrastructural associated with university estates (Lewis, 2000)

It is not the intention to evaluate TRAC or fEC here However, it is suggested that theirimplementation is illustrative of attempts to actively manage academic activity For example,

by codification of the inputs that constitute research activity fEC is able to breach a hithertoindeterminate sphere to scrutinise its constitutive elements As a consequence, the regulatorypotential presents a direct challenge to accounts that situate process and outcome as inviolablecategories, structuring teaching and research respectively The accounting measuresassociated with the methodology allows research to be conceptualised, and importantly,managed as a process This has a clear significance for the workplace autonomy ofresearchers as it provides a tool for academics, who act as managers, to exert control overtheir colleagues Potentially, the once idealised ‘secrets’ of research production becometransparent allowing for the inputs of time and resources to be externally monitored andcontrolled TRAC presents an example of the ‘hybridisation’ of management approaches,where process orientated management, associated with teaching, is applied in acomplementary manner to the management of research Finally, the progressive introduction

of TRAC to monitor research and then teaching is indicative of an imperative to regard bothactivities as, in essence, managerially similar The seeking of complementary connectionsleads further to the evolution of embedded cultural practices in the university workplaceevidenced, for example, in workload management schemes (Burgess et al, 2003; Barrett andBarrett, 2007)

A second example provides an example of ‘hybridisation’ operating in reverse: outputorientated management applied to teaching In an environment where universitiesincreasingly compete to attract students, protecting their income against a diminishing unit ofresource, the perception of the institution in the outside world becomes crucial League tables,

ranking universities against various output measures of achievement, are now the mostcommon method by which institutions project an external perception Hazelkorn suggestsranking systems have grown to become increasingly important as a means to remedy theapparent lack of information available to the public regarding “the quality and performance ofhigher education” (2011:187) The extent to which this was a genuine need, or constructed inthe midst of general consumerist, pressures is beyond the scope of discussion However, theeffect of the injunction by Dearing (1997) for “greater explicitness and clarity” has propelledthe once recondite world of the university in to the mainstream It is a consequence of thepressures associated with a corporate presence and provides an example of the alignment ofhigher education with private sector practices noted by Deem (2004; 2005) in her elaboration

of the ideological character of new managerialism.

National league tables published in broadsheet newspapers together with international

rankings, such as the THES-QS World University Rankings, classify and rank universities

according to a number of discrete output measures Recently, the online and interactive

Complete University Guide has increased the volume of information available Ranking

criteria include: entry standards, graduate prospects, percentage of ‘good’ honours degrees,completion/dropout rates, research output/productivity and student satisfaction Whilst thepenultimate category is evidently research related, the rest represent measures of outputdirectly related to teaching and complement the data now routinely produced by the National

Student Survey, which is the Guide’s primary data ‘feed’ Research by Locke et al (2008)

presents a critical review of the propriety of league tables suggesting they have been extendedbeyond their original remit, becoming a highly influential management tool withinuniversities, often as key arbiters of decision making Originally, tables and rankings wereintended to inject an element of consumer sovereignty in to the undergraduate market.However, as the Locke et al indicate they are now significantly embedded within themanagement and decision making apparatus of universities:

Rather than being of merely intermittent concern, the case studies suggest that league tables are becoming incorporated in to the routine management of the institutional environment and internal constituencies by managers (including academic managers) and administrators (2008:60).

These authors highlight how externally projected output measures are being actively deployed

to exert management control within universities As the majority of measures utilised by

league tables attempt in some way to gauge and assess the impact of teaching, they reflect theimposition of output criteria applied to teaching activity, constituting the decision makingcontext from which it can be managed League tables, conceived initially as simply marketingtools, are becoming management tools This is a development that transgresses the processoutcome distinction adopted by conventional accounts, providing an example of outputcriteria being applied to the management of teaching It is a development that is alsoindicative of ‘hybridisation’ and the complementary merging of methods for managingteaching and research

Both examples of ‘hybridisation’ can be directly related to the ways in which universities seek

to manage their range of operations in a mass system and can be seen as illustrative of theevolution towards neo corporate structure and identity The regulation of the research process,through the management of inputs was developed initially as a concerted attempt to manageresearch activity, prompted by the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) in 1988 The RAEattempted to provide external evaluation of the fiscal value of research in an environment ofreduced public funding (Lucas, 2006) to: “uncouple the development of research from theexpansion of student numbers” in an era of mass provision (Scott, 2005) Its successor, theResearch Excellence Framework shares these objectives with a much greater emphasis on the

