Academia as financial markets? Metaphoricreflections and possible responses

Janne Tienari *

Aalto University, School of Economics, PO Box 21230, 00076 Aalto, Finland

Scandinavian Journal of Management (2012) 28, 250—256

KEYWORDSAcademia;Journals;Publishing;Metaphor;Critique

Summary I argue that publishing in the global academia has come to resemble the operationsof financial markets. Academics-cum-investors target a set of ‘top’ journals in a system that isportrayed as self-evident. I suggest that the financial markets metaphor enables us to explicatethe self-fulfilling prophecies that constitute the academic system, to understand the role ofjournals, to confront (re)constructions of self-evidence, and to develop meaningful responses inrelating to the system. I offer five responses for further discussion.# 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

j our na l h omepa ge : h t tp: // www. el sev ie r. com/l oca te/ sca man

From financial markets to academia

Deregulated global financial markets reign supreme (Morgan,Froud, Quack, & Schneiberg, 2011). But it has not alwaysbeen like that. From the great depression of the 1930s untilthe late 1970s, financial markets were strictly regulated bynational governments. Then the rules changed radically.Engwall (1994) uses the analogy of bridge and poker to makesense of the transformation and resulting confusion. Sea-soned bankers–—old boys used to stable regulations and toprivileges accumulated over the years–—suddenly realizedthat both the rules and the game itself had changed. Bridgewas replaced by poker. Ruthless new actors and ways of doingbusiness shook up the cozy world of the old boys.

Once the game had started, there was no turning back.Many old bankers failed to adjust. Some chose to retire, whileothers seized the new opportunities. With the simultaneousrapid development of information technology, deregulatednational financial markets across the world became inter-connected in unprecedented ways, in real-time. By the press

* Tel.: +358 50 3531093.E-mail addresses: janne.tienari@aalto.fi, janne.tienari@hse.fi.

0956-5221/$ — see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reservehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2012.05.004

of a button, a slick investment banker could now buy or sell,and move billions across the world. These powerful actorscould force corporate executives to rationalize their busi-nesses and cut their workforce, not to improve business perse, but to maximize the value of their clients’ investments.Financial wizards could change the lives of people faraway. . .and the people would never know what hit them.Capitalism had become fast and faceless.

A number of key actors and practices keep the new systemup and running. This is the age of investor capitalism andpowerful middle men as speculation and risk taking areencouraged and rewarded. Business is not only about makinglucrative deals, but also about creating images and stories toattract investors and customers; a phantasmagoria, as DeCock et al. (2011) suggest. In terms of its rewards, manyclaim that in contrast to the old boys’ club, which drew frominherited positions and class-based networks, the new systemis based on initiative and merit. Against this backdrop, itseems that the new financial system has become invincible,and its logic self-evident (Morgan, Froud, Quack, & Schnei-berg, 2011). In the globalized economy, as the pro-marketargument would have it, alternatives such as strong govern-mental regulation have proved inferior in generating eco-nomic activity and accumulating wealth.

d.

Academia as financial markets? 251

Even in the wake of a severe global financial crisis in2008—2009, and in the current debt crisis, calls for moredemocratic political (re)regulation and control of the financewizards have proved to be futile. There is too much at stakefor the United States in Wall Street and for the UnitedKingdom in the City of London. The new bankers are toopowerful to be controlled by democratic means. The globalsystem has become too complex and unpredictable. Stein(2011) argues that it has become plagued by a culture ofmania, driven by illusions of omnipotence, and characterizedby over-activity and denial of alternatives.

While Engwall (1994) uses the analogy of bridge and pokerto denote the dramatic transformation in banking, I argue thatfinancial markets provide a useful metaphor1 and comparisonin making sense of the contemporary academia in organizationand management studies. With all its enthusiasm and pomp–—and some curiously perverse outcomes (Willmott, 2011)–—academia has become deregulated and global, speculativeand driven by image-building. It seems to be increasinglydifficult to envision and articulate viable alternatives to thecurrent state of affairs. To challenge this, I suggest thatcomparing contemporary global academia with financial mar-kets enables us to explicate self-fulfilling prophecies thatconstitute the system, to understand the role of journals, toconfront (re)constructions of self-evidence, to develop action-able responses in relating to the system, and perhaps even tochange it. Through metaphor, we can strip the academicsystem naked in all its glory, unveil its perversions and dis-contents, and search for meaningful alternatives.2

