Individual Academic Productivity vs New Managerialism in Academic Research
https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2021.02.018
Abstract
The paper considers individual academic productivity and the new managerialism in academic research as a set of social relations, common and opposite interests of a scholar and a university. The balance of interests is a necessary condition for regulating the contradictions among participants in public relations, including academic research. Reforming higher education results in new managerialism spreading wider and in scientific results paid attention to. The increasing accountability with a lack of mutual trust and information asymmetry creates the illusion of an imbalance of academic researchers’ interests in favor of management. The power potential of the new managerialism can become an instrument of both pressure and encouragement of individual academic productivity. As is shown in our review, this productivity, mainly published papers, is influenced by the principles of its assessment. The evolution of approaches to the academic results promotion provides a large variety of criteria for the selection of indicators to assess scientific activity. The game theory allows to reduce this variety to one common ground, where winning is considered to be the basis of relationships in academic research. As a result, there is a matrix model of four strategies – the extreme forms of scholar-and-management relationship manifestation within the system of academic research. Only one of these strategies means a balance of interests and long-term cooperation, the other three imply the contradiction of individual academic productivity vs the new managerialism and are short-term. The use of winning in a game as a basis and criterion of assessment for the individual academic productivity normalization contributes to opportunistic behavior neutralization. The author makes the conclusion that the type of strategy affects the combination of simple and qualitative indicators and professional expertise when assessing scientific results. It is reasonable to choose the indicators of assessment according to the most balanced strategy of regulating the contradictions among participants in academic research.
About the Author
M. V. Niyazova
Vladivostok Branch of Russian Customs Academy
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Marina V. Niyazova – PhD (Economics), Associate Professor, Head of Office of Research and Development
16v Strelkovaya str., Vladivostok, 690034
+7 924 230-30-03
References
1. Dezhina I. G. Nauchnaya politika v vedushchikh rossiiskikh universitetakh: effekty «novogo menedzherializma» [Research Policy in Leading Russian Universities: Effects of ‘New Managerialism’]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz, 2020, vol. 24, nr 3, pp. 13–26. doi 10.15826/umpa.2020.03.023. (In Russ.).
2. Garfield E. Can Citation Indexing Be Automated? In: M. E. Stevens, V. E. Giuliano, and B. H. Laurence (eds), Statistical Association Methods for Mechanized Documentation, Washington, 1964, pp. 189–192. (In Eng.).
3. Ivanov V. V., Markusova V. A., Mindeli L. E. Government Investments and the Publishing Activity of Higher Educational Institutions: Bibliometric Analysis. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2016, vol. 86, iss. 7, pp. 611–619. doi 10.7868/S0869587316070082. (In Eng.).
4. Guba K. S. Publish or Perish, ili razvenchanie meritokratii v nauke [Publish or Perish, or Dethronement of Meritocracy in Science]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2011, nr 3, pp. 210–226. (In Russ.).
5. Bolotov V. A., Kvelidze-Kuznetsova N. N., Laptev V. V., Morozova S. A. Indeks Khirsha v Rossiiskom indekse nauchnogo tsitirovaniya [The h-Index in the Russian Science Citation Index]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2014, nr 1, pp. 241–262. doi 10.17323/1814-9545-2014-1-241-262. (In Russ.).
6. Margolis A. A., Ponomareva V. V., Sorokova M. G. Osobennosti «rossiiskogo Khirsha»: prediktory tsitiruemosti nauchnykh statei v RINTs [The “Russian Hirsch”: Predictors of Citation Usage of Scholarly Works in the RSCI]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2020, nr 1, pp. 230–255. doi 10.17323/1814-9545-2020-1-230-255. (In Russ.).
7. Balatsky E. V., Yurevich M. A. Nesbalansirovann ost’ naukometricheskikh RINTs-pokazatelei rossiiskikh ekonomistov [The Misalignment of Russian Economists’ Scientometric Indicators in RISC]. Zhurnal Novoi ekonomicheskoi assotsiatsii, 2016, nr 2 (30), pp. 176–180. doi 10.31737/2221-2264-2016-30-2-8. (In Russ.).
8. Kalgin A. S., Kalgina O. V., Lebedeva A. A. Otsenka publikatsionnoi aktivnosti kak sposob izmereniya rezul’tativnosti truda uchenykh i ee svyaz’ s motivatsiei [Publication Metrics as a Tool for Measuring Research Productivity and Their Relation to Motivation]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2019, nr 1, pp. 44–86. doi 10.17323/1814-9545-2019-1-44-86. (In Russ.).
9. Drugova E. A., Andrakhanov A. A., Bolbasova L. A., Korichin D. A. Professional’nyi rost molodogo uchenogo: defitsitnye resursy podderzhki [Professional Growth of a Young Scientist: Scarce Support Resources]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz, 2017, nr 2, pp. 144–154. doi 10.15826/umpa.2017.02.028. (In Russ.).
10. Surovitskaya G. V. Mekhanizmy razvitiya kadrovogo potentsiala opornykh universitetov Rossii [Flagship Universities’ Person nel Potential Development Mechanisms in Russia]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz, 2019, vol. 23, nr 1/2, pp. 72–80. doi 10.15826/umpa.2019.01-2.005. (In Russ.).
11. Abankina I. V., Aleskerov F. T., Belousova V. Yu., Zinkovsky K. V., Petruschenko V. V. Otsenka rezul’tativnosti universitetov s pomoshch’yu obolochechnogo analiza dannykh [Higher Education Institutions’ Efficiency by Data Envelopment Analysis]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2013, nr 2, pp. 15–48. doi 10.17323/1814-9545-2013-2-15-48. (In Russ.).
