RÉSUMÉ
Le but de cet article est de réaliser une métasynthèse de recherches portant sur les changements d'identité académique induits par la gestion néolibérale des universités. Dix- neuf études empiriques qualitatives portant sur l'impact des nouvelles politiques de gestion publique sur l'identité académique au sein d’universités de différents pays ont été analysées. La métasynthèse établit une classification de l’identité au travail et du « self-identity » qui reflète des expériences variables, mais globalement difficiles, avec une gestion néolibérale des universités. Également, les académiques contribuent paradoxalement à la perpétuation du managérialisme avec des stratégies de protection et un travail institutionnel de maintien. Aussi, les académiques ont adopté une approche pragmatique de l'identité en utilisant les espaces d'autonomie existants, qu’ils pourraient mieux utiliser en adoptant une agence projective. Cette métasynthèse met en lumière les limites de la recherche académique actuelle sur l’identité, tout en faisant avancer les études menées sur le travail institutionnel.
ABSTRACT
The aim of this article is to conduct a meta-synthesis of the research on the changes in academic identity induced by the neoliberal management of universities. Nineteen qualitative empirical studies treating of the impact of new public management policies on the academic identity within universities of different countries were analyzed. The meta-synthesis establishes a classification of work identity and self-identity which reflects variable but generally difficult experiences coming from neoliberal management of universities. Also, academics paradoxically contribute to the perpetuation of managerialism through protection strategies and institutional maintenance work. Besides, academics have adopted a pragmatic approach to identity by using existing spaces of autonomy, which they use better by adopting a projective agency. This meta-synthesis highlights the limits of current academic research on identity while advancing previous studies on institutional work.
INTRODUCTION
This article consists of a qualitative meta-synthesis on academic identity in response to the implementation of neo-liberal measures and practices often associated with the New Public Management (NPM) trend, or what is often generically referred to as "managerialism". NPM was first conceived in the 1970s and has since drawn attention from governments around the world, primarily due to its promise of improved cost-effectiveness in the delivery of public services (Lapsley, 2009). NPM attempts to remove the distinction between public and private management methods (Merrien, 1999). Due to a generally negative perception of bureaucracies, however, those in favor of New Public Management have called for the establishment of an assessment and performance-based culture within public services. This shift to neo-liberalism has intruded progressively and at varying rates on a number of universities, which have grown increasingly competitive for their share of public funding. Thus, the way in which one defines the assessment criteria surrounding academic performance has caught the attention of university administrators and generated concern among academics (Lorenz, 2012; Townley, 1997).
In this context, and judging by the considerable number of publications devoted to the subject, it is no surprise that researchers have shown a great deal of interest regarding the impact of managerialism on academic identity. To our knowledge, however, no recent work has been done to synthesize results, despite the many qualitative studies devoted to the subject. Given the various conceptualizations of identity (Brown, 2015; Gil et al, 2018; Lalonde, 2014; Petriglieri, 2011), along with the concept’s relative ambiguity (Avanza and Laferté, 2005; Baudry and Juchs, 2007; Brubaker, 2001), it would be pertinent to question the use of this concept when describing actors from the academic sector, particularly in a context of change (Djabi and Chanlat, 2014).
A synthesis on this subject would help to assess the changes that have resulted from the managerial practices that were introduced in these institutions while clarifying the public debate surrounding the future of the academic profession. The meta-synthesis is a methodology that specifically provides a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of empirical work conducted on a topic of interest for the scientific community, and for society overall.
Several researchers (Beaucher and Jutras 2007; Finfgeld 2003; McCormick et al., 2003; Sandelowski and Barroso 2007) have emphasized how this research methodology differs from a mere accumulation of results and, alongside an integrated reinterpretation of primary study results, helps push our understanding of a particular phenomenon further than any specific study taken by itself. Given the relatively recent nature of the methodological approach, the meta-synthesis offers an initial contribution both in terms of the application and use of this method and of the understanding of the phenomenon studied.