Self-fulfilling prophecies

Academic capitalism runs wild as competition between uni-versities, study programs, journals, and academics is prolif-erating (Slaughter & Leslie, 1997). ‘League tables’ of

1 Metaphors are powerful. They are figures of speech in which wordsor phrases literally denoting one object are used in place of another tosuggest a likeness or analogy. They are linguistic vehicles for commu-nicating holistic experiences vividly and concisely (Ortony, 1975; Lak-off and Johnson, 1980). They can also provide a means to see in novelways; to create new meanings and understandings of phenomena thatotherwise remain taken-for-granted (Cornelissen, 2006). To be sure,using the metaphor of financial markets to make sense of academiadoes not suggest a perfect match. That would be an absurd idea. Themetaphor and comparison is used in this article as a way of seeing thesystemic features of the global academia; its various dimensions,interconnections, vested interests and outcomes.2 The financialization of academia can be understood and studied

in a number of ways. The real financial interests of publishingcompanies that are involved with academic journals are an obvioustopic for such inquiry. Another are ‘‘the various ways in whichstudents and teachers alike are induced to view study through apurely financial logic’’ (Beverungen, Dunne, & Hoedemaekers, 2009:268). There are also differences across societies in how financializa-tion plays out in the academia. In the case of the USA, the forerunner,Newfield (2008) argues that the crises of public universities are theresult of a conservative campaign to end public education’s democ-ratizing influence on society. Viewed in other contexts this positionon academic capitalism seems rather extreme, but the bottom line isthat financialization in academia is constituted by societal change,on the one hand, and it has societal repercussions, on the other.

universities and programs are introduced, and resourcesare allocated on the basis of output that meets pre-defined,allegedly universal criteria. Rankings and accreditations arecrafted to construct performance indicators that are com-parable worldwide; the competitive space in academia isnow global as well as national (Wedlin, 2011). Researchoutput in the form of articles in prestigious journals is akey measure of performance for universities and individualacademics.

I suggest that in such a market journals are run likecompanies by CEO-editors who aim to create value for theirshareholders. Inclusion in Thomson Reuters ISI Web of Knowl-edge has become like a listing on the New York StockExchange, a measure of ambition and success. CEO-editorsseek to increase their ISI Journal Impact Factor, in otherwords the price of company shares on the NYSE. As a result,there is a thin line between smart, value-based managementand unethical behavior. CEO-editors are tempted to adoptpolicies and practices that artificially push up the journalImpact Factor by, for example, inflating citations (Parker &Thomas, 2011). In this context, influential journal list andranking bodies such as the Association of Business Schools(ABS) in the UK–—that assigns stars to journals to denote theirquality–—resemble credit rating firms that monitor the jour-nals’ performance and future prospects, and provide suppo-sedly impartial information for academics-cum-investors onwhere to submit their manuscripts.

Articles in ‘top’ ISI-listed journals are now the lifeblood ofthe global academic system. Article manuscripts are likeinvestments. If one seeks to maximize the value of one’sinvestment portfolio, only companies (journals) that areconsidered exciting investment targets matter, despite thesubstantial risks involved. It is the quest to publish in ‘top’journals that drives us. It determines our subjectivities asacademics, to borrow a Foucauldian notion. It makes us whowe are; we become investors who are constantly on thelookout for the killer deal. In this way, we sustain thehegemonic system driven by publications in the rightplaces–—by apparent consent, rather than by coercion–—andreproduce its metrics and values as legitimate and self-evident (Merilainen, Tienari, Thomas, & Davies, 2008). Akinto placing investments in the deregulated financial markets,submitting manuscripts to ‘top’ journals is seductive(Nkomo, 2009). Many of us think that we are partaking inthe system voluntarily, making our own choices.

This investor logic plays out in a number of ways. While weacademics once co-operated in common cause, we are nowin competition with each other (Macdonald & Kam, 2011).Recollections of the past may be nostalgic, but bridge wascozier than poker is. The pace was slower and the stakeswere lower. No more bridge, however. The new breed ofruthless instrumentalist academics-cum-investors has takenthe hegemony to heart. They are willing to bear the risks(after all, they can end up with nothing despite years ofwork), continue submitting to ‘top’ journals, and wait fortheir very own breakthrough investment-article published inthe right outlet. It seems there is no turning back, exactly asis the case with the self-evident logic of the deregulatedfinancial markets.

