Publishing to become an “ideal academic”: An Institutional Ethnography and a Feminist Critique

Scandinavian Journal of Management (2012) 28, 218—228

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : h t t p : / / w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / s c a m a n

Publishing to become an ‘‘ideal academic’’: An Institutional Ethnography and a Feminist Critique Rebecca Lund Organization and Management Studies, Aalto University School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland

KEYWORDS Publishing; Women in academia; Institutional ethnography

Summary In this paper I offer an Institutional Ethnography, from the standpoint of female academics, of the construction of the ‘‘ideal academic’’ and quality journal publications as a central feature in this construct. I draw on interview transcripts, field notes, texts and artefacts produced and collected over a two-year period in a recently merged Finnish university. I focus specifically on how a translocal discourse of competitive performance measurement and standards of academic excellence are accomplished in the local construction of the ‘‘ideal academic’’ as a person who publishes articles in A level journals. While the construct is hard for anyone to live up to, it would seem to be more difficult for some people than for others. The current obsession with getting published in top journals place those women, who are heavily engaged in teaching activities and with responsibilities besides academic work, in a systematically disadvantaged relation to the currently dominating discourse of the ‘‘ideal academic’’. # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction During the last decade, ‘women in academia’ have received a great deal of scholarly attention (e.g. Bailyn, 2003; Fletcher, Boden, Kent, & Tinson, 2007; Glazer-Raymo, 2008; Henttonen & LaPointe, 2010; Katila & Merila ¨inen, 1999, 2002; Thomas & Davies, 2002; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2011; Van den Brink & Stobbe, 2009). Researchers from different corners of the world have produced an extensive body of literature aimed at informing about, explaining and criticising the gendering processes in academia, specifically in relation to the persisting unequal representation of men and women at the top of the academic hierarchy, i.e. tenured professorships. The literature on ‘gender in academia’ questions how recent reforms in the academic labour market, higher education policy and management — largely informed

E-mail address: [email protected].

by neo-liberal ideologies and New Public Management (NPM) discourses — affect gendered dynamics in academic organizations (e.g. Davies, Browne, Gannon, Honan, & Somerville, 2005; Glazer-Raymo, 2008; Morley, 2007; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2011). Indeed, it is of vital importance that we understand how women are located in relation to the academic labour market and how the recent reforms affect the position of women in relation to that of men, and how women compete not only with men, but also with other women in different local contexts (Metcalfe & Slaughter, 2007). In this article I examine the impact of higher educational reforms in Finland at a Finnish University. The university, Aalto University, is considered one of the central pillars in both the Finnish higher education reforms and the Finnish government’s ambitions to further Finland’s international status and competitiveness. It was established in January 2010 on the basis of a merger between three universities: Helsinki School of Economics, Helsinki University of Technology, and the University of Art and Design, Helsinki.

0956-5221/$ — see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2012.05.003

Institutional Ethnography and a Feminist Critique I examine how Aalto University is connected to larger translocal transformations in higher education. More particularly I will study how a new and strong translocal discourse of academic excellence and performance measurement is accomplished locally via the textual formulation and social construction of the ‘‘ideal academic’’ — as one that is disembodied and reproduces a public—private dichotomy — and with quality journal publications as the most central feature of this construct. Thus, in this article I translate Joan Ackers notion of the ‘‘ideal worker’’ (Acker, 1990) to fit into the academic context which I investigate. When I speak of a public—private dichotomy it is important for me to mention that this notion is not unitary and may be used in different ways in different theoretical, historical and discursive positions. It may involve different ‘‘perceptions of the social’’; different problematics; and call for our ‘‘awareness of different kinds of issues’’ (Weintraub, 1997). In this article I refer to the dichotomy as the often taken for granted notion that private life concerns (e.g. related to family life) are of no relevance for public affairs and in the public space (e.g. work life) and that a clear separation of them in fact leads to more equality, fairness and un-biasedness. Such a dichotomy is (re)produced when it is, for example, claimed that it ought be of no concern for a company whether a worker has family or not, and thus whether the performance evaluations are biased to the benefit of those without family. While current pressures for getting published in quality journals and performance measurement have gendered consequences (Davies et al., 2005; Fletcher et al., 2007; GlazerRaymo, 2008; Metcalfe & Slaughter, 2007, 2008), I claim that it is necessary to attend to differences between women in order to avoid unnecessary generalization and essentializing of experience. Indeed, while the ideals and standards are difficult for anyone (men and women) to live up to, it is difficult in different ways and when accomplished in a particular local historical cultural setting it is easier for some people to live up to than for others. Furthermore, there will also be differences in women’s material position, ability to speak the ‘‘institutional language’’1 and fulfil the requirements. I suggest investigating the dominating discourses of performance and excellence, the construct of the ‘‘ideal academic’’ and the centrality of getting published in high quality journals from the standpoint of those women currently in a disadvantaged relation to its ideals and standards, due, for example, to heavy teaching loads as well as responsibilities at home. For investigating this I utilize Institutional Ethnography (IE) (Smith, 2005), a method of inquiry that has remained largely unexplored within feminist organization studies (Cala ´s & Smircich, 2008). IE allows me to start from, and take seriously, local embodied experiences. However, it also emphasizes the need to see the local setting as embedded in larger translocal processes, discourses, expert systems and representations created elsewhere/‘‘elsewhen’’, mediated via texts, and shaping the everyday lives of different people in different local settings (Smith, 1990b). Activities become organized and concerted across different localities (e.g. disciplines, schools,

1 ‘‘Institutional language’’ refers to concepts that are deeply power-laden but referred to as neutral and descriptive (e.g. quality in academic work as synonymous with A journal publication) (Smith, 2005).

219 universities). This does not, it should be emphasized, mean that they colonize the local and erase all differences between them. Rather the textually mediated translocal discourses and representations are ‘‘appropriated’’ and ‘‘translated’’ in each local setting. The local is shaped, not determined by the translocal (Fairclough, 2006).