‘impact’ of research in its contribution to economy and society (HEFCE, 2012) It drivesresearch intensive universities, in particular, to corral researchers in to thematic groupings and

to concentrate their efforts towards institutionally derived and approved research outcomes,which are judged to produce impact in the competition to secure current and future funding.The accounting technologies operationalised in TRAC attempt to ensure correspondencebetween the costs of inputs and the value of research outputs As this value is increasinglyseen in the form of impact, and consequent income incentives, process style management can

be seen as incorporated in the decisions university managers make, directly impacting on theways in which academic labour is in turn managed

The second example illustrates the significance of competition as institutions struggle withambiguity concerning institutional identity in a differentiated, variegated, sector This drivesthe need for the external reference point created by league tables, to which universitiesrespond Output measures become increasingly deployed to manage teaching as consumersovereignty becomes transformed in to a technique to inform institutional management It isapparent from both examples how ‘hybridisation’ can be related to the need of universities to

gain greater managerial purchase on their range of activities in as part of a strategy of neocorporate consolidation.

Understanding the Management of Teaching and Research in Four English Universities

Senior managers (registrars, pro vice chancellors and deans) as well as middle managers(heads of department and senior administrators) were interviewed in four English universities

Two research intensive institutions – Highland and Townside and two teaching intensive – Callybrook and Wateredge were selected to grasp the extremes of differentiation in a variable

sector and to compare the management of academic work in institutions with very differentpurposes and associated designated incomes Care was taken to interview across the range ofdisciplines representing the humanities, social sciences, science and engineering In semistructured interviews participants were asked about the management of teaching and research

in their institution in order to gauge the extent to which they deployed hybrid orcomplementary methodologies and how this fitted with overall institutional strategies

Management in the universities examined was regarded as shaped by the institution’sstructural profile, including its research or teaching intensiveness, but also by the action andorientations of the managers interviewed This is because it is an activity consisting of arepertoire of potential actions and involving a balance of choices, albeit within a fieldconstrained by operational, strategic and wider political considerations An a prioriperspective, viewing academic work as a form of expert labour, suggested that itsmanagement should be considered as complex and multi dimensional; involving a range ofcontradictions and compromises connected to the overall character of the institution Thesample of interviewees was constructed to reflect this through the deployment of a taxonomy

of management decision making (Currie and Vidovitch, 1998), which emphasises howpurposeful action operates within the increasingly controlled environment of highereducation The table below provides example of how the interview schedule engaged with thestructural dimensions of ‘hybridisation

Examples of ‘structural’ indicators of ‘hybridisation’, possible effects and

their representation as questions in the interview schedule

Structural, institutional process

promoting ‘hybridisation’.

Possible effect Example of question taken from

interview schedule.

Application and scrutiny of

Transparent Approach t o Costing

(i.e TRAC R&T).

Oversight/implementation of Full

Economic Costing (fEC).

Workload management.

Monitoring of National Student

Survey (NSS)* and action in

response to results.

Identifies time spent on activities;

opens teaching and research to external scrutiny allowing complementary management to produce overall ‘hybridisation’.

Helps to render research as a

‘process’ susceptible to management intervention through financial analysis of costs of inputs;

reduces researcher autonomy by degradation of traditional focus on research outputs (represents

‘hybridisation’ as process management applied to research).

Highlights the discrete components that constitute teaching and research; represents the institutional embodiment of complementary management regimes as reduction to components facilitates ‘hybridisation’.

NSS represents the most significant league table device, often used to

‘feed’ other output measures for teaching in promotion of institutional reputation as institutions compete more closely for student income (represents

‘hybridisation’ as output management applied to teaching.

‘TRAC is regarded as important in managing academic work, what is its significance in undertaking your role’?

‘Explain your key concerns in managing teaching and research; are they similar to manage’?

‘What mechanisms exist to help you manage research’?

‘Please comment on how they work and their effectiveness’.

‘How are workloads managed at X’? ‘Who is responsible?’

‘Please tell me something about league tables and how you use them

in your role’.

*The NSS is an externally generated output measure used to document and compare student satisfaction (teaching and learning, assessment and feedback, academic support, organisation and management learning resources, personal development) sent to final year students in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Results are publically available through IPSOS MORI; ‘disaggregated, qualitative results are made available only to the institutions to which they pertain Completion and return rates are rising as a result of concerted efforts to encourage students to complete the online survey prompted by a, currently untested, assumption that without encouragement it is more likely that disaffected students will respond and skew institutional outcomes (Cheng et al, 2010).