The systemic nature of the global academia becomesapparent in self-fulfilling prophecies that are connected toeach other. First, the expansion and proliferation of rankings

3 Practices of academic work are changing, and this is inextricablylinked to the content of work in terms of the phenomena that arelegitimate to put into scrutiny (without being considered suspiciousby university top management) and the theoretical framings andperspectives that can be developed. For a critical discussion onbusiness schools in the UK and US in the age of academic capitalism,see e.g. Dunne, Harney, Parker, and Tinker (2008).

252 J. Tienari

is a self-reinforcing process (Wedlin, 2011). ‘League tables’that are rankings of universities and programs persuademanagerial decision-makers to introduce policies and prac-tices that conform to particular external criteria (and theirunderlying competitive ideology). In so doing these not onlyreproduce the apparent relevance of the criteria but also theprominence of the rankings and the ideology they promote(Espeland & Sauder, 2007). Like financial markets that are inpart steered by stock analysts and raters of credit, the fate ofacademic institutions is decided by powerful ranking bodiesand their metrics.

Second, ‘league tables’ are inextricably linked with theself-fulfilling cycles of journal listing. Lists and indexes suchas the ISI are used as key measures in the rankings. Theyencourage scholars to do research and to write up their workin specific ways, and in doing so confirm the relevance andlegitimacy of their own values and metrics (Willmott, 2011).Journals ranked highly in the lists remain influential whilesome of the articles published in them become widely cited(because they are published where they are), and in so doingattract more attempts to contribute in the same format andwith similar content, further bolstering the journal’s rankingand reputation–—and reproducing its favored methodologicalas well as theoretical dogmas (Starbuck, 2009). The journal’ssuccess in the right lists attracts more followers. This in turnbreeds more success according to the same criteria. Likeherds of investors in financial markets, willingness to hoponto a successful journal bandwagon has come to character-ize academic identity and work.

Third, instrumental(ist) social networks are the lubri-cant in the system. Smart, goal-directed networking func-tions as a reputational tool for universities on the move. Itfunctions as a career accelerator for individual academics.Networking with gatekeepers such as ‘top’ journal editorsand citation-attractive gurus guides academics in makingthe right investments. Publications in the right places thenlead to a greater number of network contacts, to moresocial capital and prestige, and to more publications andcitations (Van den Brink & Benschop, in press). Sometimesthis takes the form of what Smith (2006) calls citationcartels, where groups of scholars cite each other andthemselves and deliberately ignore other relevant work.Akin to insider trading in the financial markets, one has toknow the right people, mingle with them, and cite theirwork in order to improve one’s chances of getting publishedin the right places. Perhaps academia has thus created itsown phantasmagoria (De Cock et al., 2011); images andstories that are attractive to the right audiences need notbe socially relevant. Keeping up appearances suffices, aslong as one is part of the right networks and provides good‘sound-bites’ for others to cite.

All of these self-fulfilling prophecies are sustained by us,the academics. I argue that we now resemble investors. Asindividuals, we engage in speculative behaviors that (may)offer opportunities to shine in the eyes of academic gate-keepers and to score points in assessment exercises. Many ofus feel that we are given no choice by our bosses. As a result,we get excited and opportunistic about the same ideas andinvestment targets and mimic each other in our attempts tomaximize the value of our own investments. Someone alwayssucceeds and keeps the spirit up for the rest of us who aredoomed to fail, time and again.

Shortcomings

Like global financial markets, the systemic self-fulfillingprophecies in academia have various consequences. Froma critical viewpoint, the system has significant shortcomings.First, there will be more of the same. Competing for scarcefinancial resources and the attention of student-customers,business schools mimic each other to attain the same qualitystamps and reputational assets (Wilson & McKiernan, 2011).Journals, in turn, increasingly resemble each other as journaleditors modify their behavior to match the criteria to attainhigher status in the market (Judge, Cable, Colbert, & Rynes,2007). Research practices also change. Brown (2007) suggeststhat editorial preferences in ‘top’ journals have altered howresearch is done in medical sciences, while Paasi (2005)argues that the logic of the market has served to homogenizepractices of research in geography.

