Academics’ experience of contradicting institutional logics of publishing

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore whether and how Ukrainian scholars recognize and react to a situation of an absence of two major institutional logics of academic writing and publishing, namely the logics of science advancement and personal career promotion and the dominance of the logic of coercive pressures to publish regardless of quality and resonance and with no material and reputational rewards. Two fundamental and essential logics that drive research activity at any university in western societies seem to be almost absent in Ukrainian context, where symbolic publishing for accountability only is taken-for-granted. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts qualitative interpretative research methodology. The scholars from seven universities were interviewed, including 16 senior scholars and 15 PhD students. Findings The study shows the dominance of a single logic of accountability which is persisted due to coercive pressures exerted on scholars. Despite the absence of instrumental value behind publishing requirements in Ukrainian higher education system, most academics do not question this policy and largely take it for granted as the only possible system. Originality/value Research conducted in this study contributes to institutional logics and institutional complexity literature by highlighting a unique situation of institutional complexity when logic that offers neither economic nor social benefits dominates the field. It is shown how actors recognize, interpret and respond to this situation, identifying three types of responses that range from blind adherence to taken-for-granted institutional definitions to strategic balance between coercive pressures and desired logics.