Data production and collection The data on which I draw in this article has been produced and collected over a period of approximately two years, starting September 2010. The data consists of four types of material: Interview transcripts, field notes, organizational/institutional texts and artefacts. Interview material based on ten semi-structured interviews of female academics between 30 and 50 years old, and moreover, seven semistructured interviews of members of management at University, School, and Department level (Devault & McCoy, 2006; Smith, 1990b). All informants where asked to confirm their approval on tape or via email that I could transcribe and make use of the data produced. Information that could harm my informants or reveal their identity has been erased from the quotes presented in the article. Furthermore, I draw on my field notes produced no later than one to two days after having conducted participant observation at official events (Diamond, 2006). Finally, I draw on texts and artefacts that were referred to me verbally or otherwise by research participants, and which I have been subsequently exploring in an endeavour to make sense of and gain insight into the organization and the institutional shifts (Smith, 2006). As I will explain in the next section, in which I explicate my method of inquiry, the material texts are vital for understanding how the local is ‘‘hooked up’’ (Smith, 2005) to translocal processes.

Institutional ethnography — a method of inquiry In IE institutions are defined as ‘‘clusters of text-mediated relations organized around a specific ruling function’’ (Devault & McCoy, 2006, 17). These institutions — e.g. Universities — appear in specific local settings and are specialized in particular types of activity and action — e.g. research and education. At the same time, however, they always participate and are embedded in translocal standardizing and generalizing operations — what Dorothy Smith (e.g. Smith, 2005) has named the ‘‘Ruling Relations’’. These standardizing and generalizing operations are products of translocally functioning government policies, laws, regulations, professional and academic and managerial discourses. These lead to the concerting of activities across multiple spaces, places and time, although each local unit and member will translate and appropriate the translocal in particular ways. All research activity (teaching, research, publishing) including the social sciences, takes part in the ‘‘ruling relations’’. Objectifying, abstract, theoretical concepts and categorization of social and individual life and activity exists discursively and with limited connection to actual and diverging individuals and their actions. In research we often give privilege to the generalizing and standardizing discourses and thereby make the actual activities of people an expression of the discursive. This is a two-step process. First, the research

220 subject is removed from the text. Secondly, research subject is re-inserted to the text when the theoretical framework has been properly established. In this way subjects are moulded to the theoretical arguments, and ‘‘the perspective of the researcher is presented as if it was the perspective of the research subjects’ — and vice versa’’ (Widerberg, 2007; Smith, 2005, 1999). In this way the text comes to reproduce and offer privilege to generalizing and standardizing ‘‘ruling ways of knowing’’ above divergent experiences and activities. Smith has suggested, however, that it is possible to challenge ‘‘the social organization of knowledge’’ by starting from (and returning to) a ‘‘subject position’’, or experiential standpoint, that is, what is done and experienced in and from the body. This starting point is one of the most central methodological devices in IE. It allows us to give priority to difference and different voices, over similarity offered by starting from abstract objectifying concepts that are indifferent to difference (Smith, 1987, 1990a, 1990b, 2005; Widerberg, 2007). Furthermore, it is believed that taking sides with particular and somehow disadvantaged bodies against objectifying texts will allow us to question the taken-for-granted in particular ways that may lead to new knowledge about the social. Who counts as unfavourably positioned and therefore as people who may enable me to scrutinize the order of things from a new perspective is ‘‘neither automatic nor all encompassing’’2 (Wylie, 2003, 37). Indeed, the epistemic justification always refers to a particular context in which particular ‘‘assumptions are likely to function as default entitlements’’ because they are hard to challenge (Rolin, 2006, 135). When an experiential standpoint has been established I move on to explore how that is connected, via social relations, to things at work beyond our immediate experience in the translocal processes. In studying how people are at work within institutional processes I turn to texts — another vocal methodological tool in IE (Smith, 1990a, 1990b, 2005, 2006). The ruling relations are mediated in the local via texts. Smith defines texts as all images, words and sounds that can be transferred to material form and which can be read, seen or heard by any person at any time in any place — the text remains the same, connecting and coordinating people across different local sites (Acker, 2006). This does not mean that texts cannot be read, heard, seen differently by different people; indeed, ‘‘the text is dependent upon the reader’s interpretive practices’’, practices that themselves ‘‘are constituents of social relations’’ (Smith, 1990b). However, in order to establish the significance of different readings must assume that there is one material text with the same printed words, image or sound that remain as they are in the text independently of who reads, sees, hears it and where it is read (Widerberg, 2004). The texts have a dual purpose in IE: For the ethnographer, individuals’ engagement with a text is locally observable, and at the same time, it is connecting the local into translocality of the ruling relations.

2 Institutional Ethnography and Dorothy Smith have been systematically misread in this area and often blamed for, in the Marxian sense, of offering automatic epistemic advantage to women (see e.g. Fawcett & Hearn, 2004; Hekman, 1997).

R. Lund Discovering, then, how texts articulate our local doings to the translocally organized forms that coordinate our consciousnesses with those of others elsewhere and at other times is the objective (Smith, 2006, 66) Central in Smith’s framework then, is that a text should be seen as occurring, something that, while it is read, heard, seen and spoken of, coordinates our activities — it formulates ‘‘sequences of action’’ (Smith, 2005), thereby making possible the concerting of activities across space and time. Smith distinguishes roughly between two ways one might engage with texts in IE: (1) texts as coordinators, (2) texts as operating in an inter-textual hierarchy. These are different aspects of how texts bring institutions and organizations into being, but they do, Smith argues, overlap (Smith, 2006). In the former (1) I investigate the relationship between texts and individuals — how actual local doings and activity (the specific people, circumstances and setting) are lost in or removed from the textual representations and regulation of them (Smith, 2005, 2006); how the ‘‘objectification of institutional realities overrides individual perspectives [. . .] [and how] the translation of the actual into the institutional is an essential step in making the actual actionable institutionally’’ (Smith, 2005, 186). This is what takes place, for example, when people holding many different and diverging opinions about what counts as a quality publication come to accept and recognize one particular notion of quality, which excludes a great deal of alternative perspectives and maybe even their own. In the latter (2) I investigate, the textual and conceptual relations — how some texts regulate other texts: ‘‘Higher order texts regulate and standardize texts that enter directly into the organization of work in multiple local settings’’ (Smith, 2006, 79) — and this is where a cartography or another explication of the relations between texts, becomes helpful. It is central here that texts do not simply become regulatory by coming into being — it must actually be taken up by people and the text must be ‘‘authorized’’, by an already ‘‘authorized’’ text in order to have a regulatory effect (Smith, 2006, 81—82). For example one locally occurring text claiming academic publications to be the most central measure of quality, gains an effect and becomes regulatory only if it has been authorized by some text established under university rules (e.g. the Tenure Track System merit measurements) which have themselves received the right to regulate (e.g. via the government’s autonomy reforms and regulations related to increase the performance and quality of universities). But all this would not matter, of course, if the texts where not activated by people situated locally. I look then for people’s activities and talk around texts; the ‘‘sequences of action’’ (Smith, 2005) they provoke; the ways in which people activate ‘‘text based forms of knowledge’’ and participate in discursive practices; how this activity and talk brings them into connection with the translocal ruling relations meditated through texts and an inter-textual hierarchy. In short I look for the work they carry out. Work in IE is not confined to formal or paid work, but includes everything that takes ‘‘time, effort, and intent’’. In other words, what people actually do as they participate in one way or another in the institutional processes (Smith, 2005). Understanding the language is central for understanding how people’s activities are concerted and coordinated.