In organization and management studies, Willmott (2011)laments the homogenizing impact upon research culture ofwhat he calls journal list fetishism. The same kind of reac-tionary stuff, in slightly different forms, is manufactured andcelebrated. Out-of-the-box thinking and original work isscorned and squeezed out of the pages of those outlets thatcount in assessment exercises. This is particularly evident inUS-based ‘top’ journals where positivist scholars are put atan advantage in comparison with constructivist ones (Clegg &Ross-Smith, 2003). In other words, there are de facto barriersof entry into the lucrative US market. As in the financialmarkets, regulation is practiced covertly–—and the big wins inthe system are not equally accessible to all.

Second, future-oriented gamesmanship is encouraged,practiced, and rewarded. Cunning and calculating aca-demics-cum-investors prosper as they continue to networkand cite each others’ articles, which are written as platformsfor citation rather than to be read (Macdonald & Kam, 2007).The system persuades academics to become overly citationconscious (Paasi, 2005); the academic subject revolvesaround publications that are citable, which in turn improvethe subject’s prospects for being cited in the future. Thisfuture orientation sometimes takes perverse forms–—to bor-row Willmott’s (2011) vocabulary once more–—as scholars arealready concerned about the potential outlet and impact(citability) of their publications before they have done theunderlying research. The very logic of financial markets isabout speculation and expectations of future profit, and nowthe same mindset seems to have penetrated practices ofacademic work.3

Third, the boys continue to benefit. The old clubs in bankingand academia excluded women from positions of power. Inbanking, self-assertive and ruthless masculine ways thenreplaced patriarchal forms of management (Kerfoot & Knights,1993). In academia, a similar pattern could be discerned asmasculinized discourses of instrumental rationality and

Academia as financial markets? 253

control prevailed (Thomas & Davies, 2002). Like the old one,the new academic system serves to reinforce gender-basedinequalities (Morley, 1999). Van den Brink and Benschop (inpress) argue that the academic excellence cherished in thenew system is an evasive social construct that is inherentlygendered. It draws from the self-fulfilling cycles sketchedabove, and systematically places women at a disadvantage.

This plays out in a number of ways. In practice, the globalsystem of rankings and journal lists has gendered conse-quences. Its criteria for measuring success and allocatingrewards favor men (Van den Brink & Benschop, in press). Forexample, women with career breaks due to child rearing areout of the publishing game at crucial moments and subse-quently find it difficult to land research positions that enablethem to take further time to craft more articles and even-tually to gain the right credentials to become full professors.In a system obsessed with short term performance, womenare too often considered by university decision-makers asrisky hires as they may step out of the game for an indefinitetime and fail to produce measureable research output thatwould contribute to the university’s ‘league’ position. Cru-cially, this marginalization and exclusion is steered byassumptions about women as caretakers and potentialmothers, rather than by their actual life choices.

The self-fulfilling prophecies of academia are sustained bysocial networks, which are characterized by male homosocialpractices (Katila & Merilainen, 2002). Human beings tend tofeel more comfortable in working with people who they thinkresemble themselves. Homosociality means seeking the com-pany of people who are considered similar in some significantway, for example, in terms of gender. Collaboration withmale mentors helps up-and-coming male academics to craftthose precious articles and to gain the right credentials,usually without the people involved noticing their own pri-vileged position (Van den Brink & Benschop, in press).Women, in contrast, are typically excluded from such writ-ing, publishing, and citing collaborations and networks.4

They may be ghettoized in teaching roles in universitieswhere they have little time for writing and publishing thearticles that would enable them to compete for professor-ships (Barry, Chandler, & Berg, 2011).

Fourth, academic work is less fun and meaningful than itcould be. Overemphasis on standard quality measures servesto kill passion (Willmott, 2011) and social relevance (Ozbil-gin, 2009) in research. Editorial gatekeepers cherish conven-tions and ‘rigor’ overrides creativity and originality. At thesame time, review processes take longer and longer aseditors struggle to find volunteers to do the necessary butthankless job. Apart from the few elite ‘top’ journals, theacademic (financial) market has not found mechanisms toreward altruism such as reviewing. The editor of a majorEurope-based journal recently noted that on average nine orten scholars are contacted before three are found whoaccept the invitation to review a particular paper. And thissays nothing about the amount of time editors subsequentlyspend on chasing reviews from those who promise to do thejob in the first place. Authors are expected to deliver fast,

4 In universities in the West, the same applies to race and ethnicity.The privileged consist mainly of white men.

while reviewers feel entitled to take their time. . .authorswait, while reviewers try to motivate themselves to do thejob. In such a context, it may be increasingly difficult toattract young, passionate people with a social conscience toacademia, and to keep them engaged once they are con-fronted with the perversions and inequalities in the system–—or just its plain dullness and slowness.