The meta-synthesis is also relevant to the issues raised in this study, as it is specifically intended to offer an integrated analysis of academic identity research in light of recent developments regarding institutional theories. A number of studies have begun re-examining the deterministic character underlying neo-institutional theories by adopting a perspective in which institutions position themselves according to environmental pressures (field level), and the intentional actions of those involved (individual level). The concept of institutional work (Lawrence and Suddaby, 2006) recognizes institutional members as actors capable of acting in response to institutional change, thus transforming the institution/action relationship into a recursive and bidirectional one (Lawrence et al., 2009, 2011). The intentional nature of the actions launched by the actors do not, however, mean that these actors are fully aware of the impact of their actions within the institution or that these actions are completely deliberate; especially since being generally integrated to day-to-day activities, they may go relatively unnoticed (Smets and Jarazbkowski 2013). In that sense, “these intentional actions might be “very dramatic and visible (…) but much of it nearly invisible and mundane, as in the day- to-day adjustments, adaptations and compromises” (Lawrence et al., 2009:1). In addition to these works, the relational perspective proposed by various authors (Battilana and D'Aunno, 2009; Delbridge and Edwards, 2007; Emirbayer and Mische, 1998) has led us to rethink the very concept of agency. Indeed, intentional action as a defining component of institutional work refers to the agent’s reflexivity regarding himself, his environment and his profession. According to these authors, reflexive work may lead to paradoxical positions from the agent depending on whether the temporal orientations guiding his actions are borne from iterations from the past (defensive position), a practical evaluation of the present (adaptative position) or projections into the future (re-creative position). Thus, current trends in institutional work
and a relational approach to agency seem to provide a particularly relevant and promising theoretical framework to support a new interpretation of identity in a context of neo-liberal change. In support of this trend, it would now be possible, and appropriate, to consider whether academic identity undergoes a fundamental reconstruction and regulation under the neo-liberal context, or whether it is the product of intentional and reflexive actions seeking to preserve the key professional values of autonomy and collegiality on the one hand, and one’s uniqueness and authenticity on the other. Thus, this article could potentially provide a second contribution in response to Lawrence and Suddaby (2006), who called for the empirical advancement of the institutional work theory.
The aim of this article is to synthesize the answers to the question "What are the effects of managerialism on academic identity within institutions of higher education?" More specifically:
- How is academic identity defined under the context of change brought on by neo-liberal management?
- How do academics experience this (re)defining of identity? - What type of institutional work stems from this context of change?
- What agency (as defined by reflexive skills and temporal orientations) do academics adopt when defining their identity?
This article will begin be presenting the theoretical framework according to three main research concepts, that is, identity, agency and institutional work. It will then explain why the meta-synthesis was chosen as a research methodology before highlighting the main results using summary tables. Finally, the article will discuss the results, underscore its main contributions and propose further avenues of research.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This research seeks to reinterpret the results of empirical studies surrounding changes in academic identity brought on by neo-liberal views within universities using theoretical
perspectives on institutional work and a relational approach to agency. Figure 3 below summarizes the main concepts of this study.
Figure 3: Main concepts of the study
Identity
Synthesis on diverse conceptualizations related to:
-identity at work - self-identity
Identity work as institutional work
- creation - maintenance - disruption
Agency as Self-identity project
- temporal orientations - reflexive capabilities
Identity Work as Institutional Work
According to the typology developed by Lawrence and Suddaby (2006), institutional work, defined as the intentional actions of individuals and organizations, can take three distinct forms: creation, maintenance and disruption.
When conducting institutional creation work, actors undertake measures that seek to bring about the emergence or establishment of new institutions, or change the existing ones. Clearly, the introduction of a neo-liberal viewpoint within the academic sector corresponds to institutional change. For Lawrence and Suddaby (2006), identity construction is a creative action within the institution, with identity representing a central element that defines the individual in relation to the institutional field in which he operates (field level). Thus, the introduction of a new institutional view inspired by neo-liberalism within the academic setting defines identity construction according to a system of values and beliefs based on the evaluation, control and monitoring of scientific performance and production at both the research and teaching levels; administrators may seek to perpetuate this system through institutional maintenance work, thus having to ensure that academics internalize the new, underlying belief systems and rules in their daily activities. When administrators create and
perpetuate a new identity based on principles of performance and productivity, however, they are conducting institutional work that disrupts the pre-existing moral foundations that had previously been taken for granted, which can complicate the academic’s compliance. In order to 'force' compliance, they may institute a new system of sanctions and rewards by promoting certain academic efforts (e.g. publications in top journals) at the expense of others (e.g. social and community involvement). This description of institutional work is very similar to the concept of identity regulation put forth by Alvesson and Willmott (2002). According to these authors, organizational analysis tends to neglect the control methods used to manage individuals from within and requires them to incorporate a new managerial discourse into their own identity narrative. But the injunction to internalize managerial values does not always lead to unconditional adherence which would correspond to an oversocialized conception of human being in institutions (Wrong, 1961) as ‘cultural dopes’ trapped by institutional arrangements (Lawrence et al, 2009); Alvesson and Willmott (2002) suggest that individuals may also try to preserve self-identity by subtly transgressing and opposing the injunction through identity-related counter-speech, which promotes emancipation and quasi- autonomy when defining the self.
