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
17 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