Fifth, and most importantly, the system is overloaded. It isnot likely to be sustainable in the long run. Herds of aca-demics-cum-investors do the same thing at the same time.Activity is concentrated in an extremely small set of elitejournals, the acceptance rates of which have become ridi-culously low. The editor of the Europe-based journal quotedabove said that his journal has lately attracted three times asmany submissions as before. The single most importantreason for this is the upcoming Research Excellence Frame-work assessment in the United Kingdom as UK-based scholarsare submitting furiously to those four- and three-star journalsthat count in the exercise.

At the same time, when everyone is busy submittingmanuscripts, no-one has the time to read–—not to mentioncarefully review–—the work of others, and to keep up thenecessary infrastructure (Macdonald & Kam, 2007). This maywell turn into the global crisis of the academic system. Thebubble bursts when, on the one hand, more and more aca-demics become disillusioned by having to wait for years (and,more often than not, by ending up with little in terms ofmeasurable output) and, on the other, when more and morejournals close shop because they cannot find support fromreviewers. The bubble bursts when the infrastructure breaksdown.

What, then, are we to do with journals in this new order?In searching for viable answers, we must be acutely aware ofthe complex system that conditions and is conditioned byacademic work. As illustrated above by comparing academiato financial markets, journals do not exist in a vacuum–—theyare shaped by their context (Parker & Thomas, 2011). Thefinancial markets metaphor and comparison enables us to seethe big picture as well as its constitutive parts. As withderegulated interconnected financial markets, the academicsystem serves particular interests; some actors benefit fromthe game and its rules, while others are positioned at adisadvantage.

Possible responses

Akin to financial markets, elements of global academia suchas journal lists and rankings are self-fulfilling prophecies,which work only as long as we, the academics, play along.This means that at least in principle, we can seek to make adifference. We can play along in a variety of ways.

First, of course, we can be individually conformist andenjoy being investors. As free thinking and acting individuals,we can proudly declare: we want more! It hurts every timeour own manuscript gets rejected by a journal, but we getover it. We have other papers in the pipeline, and we mightjust get lucky. . . The killer investment-cum-article may bejust around the corner. If not, we have new ideas that we cantry out later and continue submitting our work to ‘top’journals. After all, everyone is doing it. The lucrative USmarket is the system’s core with high potential for big wins,

5 This response is based on a rather optimistic view of humanbeings’ possibilities to ‘do otherwise.’ Ross (2009), for example,offers a gloomier picture of precarious livelihoods in the new globalworkplace where job instability has become a norm. My optimisticview is also very much a Western and elitist one, and it does notreflect the lifeworlds of different people across the globe.

254 J. Tienari

and we need to continue to provide the elite US-basedjournals with the stuff they cherish (Pettigrew, 2001). Andif we do not strike gold, we can always lower our expectedreturn on investment and go down the list until we find ajournal that is willing to publish our work. To top it off, wecan flatter ourselves by stating that the explicit system ofjournal lists and rankings is democratic, in contrast to elitistcalls for alternatives (Rowlinson, Harvey, Kelly, & Morris,2011)–—exactly as we believe that deregulated financialmarkets are ‘free’.

Second, we can be constructively critical. As individualsand as members of our scholarly communities we can con-tinue our quest for meaningful alternatives to received waysof doing academic work and publishing in ‘top’ journals. Wecan invest in companies (journals) that we think are doingsomething good, rather than those whose promised return oninvestment is the most lucrative in the short term. We canactively rethink and revitalize criticality in our own field. Indoing so, we must continue to ally with like-minded scholars.We must continue to question taken-for-granted understand-ings and attack dogmas, to bring in forgotten and silencedvoices in making sense of organizational life, and to craftmessages to challenge the powerful and to shake up thestatus quo. We must continue to irritate dominant groups,and be proud of it (Parker & Thomas, 2011). We need tocontinue to support critical journals as long as they do notstart mimicking the ‘top’ investment-journals. We can serveour communities as educators and authors, and, perhapsmost importantly, as altruistic and supportive reviewersfor others’ work.