Institutional Ethnography and a Feminist Critique Starting from what people do and how they do it involves that I go behind institutional language and concepts, and discover which activities and diverging experiences they replace and conceal. I try to uncover ‘‘institutional language’’, that is, objectifying concepts that are often treated as descriptive and neutral in everyday talk and action, but do in fact practice a particular form of power, and contain a concealed standpoint. Indeed, all concepts should be treated as having an effect (Devault & McCoy, 2006; Smith, 2005). For example, when someone, in a supposedly descriptive manner, refers to an article as high quality I must find out what is meant by high quality. Does it refer to it being an A level publication, as having a high citation record, or something different. Furthermore, I may want to ask why these measures, rather than others, are important, when they became important, whether particular events or texts established them as important, and what this means in practice. In this article I do not aim at explicating the nature of a whole institution, but rather at inspecting a particular ‘‘strand within an institutional complex’’ (Devault & McCoy, 2006, 17). In this case I explore the inter-textual hierarchy — and the translocal discourses of academic excellence and performance measurement they meditate—related to getting publications in quality journals as the main feature of the ‘‘ideal academic’’ construct in one university. I explore this in the four following steps: (a) I start by identifying an experiential standpoint from which I investigate the institutional processes, (b) based on hints given to me by the people whose experiential standpoint is my point of departure, I identify some of the immediate institutional processes shaping that experience, (c) I move beyond the immediate locally occurring institutional processes to explore how they are connected inter-textually to processes taking place beyond the immediately observable local setting, and (d) finally, attempt to describe ‘‘how they operate as the grounds of the experience’’ identified in step (a) (Devault & McCoy, 2006, 16).

Identifying a standpoint and some of the institutional processes shaping it In this section I identify step (a) and (b) as described above. I show how I came about choosing the standpoint of female academics and what I mean by it in this context, and I draw attention to some of the processes shaping it. A new and strengthened translocal discourse of academic excellence and performance measurement informing local constructs of the ‘‘ideal academic’’ — to borrow from and translate Joan Acker’s (1990) notion of the disembodied and abstracted ‘‘ideal worker’’ — in which the publication record in textually defined quality journals is central, has arisen alongside a New Knowledge Economy and Academic Capitalism in which efficiency, competition, performance measurement and auditing figures as central values, and largely put pressure on collegiality and equality (Metcalfe & Slaughter, 2008; Slaughter & Rhoades, 2004). In this era, increased control, managerialism, performance measurement and competition between ‘‘universities, study programs, journals and academics’’ have become part of the everyday reality (Willmott, 2011). In the words of Acker, ‘‘levels of skill,

221 complexity, and responsibility, all used in constructing hierarchy’’ in academic work, are to a larger extent ‘‘conceptualized as existing independently of any concrete worker’’ (Acker, 1990, 148—150). Although presented as neutral, measures of excellence are based on a private public division of labour; the notion that those who can commit themselves fully to their work (e.g. those without responsibilities at home) come closer to the ideal; and a quality evaluation system that is itself based on such structures (Acker, 1990; see also Smith, 1987, 1990b). The ‘‘ideal academic’’ is vested in a plurality of material texts that enter our everyday lives in locally situated academic organizations. The texts are products of social relations that extend beyond the immediate locality in which they appear. Yet, they are powerless if they are not taken up and used in the everyday local talk and work of people. The discourses of excellence and performance measures — mediated through texts — is accomplished locally via the talk people do in relation to such texts and the work people engage in to produce themselves to realize the text (Smith, 1990b, 2005). The ‘‘ideal academic’’, refers to an evaluation of the job rather than its incumbent and, in being disembodied, is unattainable for anyone. All people will in comparison to the ideal appear imperfect to one extent or the other. However, as soon as the gap is established between all the imperfect, mortal, embodied academics and the ‘‘ideal academic’’ a movement is generated; a process in which we participate and work competently to accomplish the ideal — actively making choices and considering how to go about doing things — using the ideal as an interpretive and evaluative frame of our own accomplishments and abilities (even if it is not always in our own best interest). On the local level the material texts mediating the discourses and the ideal shape our activities and experiences by telling us where we need to look, and which imperfections we must deal with. People will have different points of departure for taking part in this movement towards the ideal; when the translocal is appropriated in a particular local context, some people will come closer to the ideal than others. The text, which we recall is any material and replicable image, word, voice, etc. that as such remains the same regardless of where, when and by whom it is read, seen, heard etc. (we recall that this does not mean that people cannot interpret the text differently). Institutional texts (e.g. laws, regulations, advise based on reports) are usually issued with the hope that they will bring about, or prevent, particular actions and activity. Mis-readings, misunderstandings, resistance and unforeseen problems following the release of a text do take place, and sometimes it is found necessary to draw back a text, revise it, update it, provide reading guides and so forth.3 I came to Aalto University to begin my Doctoral Studies shortly after the merger of the three educational institutions had taken place. Being a member of the academic community myself, and at the same time having academia is the subject matter of my present research, I quickly became aware of the language and the texts that flourished in this setting. I came across the ‘‘ideal academic’’ already on the first day of an

3

Indeed, resistance and alternative ways of working around the relations of ruling can, and also do, take place, but in this short article I will not focus on that.