12. Kirichenko I. V., Shelyubskaya N. V. Sistema otsenki kachestva nauchnykh issledovanii v stranakh Evropy [Evaluation Methods for R&D in European Countries]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz, 2019, vol. 23, nr 4, pp. 9–20. doi 10.15826/umpa.2019.04.025. (In Russ.).
13. Kotlyarov I. D. Nauchnaya rabota professorskoprepodavatel’skogo sostava: upravlenie produktivnost’yu [Scientific Work of the Faculty: Management of Efficiency]. Trud i sotsial’nye otnosheniya, 2010, nr 4, pp. 82–90. (In Russ.).
14. Litvinova L. I. Faktory nauchnoi produktivnosti i problemy ee otsenki [Measurement and Factors of Academic Productivity]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz, 2018, vol. 22, nr 1, pp. 61–75. doi 10.15826/umpa.2018.01.006. (In Russ.).
15. Antosik L. V., Shevchenko E. S. Otsenka vliyaniya effektivnogo kontrakta na publikatsionnuyu aktivnost’ prepodavatelei: keis regional’nogo universiteta [Assessment of the Impact of an Effective Contract Introduction on the Publication Activity of a University Faculty: The Case of a Regional University]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2018, nr 3, pp. 247–267. doi 10.17323/1814-9545-2018-3-247-267. (In Russ.).
16. Popov E. V., Popova N. G., Biricheva E. V., Kochetkov D. M. Tseleorientirovannyi podkhod k otsenke deyatel’nosti nauchno-issledovatel’skikh kollektivov [A Goal-Oriented Approach to the Performance Assessment of Research Teams]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz, 2017, vol. 21, nr 3, pp. 6–18. doi 10.15826/umpa.2017.03.033. (In Russ.).
17. Matveeva N. N. Bibliometricheskii analiz vzaimodeistviya uchenykh v rossiiskikh vuzakh: kooperatsiya vs individual’naya produktivnost’ [Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific Collaboration in Russian Universities: Cooperation vs Individual Productivity]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz, 2020, vol. 24, nr 2, pp. 26–43. doi 10.15826/umpa.2020.02.012. (In Russ.).
18. Rudenko D. Yu. Proekt «5-100»: otsenka ego vozdeistviya na publikatsionnuyu aktivnost’ universitetа [The Effect of Project 5–100 on the University’s Publication Activity]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz, 2020, vol. 24, nr 3, pp. 27–45. doi 10.15826/umpa.2020.03.024. (In Russ.).
19. Krull W. Stimulirovanie konkurentsii i kreativnosti v sfere vysshego obrazovaniya Germanii i Evropy [Fostering Competition and Creativity in German and European Higher Education]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2011, nr 2, pp. 151–162. (In Russ.).
20. Chernova E. G., Akhobadze T. D., Malova A. S., Saltan A. A. Modeli finansirovaniya vysshego obrazovaniya i effektivnost’ deyatel’nosti universitetov: empiricheskoe issledovanie evropeiskogo opyta i otechestvennaya praktika [Higher Education Funding Models and Institutional Effectiveness: Empirical Research of European Experience and Russian Trends]. Voprosy obrazovaniya, 2017, nr 3, pp. 37–82. doi 10.17323/1814-9545-2017-3-37-82. (In Russ.).
21. Panikarova S. V., Vlasova M. V., Kuznetsov P. D. Otsenka nauchnoi rezul’tativnosti universitetov: institutsional’nyi podkhod [Assessment of Scientific Productivity of the Universities: Institutional Approach]. Universitetskoe upravlenie: praktika i analiz, 2016, nr 5 (105), pp. 80–88. doi 10.15826/umj.2016.105.046. (In Russ.).
22. Dixit A. K., Nalebuff B. Teoriya igr. Iskusstvo strategicheskogo myshleniya v biznese i zhizni [The Art of Strategy: A Game Theorist’s Guide to Success in Business and Life], Moscow, Mann, Ivanov i Ferber, 2016, 464 p. (In Russ.).
23. Shelling T. Strategiya konflikta [The Strategy of Conflict], Moscow, IRISEN, Sotsium, 2019, 367 p. (In Russ.).
24. Altbach P. G., Reisberg L., Yudkevich M., Androushchak G., Pacheco I. F. (eds.) Kak platyat professoram? Global’noe sravnenie sistem voznagrazhdeniya i kontraktov [Paying the Professoriate. A Global Comparison of Compensation and Contracts], Moscow, HSE Publishing House, 2012, 439 p. (In Russ.).
25. Litvak M. E. Komandovat’ ili podchinyat’sya? Psikhologiya upravleniya [To Command or to Obey? Management Psychology], 31st ed., Rostov-on-Don, Feniks, 2020, 379 p. (In Russ.).
26. Bogdanova N. Yu. Opportunisticheskoe povedenie: formirovanie ponyatiya [Opportunistic Behavior: on the Problem of the Concept Development]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo universiteta. Seriya 7: Filosofiya. Sotsiologiya i sotsial’nye tekhnologii, 2009, nr 2 (10), pp. 199–204. (In Russ.).
27. Nalimov V. V., Mul’chenko Z. M. Naukometriya. Izuchenie razvitiya nauki kak informatsionnogo protsessa [Scientometrics. Studying the Development of Science as an Information Process], Moscow, Nauka, 1969, 192 p. (In Russ.).
28. Rukovodstvo po naukometrii: indikatory razvitiya nauki i tekhnologii [The Russian Scientometric Handbook], 2nd ed., Yekaterinburg, Ural University Press, 2021, 358 p. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Niyazova M.V. Individual Academic Productivity vs New Managerialism in Academic Research. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2021;25(2):114-122. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2021.02.018
Views:
641
Email this article 