At the same time, we must find ways to tap into thesystem. We need to fight so that assessment exercises recog-nize articles published in critical journals. The system isdifficult to resist outright, let alone get rid of. As criticalscholars, we must find meaningful ways to engage with themainstream (Grey, 2007). And we must remember to do sopersistently, every day. That calls for a lot on our part. Theindividualistic nature of academic work constrains collectiveaction, and it is necessary to consciously counter this: soloperformances must be complemented by constructive teamplay (Nkomo, 2009).

There are cracks in the new system, which is not inevi-table. It is marked by contradictions and struggles. Efforts todiscipline academics are likely to remain partial and unstable(Prichard & Willmott, 1997). For example, in May 2011, thegovernment of Australia–—one of the forerunners in financia-lized academia–—announced that it was going to refine ‘‘thejournal quality indicator to remove the prescriptive A*, A, Band C ranks’’ in its ‘‘Excellence in Research for Australia(ERA) initiative’’ (Carr, 2011). The justification for this movewas noteworthy: ‘‘There is clear and consistent evidence thatthe rankings were being deployed inappropriately withinsome quarters of the sector, in ways that could produceharmful outcomes, and based on a poor understanding ofthe actual role of the rankings. One common example was thesetting of targets for publication in A and A* journals byinstitutional research managers’’ (ibid.). They had spotted aperversion! For those Australia-based academics who hadlobbied for change, this meant at least a glimmer of hope.Perhaps the trend of over-emphasizing a select set of elitejournals over all others is reversible. . . A mere glimmer, butsomething nevertheless.

Third, we can associate with social movements thatextend far beyond academia, and seek to further their causein our own academic communities. We can work for a com-mon purpose that rises above academic quarrels regardingmethodologies, concepts and theorizations. Feminist scho-larship and women’s movements exemplify this. In its variousforms, feminism is always political: it is guided by an ongoingcriticism of non-feminist scholarship and an aim to createsocial change (Calas & Smircich, 2009). One example offeminist action is to confront gendered academic practicessuch as homosocial support for men upfront, although suchconfrontation brings about a variety of reactions from malescholars, ranging from hostility to support (Katila & Merilai-nen, 2002).

Another example is to engage in what Tienari, Merilainen,and Katila (2010) call double strategies. These authors, whoare situated outside the US-UK axis of power, argue that theyhave been able to locally co-opt the system that (over)-emphasizes publications in international (that is US andUK) journals. They have done so by using the credibilityformed by their track record in publishing internationallyto carve out a position to promote feminist ideas in teaching,in collaboration with engaged students. In other words, theglobal system may have local outcomes that are more com-plex than critical scholars tend to recognize. The system canbe appropriated to serve emancipatory goals. Like ‘ethical’investors in financial markets, then, scholars can use thevalue created by their investments to serve other, moresignificant purposes locally. The risk is, of course, that theinvestments fail to provide value–—that the authors fail ingetting manuscripts accepted in the right journals.

Fourth, we can be flexibly anarchist. As human beingsengaged in physical and virtual worlds we can look aroundand experiment. We can blog and produce videographies andmake them available on-line. We can disregard boring estab-lished journals with their rigid conventions, published by bigglobal conglomerates. And we do not really need universitiesas our employers. Depending on our situation in life, we canbe freelancers, doing the kind of academic work that wethink is valuable, as one part of our broad range of interests.5

If we are creative and team up with other creative types, ifwe hang out where others of like mind hang out, and if weseek to do exciting things, journals as we know them will beof little use to us. If need be, we will create our own journalsand other publication channels–—exactly as we start up ourown companies. We will not surrender to the tyranny offaceless markets, financial or academic, but build new plat-forms for our own creative work. The mushrooming of alter-native publishers and radical online open sources journalsshows that something is already under way.

It is also evident that global publishers–—the major ben-eficiaries of the current system–—are preparing for this sce-nario. As we speak, each major global publisher is gettingready for the changes brought about by the anarchist

Academia as financial markets? 255

response, and their established academic journals are devel-oping new formats for communicating research findings.Journal websites will soon be laced with video clips, andpapers will be developed together on-line by different peo-ple–—experts and non-experts–—with different interests andangles to the original material. Links to Facebook and You-Tube (or whatever the next social medium is) may well bepart of future academic conversations. In the social sciencesand humanities this has specific ethical concerns that need tobe taken seriously, both in terms of protection of privacy andconfidentiality of information. But the day will come whenthe academic system and publishing game will look verydifferent from what it is today. The next generations willdo it for us. Those of us who think they are critical shouldteam up with the whiz kids if they want to influence thedirection of change. At least the consultancy-based litera-ture on ‘new generations’ makes us believe that they look formeaning in life rather than careers and interesting workrather than big money (Tapscott, 2009).