222 event directed at orientating new doctoral students about the formal requirements, and also providing us with a better understanding of academic life. It was emphasized that one must ‘‘invest’’ in one’s doctoral education and ‘‘invest’’ in developing research methods and theories and, furthermore, that this was not possible if one wanted to be a present parent. It was clear to me that a rather strong public—private division of labour was (re)produced at the university, positioning those with other responsibilities in addition to their academic work as less preferred academics. When speaking to scholars differently positioned within the organization, I quickly learned how the different activities of the academic work should be prioritized and, particularly, I learned about the role of getting publications in quality journals for achieving status as a good academic. A female scholar:. . .first of all, you have to be good in, in all the areas of academic work in the sense that both the research and teaching, and, and then probably some. . . if not consulting, but you know this, all this other, sort of a third task [. . .] research is what, what counts, and what you’re supposed to do is you have to publish a lot in good, good journals of course. And, uh...mostly work with international colleagues, you know, anything to do with Finland or whatever doesn’t count, so you should write in English. And it is necessary to network with various, like, important big name universities, probably, rather, so that it, you know looks good and looks like you’re doing world, world class research. [. . .] And what else. . . I mean, you have to be really devoted and, and. . . I mean, if you think about it, all the things that are sort of expected, then you do really have to give it your all to the.to the career [. . .] At a later stage, asking the woman quoted above how she had first come to recognize research and publishing as the most central, she told me about a number of documents that she had encountered. She referred to a form that had been sent out in relation to the University’s annual development discussions between employee and supervisor/manager. I followed her hint and looked into this form. The form established what the key themes in the discussion were to be: these included ‘‘achievement of targets and the actions agreed in the previous year’s discussion’’ and ‘‘alignment of personal targets for the coming period with the Aalto Strategy’’; ‘‘Feedback based on past period’’, including publications which seemed to be emphasized as the most important.4 She also referred to an email regarding an assessment exercise carried out by the University’s Scientific Advisory Board and international accreditors. All units and academics had been required to deliver publication and bibliometric data, as part of a general annual exercise in updating and reporting publication activities. She forwarded me the email message and the two attached documents: first, a letter explaining the assessment and second, an excel sheet with each faculty members’ publication data. In the letter it was made clear that the data was central for Aalto University’s ‘‘internal promotion and reward procedures, external

4 Quotes from ‘‘Form for Development discussions 2012_academic staff’’.

R. Lund funding from the Ministry of Culture and Education, as well as from the funding agencies’’.5 After learning about the importance of quality publishing I began asking many female academics about what a high quality journal and article was. I would quickly receive the reply that it was the journal impact factors and article/author citations that where the central measure of quality. There was a constant reference to A level journals - elsewhere named Top Tier Journals, A+, A++ journals and so forth. As others before me have emphasized, not just ‘‘any old publication’’ counts (Macdonald & Kam, 2007, 2011; Merila ¨inen, Tienari, Thomas, & Davies, 2008). As a result academics are forced to engage in ‘‘gamesmanship’’, moulding title, content, structure, epistemological and ontological commitments, and language in order to fit the format, interests and requests of the publisher (it must be publishable, citable). Naturally all people will have responsibilities and interests outside work, but some people, it would seem, have more than others, and consequently more difficulties in approaching status as an ‘‘ideal academic’’. Although Finland, in relative terms, fares well in gender equality, vertical and horizontal gender segregation is still strong in the Finnish labour market including academia (see e.g. EU, 2009; Niskanen, 2011) and, domestic work and childcare is still the main responsibility of women (see e.g. Haataja, 2009; Hausmann, Tyson, & Zahidi, 2011). It has been suggested that this may partly be due to Finnish companies engaging in cooperation and competition across borders and cultures in which gender equality is not considered important, or where there is less understanding towards a male choosing to stay at home with his children (e.g. Tienari, Vaara, & Merila ¨inen, 2010). Furthermore, there has in many departments been a division of labour between those who focus on research and those who focus on teaching. Moreover, people will have different interests in terms of academic work activities — some people may be very dedicated to teaching whereas others prefer research. Those people whom I have spoken to, heavily involved in teaching, worried whether their activities would no longer have any value in terms of securing a position and how they could live up to the standards for publishing while also attending to their responsibilities at home. I believed it was worthwhile investigating publishing in quality journals as one standard of evaluation — as a central element in the construction of the ‘‘ideal academic’’ — from the standpoint of female academics. Naturally, it would not be fair or very useful, to speak of one united female standpoint. Different women are positioned differently, and thus ‘‘hooked up’’ (Smith, 2005) in different ways to the institutional order, and should be treated as such. Some women did not have a family or partner and therefore less worries in terms of coordinating home and work activities; in some homes the coordination and division of responsibilities made it easier for the woman to pursue an academic career in the ‘‘new’’ University; for others such as single parents or in families where the majority of domestic responsibilities were taken by the woman it was more of a struggle to make things work; finally, there are differences in

5

Quote from Letter, January 12th 2012.

Institutional Ethnography and a Feminist Critique

223

how much teaching work women are engaged in, and thus to which extent they face a problem in terms of balancing work activities. In investigating this topic I have taken the standpoint of female academics currently disadvantaged within this new system: those with heavy teaching loads and young children. The following quote describes one female scholar’s struggles with prioritizing academic work activities and balancing it with her work at home:

therefore I had to stay at home . . .I didn’t work on Saturday because its impossible to work with everyone home and I want to spend time with my family [. . .] I didn’t sleep very well last night . . .because I haven’t been to work for three days! And I was lying there worrying about going to work and hearing how much people have been doing . . .where they are going to be published, and how much good news they received last week and so on. . .so how do I even imagine to be able to come here . . .

A female scholar: . . .it used to be so, that if you participated and contributed to the administrative things and teaching and developing curriculum and so on. . .and I worked very much with these things and participated a lot — and that has somehow legitimized my being here. . .and I haven’t concentrated so much on my own research work. . .so I have taken time for that, to do something that was useful for our community and the curriculum and useful for the shared assets . . .and so I had some sort of right to be here. . .but its changing now . . . Me: how is it changing? A female scholar: Eeeh. . .by doing this work you don’t legitimize your being here [it does not give you any job security] [. . .] but it is not good either if you do not contribute to the common good. . ..so it does not legitimize your position but you should do it anyway in order to connect with other people . . .the logic behind it has changed somehow [. . .] A female scholar: It is quite stressful for me at the moment . . . because my children are quite young Me: How many children do you have? A female scholar: two [. . .] [I normally always take them to daycare [. . .] [I very often also pick them up after work. . .I don’t know why its like that . . .there is this kind of idea that I can do that more easily than my husband] . . .it always takes a long time for me to get here. . .I used to stay at home in spring just to get things done . . . I notice that people don’t see that I am doing anything if I stay at home . . .it makes the situation more difficult . . .if I come here it seems like I am working Me: yeah the physical presence A female scholar: . . .it is very important Me: although it does not necessarily mean that you do more or less? A female scholar: . . .it actually just gives me more pressure] [. . .] I think that to be able to do this work properly . . .to do it. . .it demands a lot of time and it’s very stressful. . . [you should] work a lot and during the weekends . . .but that’s impossible for me and always when I hear these kinds of things I think Wauw how can I ever manage this [. . .] should I give it up. . .because its not possible to put this much time into it. . .the current system. . .it needed much work already beforehand . . . It needed a lot of work already before the system we have now [. . .] people don’t explicitly say don’t talk about your children or don’t talk about this, but they just talk about how much they do . . .and it shows somehow.[I feel like] a very lousy researcher because I didn’t work on Friday. . .because normally my mother takes care of my children on Fridays so they don’t need to go to day care then. . .but she is on holidays now so I couldn’t use her,