Broadly, it was found that in the research intensive institutions, process methodologies,conventionally associated with the management of teaching, were applied to the management

of research Output orientated methods, traditionally and most commonly associated with themanagement of research, were evident in the management of teaching; the resultingamalgamation leading to a ‘hybridised’, complementary, approach By contrast, in oneteaching intensive institution, ‘hybridisation’ was more one sided; output was used as a means

to manage teaching, as in the research intensives, by reference to external data generated by

the NSS Finally, Wateredge – a thoroughgoing teaching intensive institution – was

distinguished by a lack of ‘hybridisation’

Townside, a research intensive institution specialising both theoretical and applied science and

technology, demonstrated the most intensive level of ‘hybridisation’ Of particular note wasthe deployment what was known colloquially as the R Factor, described as a “managementtool” allowing evaluation of the research activity of individual staff by comparing inputs, forexample, money and time with outputs such as journal articles Outputs were rated for qualityand compared with secondary data, such as published impact factors and citation analyses.Inputs and outputs were numerically weighted, and with the addition of a third component –the number of research students and assistants associated with the member of staff –combined to produce an overall figure constructed from a ratio analysis of the components.The R Factor allows numerical data to be collected and monitored for every member of staff.The PVC responsible for its design was clear regarding abilities of the tool to: collectinformation and to provide a transparent process by which decisions regarding themanagement of staff were made As a senior manager, he had an overview of the R Factorweightings for all staff, but rarely used the information directly; generally passing on theinformation to those involved in operational management The R Factor coupled with thedirect use of NSS measures as an output management tool applied to teaching, often involving

the direct intervention of the vice chancellor to improve performance, entailed that Townside

had the most ‘hybridised’ profile of the four universities

A further finding was that R Factor scores were used as arbiters to evaluate performance inrelation to individual contractual obligations These were aligned to the potential use of

determinate sanctions, if obligations were not met Townside provides an example of the

institutional internalisation of the external pressures, governing the overall disposition ofresearch funding, being transmitted and embedded in to the labour process of individualacademics Teaching contributed extensively to ‘hybridisation’, largely through NSSoutcomes being deployed at the highest level to manage teaching by output

At Highland the need to direct research toward themes yielding both income and status was

satisfied by looser connections, but as at Townside, performance measurement, andmanagement, was found to be a significant feature of life at the University The establishment

of three career routes for academics, movement being contingent upon attainment againstspecified benchmark criteria, was indicative of research being managed by a process basedform of accountability The institutional internalisation of external funding exigencies was

transparent at Townside; at Highland, according to one dean, it entered the university

environment via the ‘Trojan Horse’ established by teaching based quality assuranceprocedures Whilst the application of process based management approaches was not

unanimously supported by all managers, at either Townside or Highland, application was perceived as more partial by interviewees at Highland However, their operation, within a

clearly documented managerial repertoire, contributed to a significant level of ‘hybridisation’particularly if the use of NSS derived output measures to manage teaching was alsoconsidered The importance of the latter resides in the data’s capacity to provide easilyassimilated appraisal as a component in monitoring career progression; output criteriaproviding the focus for managerial action having determinate consequences The combination

of monitoring and potential response, to deal with suboptimal outputs, creates a platform fromwhich the teaching component of academic labour can be evaluated and potentially regulated

Highland, like Townside, managed research and the researcher, teaching and teachers in a

complementary, ‘hybridised’ manner The R Factor and the directive mode of deployment of

NSS outputs at Townside locate it at positive end of a continuum of ‘hybridisation’ A less systematic calibration and relatively looser direction of research, combined with a less

coordinated use of NSS outputs, accounts for the position of Highland suggesting, when

compared, research intensives differ The greater institutional ‘self confidence’ of Highland

was evident in the ways in which senior managers, in particular, stressed the institution’s role

as an influential leader in relation to research policy This, made possible by the connectionsbetween senior managers, members of government and national strategic elites, was cited asone of the reasons why research did not need to be actively managed Although contradicted

by evidence of tangible process management of research at faculty and department level, the

combination of confidence with control provided a different institutional context to Townside,

which appeared to less confident, relying more upon explicit mechanisms of coordination.Both universities exhibited control in respect of managing NSS outputs, relating them directly

or indirectly to career progression At Highland deans varied in way in which they derived a managerial response from the NSS At Townside the response was more uniform, perhaps as a

result in the institution’s belated conversion to the importance of teaching evaluation, cited by

a number of interviewees, in driving league table positions

Callybrook demonstrated asymmetrical ‘hybridisation’ NSS outputs exerted an external

pressure, internalised and managerially transmitted to have an impact on the academic labourprocess, despite the acknowledged lack of individual accountability attainable from the data.The NSS had prompted an internal review, culminating in the prescription of a moredemanding regime for staff in the requirement to maintain an available ‘online’ presence An