Fifth, and finally, we can be sustainably responsible. Wecan take social movements (and anarchism) a step further. Ascitizens concerned about the welfare and sustainable devel-opment of the global academia, we can declare: less is more!We can live our own academic lives sparingly and, with like-minded colleagues, lobby for more regulation. We can seek tomoderate the system that has become overindulgent, thatexcessively consumes scarce intellectual and physicalresources, and that is not sustainable in the long run. Pro-fessor Sten Jonsson once cited a colleague’s humorouslyskeptical remark: perhaps every academic should be allowedone new article manuscript (investment) per year, exactly asindustrial corporations are now allocated particular emissionpermits–—or carbon credits–—in the emissions trading system,which is a market-based approach for controlling pollution(Lundin, Jonsson, Kreiner, & Tienari, 2010). And while we areat it, perhaps we could establish a rule whereby for everymanuscript submitted the scholar in question would berequired to review three manuscripts authored by others.In that way, given that manuscripts sent out for externalreview take up the time and effort of three reviewers, we canrestore equilibrium to the system. We can ensure that itsinfrastructure functions and does not break down.

What a brilliant idea! If we each had a permit for onearticle manuscript per year, we would have to think extre-mely hard where we want to submit and spend it. Therewould be less salami publishing (speculative short selling ofshares) and more carefully thought out publications (long-term investments). This would lead to a more sustainablesystem overall. However, for us individual academics thisresponse entails a lot of courage; disregard for academicstatus symbols such as articles in ‘top’ journals–—and com-promises over one’s material standard of living as we wouldfind it harder to climb traditional academic job ladders. Howmany of us would be prepared to spend our yearly quota on aniche journal with ‘ethical’ principles rather than go for thebig wins? Yet, something like this may be the only sustainableresponse in the long term; the only way to save the globalacademic system from crisis. Unfortunately, the example ofglobal financial markets is not encouraging as the West hasonce again missed out on an opportunity to re-regulate themanic and omnipotent world of the bankers (Stein, 2011). Butit is always worth a try.

I believe that we must confront the system that (re)pro-duces academics-cum-investors and seduces editors to runjournals as investment targets. Exactly as the logic ofglobal financial markets is not, after all, self-evident,the contemporary academic system can be challenged. Ittakes guts, and nothing will happen overnight, but ifenough of us raise our voices and moderate our behaviorwe can change the face of journals and publishing as weknow them.

References

Barry, J., Chandler, J., & Berg, E. (2011). Movement and coalition incontention: Gender, management and academe in England andSweden. Gender, Work and Organization, 19(1), 52—70.

Beverungen, A., Dunne, S., & Hoedemaekers, C. (2009). The Univer-sity of Finance. Ephemera, 9(4), 261—270.

Brown, H. (2007). How Impact Factors Changed Medical Publishing -And Science. British Medical Journal, 334(7593), 561—564.

Calas, M. B., & Smircich, L. (2009). Feminist perspectives on genderin organizational research: What is and is yet to be. In D. A.Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organiza-tional research methods (pp. 246—269). London: Sage.

Carr, K. (2011, May 30). Ministerial Statement to the Senate Eco-nomics Legislation Committee: Improvements to Excellence inResearch for Australia (ERA). Media Statement by Kim Carr,Australian Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Re-search.

Clegg, S. R., & Ross-Smith, A. (2003). Revising the boundaries:Management education and learning in a postpositivist world.Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(1), 85—98.

Cornelissen, J. P. (2006). Making sense of theory construction:Metaphor and disciplined imagination. Organization Studies,27/11, 1579—1597.

De Cock, C., Baker, M., & Volkmann, C. (2011). Financial Phantas-magoria: Corporate Image-Work in Times of Crisis. Organization,18(2), 153—172.

Dunne, S., Harney, S., Parker, M., & Tinker, T. (2008). Discussing therole of the business school. Ephemera, 8(3), 271—293.

Engwall, L. (1994). Bridge, poker and banking. In D. E. Fair & R. J.Raymond (Eds.), The competitiveness of financial institutionsand centres in Europe (pp. 227—239). Amsterdam: Kluwer.

Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: Howpublic measures recreate social worlds. American Journal ofSociology, 113(1), 1—40.