The above demonstrates how these locally situated women work to balance different types of activities related to being an academic, as well as a mother.6 They struggle because they take main responsibility for all the practical activities related to having children, and at work take part in a great deal of the teaching related activities. At the same time they are painfully aware, and worried, that they cannot do that while also, to a satisfactory degree, live up to the requirements there are for working long hours on writing articles, being physically present at the office on a daily basis and, networking. In the following I will, from the experiential standpoint of these women, turn to steps (c) and (d). I intend to discover how the experience expressed above can be seen as work done by these women in order to take part in the institutional processes. Show how they attempt to create or mirror themselves in a standardizing and generalizing textually created image of the ‘‘ideal academic’’, and thus seek to find out how their experiences are ruled, constructed and shaped discursively and ideologically (Campbell, 2006). That is, to understand the complex inter-textual hierarchies and translocal processes which have informed this local shift and these women’s experiential standpoint.

Explicating the processes informing the experiential standpoint The ‘‘ideal academic’’, and the demand for a certain publication record connected to it, is accomplished in the local via text mediated discourses formulated elsewhere/‘‘elsewhen’’ and prescribing ‘‘sequences of action’’ (Smith, 2005). Seeing the local accomplishments as embedded in translocal social relations involves an ‘‘indexical’’ reading of material texts: ‘‘Not everything a text says is in the text’’ (Smith, 1990b, 198). The ‘‘missing moments’’ in the university’s strategy texts must be filled in by those people working within the institutional processes (Smith, 1990b). Their work, talk and practice, carrying out the discourse in the local setting, is presupposed but less often represented explicitly in the texts meditating the discourse. The actual bodily activities, central for the discourses’ accomplishment, remain invisible.

6 In a longer article or book I would have described in much more detail how the work of negotiating and balancing activities is done — establish more carefully how the work is done reading texts, writing articles and filling in various templates and documents that hook the local to the translocal. This footnote in its own way bears witness of a form of reflection on the problems of the current publication system, where one must fit oneself into a certain format that necessarily leads to certain short cuts.

224 The OECD issued recommendations for placing Higher Education at the centre of its member nations’ global competitive strategy (Aarrevaara, Dobson, & Elander, 2009; Aarrevaara & Ho ¨, 2008; OECD, 2005). My own University — ¨ltta the first foundation-based university in Finland — was one of the flagship projects in the current higher education reforms and has at its heart the aim of reaching a status as a top ranking university, on a global level, in education, teaching and particularly research, by 2020 (Aalto University Strategy, 2012)7 (Aarrevaara et al., 2009; Ahola & Hoffmann, 2012; Ciancanelli, 2010). The core of the University strategy — of which all staff members received a personal hardcopy version — is an on-going evaluation of performance and how people should work to achieve the organizational goals — organizing our social consciousness around what counts as ‘‘world-class quality’’ and a ‘‘world-class academic’’. In one of the first pages of the Introduction to the University strategy it says: ‘‘Without the people of Aalto, there is no Aalto. We all have our role in writing the next chapter of Aalto’s success story’’ (Introduction to Aalto Strategy 2012, p. 3).8 In the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) carried out and concluded in 2009 — just before the actual merger took place in January 2010 — the cornerstones of the Aalto University strategy were forged (Aalto University, 2009). RAE measured the performance and ‘‘research outputs’’ of staff and units — measured in terms of publication data, bibliometric data from ISI and Scopus databases and other research results — were assessed by nine panels consisting of experts from 20 countries. It was made clear in a power point presentation of the report that ‘‘If research is analysed as excellent in terms of bibliometric indicators, it can be trusted to be excellent’’. The main goal of the assessment exercise was ‘‘the identification of the Units which are at the outstanding international level; which have the most promising potential for research excellence; and which require additional support’’. The main conclusion following the RAE was that all units had remarkable Societal Impact, but that this did ‘‘not correlate with the strongest scientific impact and scientific quality’’. The Units were advised to cut down on the short-term research projects as these did not result in high quality/high impact articles; more research leadership; recruitment of people with higher ambitions in terms of research impact on all levels and with more international experience — the decision to employ a competitive Tenure Track System was seen as central in reaching all these goals (e.g. Herbert & Tienari, in press). It was thus made clear that being published in High Impact Journals equalled High Quality research (Starbuck, 2005, 2009). Similar exercises, with the same mechanisms and similar conclusions have been carried out elsewhere/‘‘elsewhen’’ (see e.g. Willmott, 2011 on RAE in the UK). In evaluating and judging the level of performance in accordance to an ideal situation, the Aalto University RAE formulates a movement, a before-and-after accomplishment of the ‘‘ideal academic’’. It formulated for the academics a

7 See the different versions of the strategy presented by our University President on YouTube (entered last time on Friday 23 March 2012 11.30 a.m.). 8 This exists both in Hard and Soft copy. Unfortunately it can only be accessed by Aalto Staff, so I cannot provide a link to the soft copy here.