Agency as a Self-Identity Project
The institutional work involved in building a new identity under a neo-liberal context can be challenging and will often generate a variety of strategies from individual actors (Gadolin, 2018; Oliver, 1991; Pache and Santos, 2013a), many of whom may undertake their own institutional work when defining their identity (Currie et al., 2012). This seems to apply mainly to situations characterized by institutional pluralism and ambidexterity, such as universities, where a number of institutional rationales often coexist (Jarzabkowski et al., 2013; Pache and Santos, 2013a, 2013b). The concept of institutional work introduces the possibility that actors may not be entirely defined by the external pressures of the institution, and that their actions and behaviors can help create, disrupt or maintain the institution. In a context of institutional change, the resulting implication is that organizations and individuals may respond in different ways; hence the importance to better define the type of agency to be used in such a context. Yet, several authors believe that the very concept of agency, more
specifically at the individual level (Smets and Jarazbkowski, 2013), stems from a one-sided perspective that is so closely related to the concept of structure that it ultimately lacks its own, specific meaning (Archer, 2000; Battilana and D'aunno, 2009). To counter this, the authors call for a better definition of agency as a concept.
Agency Definition and Temporal Orientations
According to (Emirbayer and Mische, 1998, p. 970), the concept of agency can be defined as
“the temporally constructed engagement by actors of different structural environments which through the interplay of habit, imagination and judgment, both reproduces and transforms those structures in interactive response to the problems posed by changing historical situations”. One of the main aspects of this definition is the action’s temporality, that is,
actors behaving according to varying degrees of temporal orientations, much of which is guided by his past (iteration), present (evaluation) and future (projectivity). This definition thus helps to qualify the intentional nature linked to the institutional work concept of Lawrence et al., (2009), as they are cognitive processes corresponding to various types of intentionality depending on whether they are geared toward the present (practical- evaluative), past (iterational) or future (projective). Furthermore, these three temporal orientations do not follow a predetermined linear sequence and are contingent upon situations to which the actor will be exposed and the meaning he will give to these situations. This ties in with another major aspect of the definition of agency, namely its interactive nature, the relationship between the actor and his changing environment. The actor’s degree of agency may also vary depending on whether his actions are guided by a selective reactivation of past factors, a practical judgment of the present situation, or a projection or imagination of a possible future in relation to his aspirations, hopes or fears. Thus, in the academic world, it would be interesting to investigate whether identity is primarily defined by past values and beliefs, like academic freedom, collegiality and respect for the diversity of opinions and allegiances, whether it is defined by an identity pragmatism linked to immediate judgment surrounding the demands of academic performance, or whether it is defined by new creative solutions that are likely to resolve these conflicting values.
Agency’s Reflexive Capabilities
Agency's forms of expression cannot be understood without integrating an analysis of the agent's reflexive capabilities. Here, Archer (2000, 2003) provides some interesting insights. The author believes that reflexivity refers to an inner conversation "from self to self", made up of self-questioning related to the emotions aroused by the individual’s experience. The individual asks how to better protect his integrity, his desire for achievement, his skills and his uniqueness in relation to a given situation, or to the world around him. In this perspective, identity refers to the meaning and experiential aspects that individuals attach to their own definition of themselves, all of which are solicited in their ongoing efforts to answer the following questions: Who am I? How am I experiencing this situation? And, by extension:
How should I act? Reflexivity as a series of deliberations with oneself can take different
forms. Archer (2003) makes four distinctions: communicative reflexive refers to the ability to open up to others and to share concerns with those close to us; autonomous reflexive refers to the determined and strategic individual’s intrinsic ability to grasp the challenges involved while adapting his behavior to make the most of his circumstances; meta-reflexive refers to the individual’s ability to constantly reposition himself in his ongoing search for what will most likely satisfy his ideal; and fractured reflexive refers to the individual’s inability to use his inner discourse when positioning himself in relation to the world. Archer’s typology (2003) provides interesting new insights regarding the concept of agency.