Grey, C. (2007). Possibilities for critical management education andstudies. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 23(4), 463—471.

Judge, T. A., Cable, D. M., Colbert, A. E., & Rynes, S. L. (2007). Whatcauses a management article to be cited–—Article author orjournal? Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 491—506.

Katila, S., & Merilainen, S. (2002). Metamorphosis: From ‘nice girls’to ‘nice bitches’: Resisting patriarchal articulations of profes-sional identity. Gender, Work and Organization, 9(3), 336—354.

Kerfoot, D., & Knights, D. (1993). Management, masculinity andmanipulation: From paternalism to corporate strategy in financialservices in Britain. Journal of Management Studies, 30(4), 659—677.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Lundin, R. A., Jonsson, S., Kreiner, K., & Tienari, J. (2010). Thechanging face of academic publishing: On the past, present andfuture of the Scandinavian Journal of Management. ScandinavianJournal of Management, 26(3), 309—317.

Macdonald, S., & Kam, J. (2007). Ring a ring o’ roses: Quality journalsand gamesmanship in management studies. Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 44(4), 640—655.

256 J. Tienari

Macdonald, S., & Kam, J. (2011). The skewed few: People and papersof quality in management studies. Organization, 18(4), 467—475.

Merilainen, S., Tienari, J., Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2008). Hege-monic academic practices: Experiences of publishing from theperiphery. Organization, 15(4), 629—642.

Morgan, G., Froud, J., Quack, S., & Schneiberg, M. (2011). Capitalismin crisis: Organizational perspectives. Organization, 18(2), 147—152.

Morley, L. (1999). Organising feminisms: Micropolitics of the acade-my. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Newfield, C. (2008). Unmaking the public university: The forty-yearassault on the middle class. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Nkomo, S. M. (2009). The seductive power of academic journalrankings: Challenges of searching for the otherwise. Academyof Management Learning & Education, 8(1), 106—112.

Ortony, A. (1975). Why metaphors are necessary and not just nice.Educational Theory, 25/1, 45—53.

Ozbilgin, M. F. (2009). From journal rankings to making sense of theworld. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8(1),113—121.

Paasi, A. (2005). Globalisation, academic capitalism, and the unevengeographies of international journal publishing spaces. Environ-ment and Planning, 37, 769—789.

Parker, M., & Thomas, R. (2011). What is a critical journal? Organi-zation, 18(4), 419—427.

Pettigrew, A. (2001). Management research after modernism. BritishJournal of Management, 12(4), S61—S70.

Prichard, C., & Willmott, H. (1997). Just how managed is theMcUniversity? Organization Studies, 18(2), 287—316.

Ross, A. (2009). Nice work if you can get it: Life and labor inprecarious times. New York: New York University Press.

Rowlinson, M., Harvey, C., Kelly, A., & Morris, H. (2011). The use andabuse of journal quality lists. Organization, 18(4), 443—446.

Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics,policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore, MD: TheJohns Hopkins University Press.

Smith, R. (2006). Commentary: The power of the unrelenting impactfactor–—Is it a force for good or harm? International Journal ofEpidemiology, 35, 1129—1130.

Starbuck, W. H. (2009). The constant causes of never-ending fad-dishness in the behavioral and social sciences. ScandinavianJournal of Management, 25(1), 108—116.

Stein, M. (2011). A Culture of Mania: A Psychoanalytic View of theIncubation of the 2008 Credit Crisis. Organization, 18(2), 173—186.

Tapscott, D. (2009). Grown up digital: How the net generation ischanging your world. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.

Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2002). Gender and new public manage-ment: Reconstituting academic subjectivities’. Gender, Work andOrganization, 9/4, 372—397.

Tienari, J., Merilainen, S., & Katila, S. (2010). Making inclusion workin academia. In S. Katila, S. Merilainen, & J. Tienari (Eds.),Making inclusion work: Experiences from academia around theworld (pp. 1—15). Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA: EdwardElgar.

Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. Gender practices in the construc-tion of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs, Organization,in press.

Wedlin, L. (2011). Going global: Rankings as rhetorical devices toconstruct an international field of management education. Man-agement Learning, 42(2), 199—218.

Willmott, H. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion ofscholarship: Reactivity and the ABS list. Organization, 18(4),429—442.

Wilson, D., & McKiernan, P. (2011). Global mimicry: Putting strategicchoice back on the business school agenda. British Journal ofManagement, 22(3), 341—566.