R. Lund sequence-of-action; a what needs to be done in action in order to become an ‘‘ideal academic’’ with an ‘‘outstanding international level’’ in an ‘‘ideal university’’, although how this was to be accomplished by actual flesh-and-blood people, remained vague and with gaps to be filled out by the units and academics themselves — anxiously awaiting the next evaluation round to see whether they got-it-right this time. The sequence-of-action formulated by RAE has been furthered by the various sources of advice and training on offer within the university: a number of presentations, workshops and courses are offered by representatives from publishing houses, experts on how-to-get-published and others who came close to the standards and perhaps even received a prize for it. Finally, the notion of the ‘‘ideal academic’’ as someone with a particular publication track record in particular journals is promoted in the display of who-gotrecruited-and-why within the university websites and in hardcopy brochures which asks ‘‘Are you on the right track?’’ on the front page, displaying a competitive ideology — which, it should be noted, the recruited people may not themselves buy into or feel comfortable with — in which we can measure how well we are doing in comparison to those who made it. Interestingly, the announcements made so far have been dominated by young, Caucasian, physically fit-looking, male academics. While Publishing in high impact journals and bibliometrics had already gained foothold and was already a prevalent discourse that people were aware of in the mid-2000s, it first materialized in practice with the pressure on units and academics to perform and produce that followed the formulation of the 2020 deadline. I find that upon entering the library websites of Aalto University School of Economics, from the main page there is a direct link to ‘Financial Times 450 list, and from there direct access to the international journals on the list, signalling that these are the ones to be read, cited and in which to be published. This example also reminds us of the somewhat circular logic of the whole publishing system where success breeds success (Macdonald & Kam, 2007, 2011). Speaking to department heads, deans and HR managers at various levels of the University has also made clear to me that bibliometrics and A journal publications are the single most determining factor for identifying an excellent academic, an evaluator of applicants and unit as a whole: A male manager:. . .for instance if you apply for a tenure track position then it is not only the number of articles but it is the ranking of the journal and then how many citations of your publications are there in the system. . .and then there is kind of this publish and perish measurement system where also edited books count, and then there are others, and then the Financial times journal kind of selection [read: Financial Times 45 list] is one thing that is used and these kind of things. . .and then also when the evaluators of the applicant are chosen . . .their citations are also checked . . . Me: Okay so their publications also matter A male manager: yes they also have to have [an unquestionable] respectability [. . .] In the ‘institutional language’ (Smith, 2005) an ‘‘A journal publication’’, more than the articles ‘‘contribution to knowledge’’, has become synonymous with Quality, having effects

Institutional Ethnography and a Feminist Critique and direct consequences for academics’ present and future opportunities, in terms of funding and employment (Macdonald & Kam, 2007, 640). This particular notion of quality is designed to make the otherwise unmanageable manageable and the incomparable comparable (Rankin & Campbell, 2006). In other words, it makes it possible for people who know nothing about your field (e.g. managers and funders) to make a standardized judgment of whether your research is good or not (Macdonald & Kam, 2011). Basing the evaluation of quality on these so-called neutral, objective, universal and fair standards of measurement is, however, problematic. These standards for quality are biased and contain a concealed standpoint that systematically favours particular formats, particular methods, particular approaches and theories, particular language (English) and scholarly traditions (Barry, Chandler, & Berg, 2011; Harding, 2007; Merila ¨inen et al., 2008, 589; Willmott, 2011). Consequently, according to William H. Starbuck, much research ends up lending itself to ‘‘mass production’’, and in the name of efficiency and publication records ends up adhering to ‘‘unproductive ideas’’ and ‘‘knowledge that is only weakly accumulative’’ that serves to ‘‘kill passion’’ (Starbuck, 2005, 2009). Furthermore, this standardized notion of academic quality benefits particular people (Bagilhole & Goode, 2001; ¨ zbilgin, 2009; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2011). In my O own university this has also been the case. Although ‘‘equality’’ is mentioned, the ‘mission, vision and value’ statement, all specificity has, up until the point when I started writing this article, remained mute. There has been no explicit mention of equality between what and whom or what is to be understood by equality. The university managers with whom I have spoken have revealed that they had difficulty seeing equality as a problem or knowing how to address it — such as the following quotes suggest: A male manager: How do I think about equality [he laughs] [. . .] Women rule! No but seriously. . .in a way . . .I don’t know. . .what do I think about equality. . . it’s such a given thing that I don’t even stop to think about it. . .it’s kind of like a ‘‘mission completed’’ in a way or . . .but that’s me . . .

A female manager: [. . .] I guess that [equality measures] is a challenging question because if we [. . .] want to hire the best then it’s very difficult to say that we want to hire the best female or the best male only . . . so in that sense I think it is a very sensitive issue [. . .] but I think that it is not very useful to think that we only want to hire the best female or the best male or best you know Swedish or Finn ... As I write this article something is however happening: an equality report has been published in Finnish and an equality promotion committee has been sought established at the university level. Furthermore, there has been statements from the highest level that this is an important topic to deal with. From an interview with a female management member I understand that one reason for the establishment of this committee has been displays of homo-sociality (e.g. Holgersson, 2003, in press) in recruitment situations: as she said ‘‘We know from experience now that men have a tendency to

225 choose men’’. I know also that our president, Tuula Teeri, has expressed a dedication to promoting equality. However, how the board will be put together and how and to what extent equality will be sought implemented still remains to be seen. It is still not certain whether women with children or many teaching obligations will be excused for being less productive in terms of getting published in A level journals (see e.g. Van den Brink & Benschop, 2011). Much still needs to change. One academic manager recently expressed to me how there had been a good representation of women among applicants for the Tenure Track System, but not on the shortlist. The manager explained that they judge the applicant by looking for evidence that ‘‘the applicant is really ranking in the top internationally. . . is published in the real top journals. . . that they are at the level that our university is aspiring to and really forward our ambitions and visions’’. I was told of one incident in which the manager had discussed the profile of a shortlisted female applicant with the members of one recruitment committee. The applicant had some gaps in her CV explained by circumstances in her personal life. The committee ended up deciding against her because, ‘‘an evaluator would not need to focus attention on the applicant’s personal situation if the research had been strong enough’’. On an organizational and managerial level the ‘‘ideal academic’’ — primarily defined by his/her ability to publish in highly ranked journals — is promoted as taken-for-granted knowledge, as a system that is fair and objective; a system where the openness and transparency of criteria for excellence in and by itself would eliminate any systematic bias in the system. The main concern is how to attract people who live up to the dominating notion of the ‘‘ideal academic’’. It seems a widely accepted position that measures leading to more equal and fair judgment of scholars — by taking their specific situation in life and work into account — would imply a risk that incompetent people would be chosen for a position (Tienari, Holgersson, Merila ¨inen, & Ho ¨o ¨k, 2009), as my example above would serve to illustrate. The so-called neutral and objective meritocratic performance criteria and measurements are thus, perhaps unintentionally, biased. In the next and final section I tie a knot on this analysis. I explain how the processes described above, have informed the currently prevailing constructs of the ideal academic as one who authors A journal publications and the experiential standpoint I started from.