apparent ‘laissez faire’ regime at Wateredge, was reflected in an absence of ‘hybridisation’

locating it at the far edge of the ‘hybridisation’ continuum Lack of central direction overresearch was found to operate in synergy with minimalist managerial influence over teaching.Here the response to NSS outputs was optional and less prescribed by the centre Subjectareas decided on the appropriate form of action, confirming the impression given by onesenior manager that this externally imposed performance requirement was “administered”, notmanaged Subject areas also retained significant sovereignty over the limited time resourcedevoted to research, through the research targets established for academics and monitored by

a ‘soft’ regime, sensitive to contextual pressures Unlike at the two research intensiveuniversities, there was no attempt to link performance to job security The institutional culture,described as ‘democratic’ and ‘collegial’ appeared to dampen directive managerial incursion

in to the labour process and to provide the preconditions for voluntarism and parallelresistance toward intensification

Although far less significant in terms of both volume and financial return, research at theteaching intensives was invested with a symbolic and material importance, initially appearing

as paradoxical in relation to the profile of the institutions The majority of managers endorsedthe centrality of research to the identity of a university, specifying it as an activitydemarcating higher from further education and crucial in securing the recruitment of ‘quality’staff Several expressed frustration at what was described as the conflation of the formerlysymbolic institutional attributes, associated with research intensiveness, with the materialcapability and consequences of being unable to perform at this level in an environmentdominated by league tables

Finally, an important emergent finding was the lack of direct connection between the

structure of a university and the actions of those charged with managing teaching and

research Within the more ‘hybridised’ research intensive institutions managers varied in theiracceptance of the desirability and practicality of managing research by process and teaching

by output They displayed attitudes, occasionally leading to resistance, manifested as tensionsbetween the university centre and the locales of faculty and department Resistance was oftenfound to be mobilised through the ‘currency’ of expertise, located within discrete subject

areas Legal Studies at Highland and Physics at Townside drew on the subject as a resource

for catalysing potential resistance and this was important in serving to distinguish the actions

of some middle from senior managers

In the teaching intensives different forms of resistance were found At Callybrook

asymmetrical ‘hybridisation’ in respect of the application of output to teaching was acceptedphlegmatically, for example, as a “sign of the times” by the Head of Applied Science or asdemanded by the funding agency in the case of senior managers Faculties and departmentswere seen to be more interested in the application of process methodologies to research as a

means of evolving an approach to complement teaching The development of the Resource Model by Applied Sciences exemplified this and was contrary to the relaxed approach

delineated by the PVC Both the department head and dean were clear that the most effectiveway to manage their area was through embracing potential ‘hybridisation’, rather than itseschewal producing, in effect, resistance to a relaxed centre However, it was recognised thatpurposive resistance was in fact moderated by the centralised strategy of deliberate devolution

of workload management to departments

At Wateredge the Dean of Research’s desire to gain control of research, through the

importation of process type management to ensure “good practice”, remained an aspiration atodds with the prevailing culture of the institution By contrast, when it came to the

management of teaching, a direct relationship was found between the ‘laissez faire’ approach,embedded in the institutional structure, and the actions of managers This was seen in theexplicit or implicit recognition of the influence of a ‘democratic’ culture as restrainingprescriptive intervention in response to the NSS and was a source of frustration to at least onemanager.

Academic Work, the Neo Corporate University and Empirical Research in the Management of Core Functions

How then do the findings from this research relate to academic work in the neo corporateuniversity? Before moving to offer some tentative conclusions it is necessary to briefly reviewthe state of play regarding analyses of the academic labour process Three approaches, alloriginating from the nineteen nineties will be briefly examined and related to Labour ProcessTheory (LPT)

In a discussion of Academics and their Labour Process, Miller emphasises the significance

of the “transformation of raw materials” to LPT (1991:112) He then suggests it is:

difficult to accept that a labour process analysis which still starts and focuses on industrial labour within the private sector of a capitalist society can be easily extended to deal with the public sector, or specifically higher education (1991:113)

Miller’s dilemma is constituted by two important concerns The first relates to what may be

described as the indirect implications of academic work, namely, whether it is productive or not The second with the immediate conditions of work in universities and the extent to

which academics as ‘workers’ are subject to the exigencies of exploitation, control andeventual degradation definitive, according to Braverman, of the labour process in capitalism

