[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-03746988.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The spectacle of research assessment systems: insights from New Zealand and the United Kingdom

Author

Listed:
  • Bikram Chatterjee

    (UTAS - University of Tasmania [Hobart])

  • Carolyn Cordery

    (Victoria University of Wellington, Aston Business School - Aston University [Birmingham])

  • Ivo de Loo

    (Business University Nyenrode - Nyenrode Business Universiteit, Aston Business School - Aston University [Birmingham])

  • Hugo Letiche

    (LITEM - Laboratoire en Innovation, Technologies, Economie et Management (EA 7363) - UEVE - Université d'Évry-Val-d'Essonne - Université Paris-Saclay - IMT-BS - Institut Mines-Télécom Business School - IMT - Institut Mines-Télécom [Paris], IMT-BS - DEFI - Département Droit, Economie et Finances - TEM - Télécom Ecole de Management - IMT - Institut Mines-Télécom [Paris] - IMT-BS - Institut Mines-Télécom Business School - IMT - Institut Mines-Télécom [Paris], University of Leicester)

Abstract
Purpose - In this paper, we concentrate on the use of research assessment (RA) systems in universities in New Zealand (NZ) and the United Kingdom (UK). Primarily we focus on PBRF and REF, and explore differences between these systems on individual and systemic levels. We ask, these days, in what way(s) the systemic differences between PBRF and REF actually make a difference on how the two RA systems are experienced by academic staff. Design/methodology/approach - This research is exploratory and draws on 19 interviews in which accounting researchers from both countries offer reflections on their careers and how RA (systems) have influenced these careers. The stories they tell are classified by regarding RA in universities as a manifestation of the spectacle society, following Debord (1992) and Flyverbom and Reinecke (2017). Findings - Both UK and New Zealand academics concur that their research activities and views on research are very much shaped by journal rankings and citations. Among UK academics, there seems to be a greater critical attitude towards the benefits and drawbacks of REF, which may be related to the history of REF in their country. Relatively speaking, in New Zealand, individualism seems to have grown after the introduction of the PBRF, with little active pushback against the system. Cultural aspects may partially explain this outcome. Academics in both countries lament the lack of focus on practitioner issues that the increased significance of RA seems to have evoked. Research limitations/implications - This research is context-specific and may have limited applicability to other situations, academics or countries. Practical implications - RA and RA systems seem to be here to stay. However, as academics we can, and ought to, take responsibility to try to ensure that these systems reflect the future of accounting (research) we wish to create. It is certainly not mainly or solely up to upper management officials to set this in motion, as has occasionally been claimed in previous literature. Some of the academics who participated in this research actively sought to bring about a different future. Originality/value - This research provides a unique contextual analysis of accounting academics' perspectives and reactions to RA and RA systems and the impact these have had on their careers across two countries. In addition, the paper offers valuable critical reflections on the application of Debord's (1992) notion of the spectacle society in future accounting studies. We find more mixed and nuanced views on RA in academia than many previous studies have shown.

Suggested Citation

  • Bikram Chatterjee & Carolyn Cordery & Ivo de Loo & Hugo Letiche, 2020. "The spectacle of research assessment systems: insights from New Zealand and the United Kingdom," Post-Print hal-03746988, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03746988
    DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-01-2019-3865
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Beime, Kristina S. & Englund, Hans & Gerdin, Jonas & Seger, Karin, 2024. "Theorizing the subjectivizing powers of market-based technologies: Looking beyond coercion and seduction," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Argento, Daniela & van Helden, Jan, 2023. "Are public sector accounting researchers going through an identity shift due to the increasing importance of journal rankings?," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    3. Becker, Albrecht & Lukka, Kari, 2023. "Instrumentalism and the publish-or-perish regime," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    4. Buckle, Robert A & Creedy, John, 2022. "The Performance Based Research Fund in NZ: Taking Stock and Looking Forward," Working Paper Series 21354, Victoria University of Wellington, Chair in Public Finance.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03746988. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.