Conclusion: explicating the ruling relations from a subject position within them In this paper I have explicated some of the institutional processes related to the construct of the ‘‘ideal academic’’ and publications in A journals as central in this. This has been done from the experiential standpoint of those female academics currently in a disadvantaged relationship to the prevailing and standardized measures of quality. They are disadvantaged in relation to these measures because they have a heavy teaching load and, at the same time, young children. I have purposely spoken of a standpoint, rather than a broad gender perspective, since I have wished to avoid making generalizing statements based on gender. This is not to say that gender does not matter; but it cannot stand alone,

226 for other things such as age, position in academia, whether you have children or not, are a single parent or not, have a partner that contributes at home or not, and so forth, must also be taken into consideration. Different women stand in different relations to and are ‘‘hooked up’’ differently to the institutional order — and will thus be located differently in the movement established between the imperfect academic and the ‘‘ideal academic’’. My analysis of the institutional processes connected to the ‘‘ideal academic’’ and the A journal publications as a central feature of that — involving the OECD request that its member states increase their Higher Education Institutions global competitiveness; the Aalto University RAE suggestions for improvement, which formed a cornerstone in my University’s strategy and personnel evaluation standards; the University’s communication strategy on the websites and in hardcopy brochures display a competitive ideology; courses and presentations offered by people who made it to-the-top, or representatives from international publishing houses; that most of the appointed people displayed on websites or in brochures are young, white, physically fit looking males under the headline ‘‘Are you on the right track?’’, combined with incidences in which the neutrality of meritocracy and performance standards have been taken for granted. All this offers us at least part of the explanation for the experience some female academics have expressed to me. There are a number of problems related to these standardized measures of excellence claiming neutrality and objectivity for themselves. In being disembodied, focused on evaluating ‘‘the job’’ rather than its ‘‘incumbents’’, means that it will be hard for anyone to live up to. But in (re)producing the private public dichotomy it would seem harder for certain people than for others. Due to the current division of labour at the University (which managers seem to ignore the existence of) as well as in homes, some people automatically come closer to the ideal than others. The standardized measures of quality — that of getting published in A level journals - hold a concealed standpoint that offers systematic privilege to particular types of people with particular types of interests, positions in life and academia. Due to the fact that quality in this institutional setting has become synonymous with A journal publications and citations a circular logic has been initiated. The appearance in a top ranked journal is, it would seem, more important than the articles contribution to the accumulation of knowledge, thereby potentially resulting in the system defeating itself in its own game, leading to a downscaling of contributions and knowledge accumulation. The A level journals, it would seem, systematically favour particular formats, particular methods, particular approaches and theories, particular language and scholarly traditions, excluding thereby a wide range of critical, qualitative, creative and new fields of research, perhaps leading to a killing of passion among those feeling forced to accommodate their work to the recognized standards. The standpoint I have taken to look at the processes allows me to explicate how these processes have resulted in fear among certain women in academia of not being a good enough academic. Much research on ‘women in academia’ has shown how women are disadvantaged, in comparison to men, within the New Research Economy characterized by NPM discourses and practices (e.g. Davies et al., 2005; Fletcher et al., 2007;

R. Lund Glazer-Raymo, 2008; Metcalfe & Slaughter, 2007, 2008; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2011). In this article I have argued that one ought not make generalizing conclusions based on gender, but remember that women too are positioned differently. Indeed, not all women are disadvantaged in relation to the new institutional processes and standardized performance measurements and generalizing notions of quality and excellence. Some women are worse off than others. Moreover, rather than starting from theories and concepts I have taken my point of departure in the work these women do in order to take part in the institutional processes — how they use these institutional and textually defined notions of excellence to measure themselves, sometimes in ways that are against their own best interest. IE takes seriously that the texts mediating the translocal cannot gain any effect in the local unless activated by actual people bringing them into coordinating relation with people elsewhere/‘‘elsewhen’’. Furthermore, I have from the standpoint of those who are disadvantaged mapped out and explicated the inter-textual hierarchy that has mediated these standardized/generalizing discourses of excellence in Aalto University, and shown how these have created the foundation for a concerting of activities related to reaching the textually defined standard of the ‘‘ideal academic’’ and the experience of not being good enough; of not being ideal. This explication is done with and for these women — and the purpose of it is not simply to criticize: rather, it is to give them something which they can use to locate themselves within; something they can use in addition to their own good knowledge about how things are — in other words, to understand better that which goes beyond their immediate experience. The purpose is to discover the relations of ruling, not to overthrow them, but to change some of the processes within them.

References Aalto University (2009). Striving for excellence. Aalto University: Project Report. Aalto University Strategy (2012). (Entered last time on Friday March 30th 11.30 a.m.) http://www.google.com/search? client=safari&rls=en&q=Aalto+University+Strategy+2012&ie= UTF-8&oe=UTF-8. Aarrevaara, T., & Ho ¨ (2008). Changes in the Finnish academic ¨ltta profession reflect reforms in higher education. Report of the international conference on the changing academic profession in international and comparative and quantitative perspectives. RIHE International Seminar Reports No. 12. University of Hiroshima. Aarrevaara, T., Dobson, I., & Elander, C. (2009). Brave new world: Higher education reform in Finland. Higher Education Management and Policy 21(2). Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender and Society 4(2). Acker, J. (2006). Class questions feminist answers. Oxford: Rowmann & Littlefield Publishers Inc. Ahola, S., & Hoffmann, D. (Eds.). (2012). Higher education research ¨sin Finland: Emerging structures and contemporary issues. Jyva kyla ¨: Finnish Institute for Higher Educational Research. Bagilhole, B., & Goode, J. (2001). The contradiction of the Myth of Individual Merit, and the reality of a patriarchal support system in academic careers: A feminist investigation. European Journal of Women’s Studies 8(161). Bailyn, L. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessens learned from MIT. Gender, Work and Organisation 10(2).