Miller’s concerns with the indirect implications of academic work, which hinge around the

definition of whether labour is productive or unproductive, directly or indirectly productive,are rooted in debates, beyond the scope of extended discussion here They can becontextualised by reference to their emergence in the 1970s against a background of liberalconservative attacks on expanded state expenditure, which was seen as both ‘unproductive’and as ‘unfairly’ competing with the private sector for investment (Bacon and Eltis,1976) Asubsequent rebuttal from neo Marxist commentators (O’ Connor, 1973; Gough, 1975; 1979)

analysed the indirectly productive consequences of supposedly ‘unproductive’ labour andthe enhanced role of the state in directly supporting the private sector through, for example,subsidies to industry A renewed interest in Polanyi (1957) provides a contemporaryreformulation of this debate For example, Doogan distinguishes between “foundational” and

“developmental aspects of state intervention” In the “foundational” phase, the conditions forcapitalist development, for example, the supply of labour, are “instituted” as a result ofdeterminate action by the state, whilst in “developmental” phase the state concerns itselfwith the imperative of reactive response “to market outcomes that threaten the very survival

of the economy” (2009: 103; 108) Doogan’s elaboration of this double process highlights akey element of Polanyi’s analysis – the so called free market was planned whilst intervention

to deal with its continuing requirements were not – and clarifies that the ‘developmentalaspect’ involves, amongst an array of other functions, the reproduction of the labour force

Miller’s second concern, relating to the immediate condition surrounding the organisation of

work in universities is perhaps of greater significance as it goes to the heart of attempts tounderstand the specificities that structure the management of teaching and research.Unfortunately, Miller’s treatment of this issue is tangential He suggests that “questions ofideology and culture” are extremely important in understanding the work of academics, butfails to either detail or exemplify what these ‘questions’ may be (1991:113) His paperadvances to consider elements of the academic labour process, notably teaching andresearch, where he gives a hint of what lies beneath his concerns about the application ofBraverman’s approach When depicting teaching Miller suggests that in the lecture hall theacademic resembles a “lone craft person” however, in what he describes as the “widercontext” of work the academic is responsive to both the demands of the team and,significantly, “pressure from the institution” (1991:117) In teaching the academic enjoys thefreedom and autonomy of self directed craftwork However, this freedom is subject toencroachment by the demands arising from institutional control and coordination According

to Miller externalised control is potentially more pronounced when it comes to researchbecause of the need, coexisting with the progression of the nineteen nineties, to relate thecosts of research to productivity and relevance It is here that Miller indirectly substantiatescritiques of Braverman, questioning where the subordination of labour takes place Burawoy(1979; 1985) distinguishes between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ labour markets, whilstsimultaneously extending the differentiation to relate how the dynamics of production arelinked to the wider political and socio economic context where they are embedded As noted

by Warde, the significance of Burawoy is the ability to connect “power at the workplace withpower outside it” (1992:98) For Miller the external source of power is unambiguously thestate It is manifest in its attempts to control formerly discrete research outputs and marshalthem under the rubric of a defined purpose.

Miller portrays academic labour as enjoying the benefits of craft production in a transitionalstate because the autonomy he claims is under gradual threat by mechanisms of externalcontrol A clear difficulty is the failure to specify what generates and sustains this initialautonomy; as a result he is to unable to account for how the labour process of academics isundermined by the external mechanisms identified If there is no specification of whatpermits control to the worker within the labour process, it is difficult to establish the methods

by which control may be undermined, or indeed how this may be resisted A clear outcome

of this position is that terms such as ‘craft production’ and ‘management’ emerge assomewhat empty categories, whilst the processes by which they are constructed remainopaque and apparently unknowable

There is a second fundamental difficulty related to the first Miller suggests there are

problems in applying LPT to the immediate conditions of work in universities However, he

fails to identify that central to the problem of application is Braverman’s focus on the

degradation of work As Elger suggests “the most sustained theme of Labour and Monopoly Capitalism concerns the degradation of craft work in to common detailed labour” (1979:61)

it occurs through the active breaking down of complex skills in to entities that can becodified, reassembled and reallocated as a series of simpler tasks Taylorist rationalisation isnecessary to reduce the costs of labour and thereby increase the quantum of relative surplusvalue As noted, Miller does not identify the properties comprising his characterisation ofacademic ‘craftwork’ and so is unable to deal with the possibility that surplus value may in

fact be increased by the application and maintenance of skill, rather than its degradation.

This point is emphasised by Storey in his examination of the dialectical complexitiesinvolved in instituting management control Academic work is not skilled craftwork, but

expert labour characterised by the possession of complex knowledge The problems

associated with Miller’s blanket application of the craft work metaphor is compounded inthis context as it fails firstly to acknowledge the difficulties involved in subjectingknowledge based expert labour to management codification and secondly, that degradation