The View from Below: How the Neoliberal Academy Is Shaping Contemporary Political Theory

Author:

McKeown Maeve

Abstract

AbstractContemporary political theory is a game. Individuals compete to publish in ‘top’ journals, to amass greater numbers of publications than their peers; then journal-ranking is combined with number of publications generating scores. The aim is to get the most points. Whoever gets the most points wins: they get the best jobs and the most prestige. This Hunger Games–like contest has serious consequences for people’s lives, determining who can make a living from academia, who will be relegated to the academic precariat or forced out of the profession. In this article, I argue that, aside from the chilling effect that job insecurity and the gamification of academia has on the precariat, these conditions are stifling intellectual creativity, diversity, and dissent in political theory/philosophy. I discuss how privatization and deregulation of universities has created unbearable working conditions, why academics are forced to publish in so-called top journals and why this is detrimental to our field, marginalizing people, topics, and methodologies these journals do not support (which usually align with already structurally marginalized peoples and modes of knowledge). I explain why we are engaging in this game and how it perpetuates itself. I conclude with some suggestions for breaking this vicious cycle, as well as a discussion of who is really benefitting from it, namely, the corporate elites who run many universities and most academic publishers.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Social Sciences,Sociology and Political Science

Reference52 articles.

1. Bateman, Chris and Babich, Babette (2016) Babich and Bateman: Last of the Continental Philosophers. Available at: https://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_game/2016/11/babich-and-bateman-1.html.

2. Buranyi, Stephen (2017) Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science. The Guardian, 27 June. London. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science.

3. Burrows, Roger (2012) Living with the h-index? Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy. The Sociological Review 60(2): 355–372.

4. Castellacci, Fulvio and Viñas-Bardolet, Clara (2021) Permanent contracts and job satisfaction in academia: evidence from European countries. Studies in Higher Education 46(9): 1866–1880.

5. Cherry, Myisha and Schwitzgebel, Eric (2016) Like the Oscars, #PhilosophySoWhite. Los Angeles Times, 4 March. Los Angeles. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0306-schwitzgebel-cherry-philosophy-so-white-20160306-story.html.

Cited by 12 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3