Institutional Ethnography and a Feminist Critique Barry, J., Chandler, J., & Berg, E. (2011). Movement and coalition in contention: Gender, management and academe in England and Sweden. Gender, Work and Organization 19.(1). Cala ´s, M., & Smircich, L. (2008). Feminist perspectives on gender in organisational research: What is and is yet. The handbook of organizational research methods, Sage. (pp. 246—269). Campbell, M. L. (2006). Institutional ethnography and experience as data. In D. Smith (Ed.), Institutional ethnography as practice. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Ciancanelli, P. (2010). Managing for social outcomes: Diverse value rationalities and financial control. Critical Sociology 36(203). Davies, B., Browne, J., Gannon, S., Honan, E., & Somerville, M. (2005). Embodied women at work in neoliberal times and places. Gender, Work & Organization, 12, 343—362. Devault, M., & McCoy, L. (2006). Institutional ethnography: Using interviews to study ruling relations. In D. Smith (Ed.), Institutional ethnography as practice. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Diamond, T. (2006). Where did you get that fur coat, Fern? Participant Observations in Institutional Ethnography. In D. Smith (Ed.), Institutional ethnography as practice. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. European Commission. (2009). She figures 2009: Statistics and indicators on gender equality in science. Brussels: Directorate-General for Research. Fairclough, N. (2006). Global capitalism and critical awareness. In Jaworski & Coupland (Eds.), The discourse reader. London: Routledge. Fawcett, B., & Hearn, J. (2004). Researching others: Epistemology, experience, standpoints and participation. Social Research Methodology 7(3). Fletcher, C., Boden, R., Kent, J., & Tinson, J. (2007). Performing women: The gendered dimensions of the UK New Research Economy. Gender, Work and Organization 14(5). Glazer-Raymo, J. (2008). Unfinished Agenda’s — New and continuing gender challenges in higher education. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Haataja, A. (2009). Fathers use of paternity and parental leave in the Nordic countries. Helsinki: Social Insurance Institution of Finland, Research Department. Harding, S. (2007). Feminist standpoints. In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), Handbook of feminist research. London: Sage Publications. Hausmann, R., Tyson, L., & Zahidi, S. (2011). The global gender gap report. Geneva: World Economic Forum. Hekman, S. (1997). Truth and method: Feminist standpoint revisited in signs. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(2.), 341—365. Henttonen, E., & LaPointe, K. (2010). Carrying on the collaborative effort: Becoming academics in the wake of a feminist intervention project. In S. Merila ¨inen, S. Katila, & J. Tienari (Eds.), Making inclusion work — Experiences from Academia around the world. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Herbert, A., & Tienari, J. (in press). Transplanting tenure and the (Re)construction of academic freedoms. Studies in Higher Education. ¨retagsledare: En Studie i Holgersson, C. (2003). Rekrytering av Fo Homosocialitet. Stockholm: Ekonomiska Forskningsinstitutet. Holgersson, C. (in press). Recruiting managing directors: Doing homosociality. Gender, Work and Organization. Katila, S., & Merila ¨inen, S. (1999). A serious researcher or just another nice girl? Doing gender in a male dominated scientific community. Gender, Work and Organization 6(3). ¨inen, S. (2002). Metamorphosis: From ‘Nice girls’ Katila, S., & Merila to ‘Nice Bitches: Resisting patriarchal articulations of professional identity. Gender, Work and Organization 9(3). Macdonald, S., & Kam, J. (2007). ‘Ring a Ring o’ Roses: Quality journals and gamemanship in management studies. Journal of Management Studies 44(4).

227 Macdonald, S., & Kam, J. (2011). The skewed few: People and papers of quality in management studies. Organization 18(4). Merila ¨inen, S., Tienari, J., Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2008). Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences of publishing from the periphery. Organization 15(4.). Metcalfe, A., & Slaughter, S. (2007). Academic capitalism. In B. Banks (Ed.), Gender and education: An encyclopedia. New York: Greenwood Press. Metcalfe, A., & Slaughter, S. (2008). The differential effects of academic capitalism on women in the academy. In J. GlazerRaymo (Ed.), Unfinished agenda’s — New and continuing gender challenges in higher education. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Morley, L. (2007). The gendered implications of quality assurance and audit: Quality and equality. In Coterill (Ed.), Challenges and negotiations for women in higher education. Dordrecht: Springer. Niskanen, K. (Ed.). (2011). Gender and power in the Nordic countries. Nordic Gender Institute: NIKK Publications. OECD, Directorate for Education (2005). UNESCO/OECD guidelines on quality provision in cross-border higher education (entered November 15th 2011. 3 p.m.). http://www.oecd.org/document/ 52/0,3746,en_2649_39263238_29343796_1_1_1_1,00.html. ¨ zbilgin, M. F. (2009). From journal rankings to making sense of the O world. Academy of Management Learning and Education 8(1). Rankin, J., & Campbell, M. (2006). Managing to nurse: Inside Canada’s Healthcare Reform. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Rolin, K. (2006). The bias paradox in feminist standpoint epistemology. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 3(1). Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. Smith, D. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Boston: North Eastern University Press. Smith, D. (1990a). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Boston: North Eastern University Press. Smith, D. (1990b). Texts, facts and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling. London: Routledge. Smith, D. (1999). Writing the social: Critique, theory and investigations. Toronto: Toronto University Press. Smith, D. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Oxford: AltaMira Press. Smith, D. (2006). Incorporating texts into ethnographic practice. In D. Smith (Ed.), Institutional ethnography as practice. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most prestigious journals — The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science 16(2). Starbuck, W. H. (2009). The constant causes of never-ending faddishness in the behavioural and social sciences. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25. Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2002). Gender and new public management: Reconstituting academic subjectivities. Gender, Work and Organization 9(4). ¨inen, S., & Ho Tienari, J., Holgersson, C., Merila ¨o ¨k, P. (2009). Gender, management and market discourse: The case of gender quotas in the Swedish and Finnish media. Gender, Work and Organization. 16(4). Tienari, J., Vaara, E., & Merila ¨inen, S. (2010). Becoming an international man — Top manager masculinities in the making of a multinational corperation. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 29(1). Van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2011). Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence, sheep with five legs. Organization 19(2). Van den Brink, M., & Stobbe, L. (2009). Doing gender in academic education: The paradox of visibility. Gender, Work and Organization 16(4).

228 Weintraub, J. (1997). The theory and politics of the public/private distinction. In Weintraub & Kumar (Eds.), Public and private in thought and practice — Perspectives on a grand dichotomy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Widerberg, K. (2004). Institutional ethnography — Towards a productive sociology — An interview with Dorothy E. Smith. Sosiologisk ˚ rgang 12(2). Tidskrift A

R. Lund Widerberg, K. (2007). Institutional Etnografi — en ny mulighet for ˚ rgang, 37(2), 7—28. kvalitativ forkning? Sociologi i dag, A Willmott. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: Reactivity and the ABS List. Organization 18(4). Wylie, A. (2003). Why standpoint matters in figueroa. In R. S. Harding (Ed.), Science and other cultures — Issues in philosophies of science and technology. New York: Routledge.