In summary, agency's temporal orientations and reflexive capabilities help clarify the concept of intentional action within the definition of institutional work. These elements of the definition of agency must be considered in the discussion to examine the structure-agency links from all angles. Moreover, consideration for these elements of the definition does not mean, de facto, that the actor is aware of the concrete mobilization of these temporal orientations and reflexive capacities in his institutional work or that his actions and their impacts on him and the institution are congruent with his intentions. This gap between actions and intentions can thus yield paradoxes (Clegg et al., 2002; Jarzabkowski et al., 2013) in his efforts to protect his identity.
METHODOLOGY
The Meta-Synthesis
The methodology used was the qualitative meta-synthesis. In recent years, the approach has attracted the interest of researchers seeking a promising avenue to address the lack of integration regarding qualitative empirical research (Beaucher and Jutras, 2007 McCormick et al., 2003). Despite its relative novelty, a number of researchers have already helped create a structured and rigorous methodological approach. Consequently, our data analysis uses the steps recommended by the meta-synthesis: formulating a research question, selecting studies using keywords and inclusion/exclusion criteria, then coding and analyzing the data (Beaucher and Jutras, 2007; Finfgeld, 2003; Hoon, 2013; Paterson et al., 2001; Sandelowski and Barroso, 2007). The research design adopted is largely based on the model proposed by Paterson et al., (2001, p.9), which defines the main components leading to a meta-synthesis, namely the meta-data analysis, meta-methods and meta-theory. Furthermore, and inspired from the thoughts of McCormick et al., (2003), we design the meta-synthesis as a deconstruction/reconstruction process aimed at proposing a different way of reading the overall primary data stemming from the qualitative research, which places it within the socio- constructionist paradigm, but also within what Schwandt (2000) refers to as “weak” constructivism, e.g. that rejects "the nihilistic stance of the more radically relativistic epistemologies" (cited by McCormick et al., 2003, p.937).
Selection and Sampling
Formulating the Research Question
First, we formulated a research question to ensure that every study under analysis addressed the same issue (Beaucher and Jutras, 2007); the question had to be broad enough to include all qualitative studies relevant to the topic (Hoon, 2013), yet narrow enough to limit the number of studies involved (Paterson et al., 2001). The initial question was this: "What are the effects of managerialism on the profiles and identity choices of academics in institutions of higher education?"
Selection Process
Based on the recommendations of a library assistant specialized in organizational studies, the studies relevant to this meta-synthesis were relevant as of the databases: 1) Proquest ABI/INFORM Global ; 2) Business Source Premier ; 3) Web of science ; 4) ERIC. The keywords used are linked directly to our main research question following the purposive sampling approach specific to qualitative research (Finfgeld, 2003, Patton, 2015; Suri, 2011) : The various keyword combinations included terms like managerialism, new public management, higher education, university*, professional identity, and academic identity*. Table 2 presents the databases that were consulted, along with the relevant inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 2: Databases and selection criteria
Databases used in this study
Proquest ABI/INFORM Global Business Source Premier
Web of science ERIC
Inclusion criteria
-Peer-reviewed articles in a diversity of journals -Qualitative design (case studies, narrative analysis, interpretative analysis, ethnography or autoethnography)
-Empirical studies with primary data -English language
-Period: a priori sampling 2011-2017* -Professors, researchers, lecturers** -Universities
Exclusion criteria
-Book, thesis, book review, editorial, comment, expert opinion, etc.
-Quantitative design -Conceptual articles
-Lack of information on methods, sample, research strategy or concept of identity -Students, Managers**
*Articles from a manual search (chain sampling) are exception.
** Professors doing administrative tasks as well as postdoctoral students may in some cases have been integrated into the research samples.
First, an a priori timing sampling (Gentles et al., 2015) helped to limit the electronic selection