Regimes of performance: practices of the normalised self in the neoliberal university

Abstract

Universities today inescapably find themselves part of nationally and globally competitive networks that appear firmly inflected by neoliberal concerns of rankings, benchmarking and productivity. This, of course, has in turn led to progressively anticipated and regulated forms of academic subjectivity that many fear are overly econo-centric in design. What I wish to explore in this paper is how, emanating from prevailing neoliberal concepts of individuality and competitiveness, the agency of the contemporary academic is increasingly conditioned via ‘regimes of performance’, replete with prioritised claims of truth and practices of the normalised self. Drawing upon Michel Foucault’s writings on governmentality, and Judith Butler’s subsequent work on subjection, I use findings from a series of in-depth interviews with senior university managers at National University of Ireland, Galway to reflect upon the ways in which academics can respond effectively to the ascendant forms of neoliberal governmentality characterising the academy today. I contemplate the key task of articulating broader educational values, and conclude by considering the challenge of enacting alternative academic subjectivities and practices.

Keywords:

• performance management
• neoliberal university
• Foucault
• Butler
• governmentality
• subjection

Acknowledgements

My thanks to Kelly Coate, Madeleine Arnot and two anonymous reviewers for their excellent comments. My thanks too to my various interviewees and colleagues at NUI Galway who contributed centrally to the paper.

Notes

1. The challenges of doing ‘insider research’ in higher education are, as Justine Mercer (2007, 2) observes, ‘under-researched’. She argues that ‘small-scale case studies’ and ‘in-depth interviews’ are best ‘as a means of constructing participative knowledge’, and notes that a key issue is the question of ‘what to tell colleagues, both before and after they participate in the research’ (Mercer 2007, 11). My preference was to not overly ‘pre-script’, as David Silverman (2000, 200) cautions. I am inclined to disagree, however, with Silverman’s consideration of the validation of interview transcripts as ‘a flawed method’ (2000, 177). Once my interviews were transcribed, I made them available to each interviewee – for both professional courtesy reasons and validation purposes. All interviewees confirmed the transcripts, with four making minor substantiations of particular points and one asking for specific comments to be ‘off the record’. As a result of validation, I drew with full confidence upon the transcript material.

2. In keeping anonymity, I am conscious that not naming the specific managerial position for each quoted contribution might suggest a somewhat free-floating set of discourses decoupled from managerial agency. However, all significant university managers were interviewed and all feature variously in the discussion, which I believe is reflective of the emergent governmental architecture of the university, along with its inherent contradictions and degree of competing visions.

3. I have also drawn upon Foucault’s writing on biopolitics, security and governmentality in a forthcoming sister paper to this one in Oxford Review of Education. The paper, entitled ‘Governing the Academic Subject: Foucault, Governmentality and the Performing University’, entails centrally a critical consideration of NUI Galway’s efforts to enact practices of performance management in anticipating and planning for an ‘aleatory’ and increasingly ‘governmentalised’ future.