CHI TIẾT NGHIÊN CỨU …
Tiêu đề
Fracking the faculty: The privatization of public knowledge, the erosion of faculty worklife quality, the diminution of the liberal arts
Tác giả
Lincoln Y.S.
Năm xuất bản
2018
Source title
Qualitative Inquiry in the Public Sphere
Số trích dẫn
0
DOI
Liên kết
Tóm tắt
University-developed knowledge is rapidly undergoing privatization by virtue of being sequestered into increasingly expensive journals, books, and monographs, all of which are controlled by a burgeoning academic publishing industry (Lincoln, 1998; 1999; 2012; Ohmann, 2003; Pirie, 2009). As a result, it becomes obvious that less well-funded scholars and institutions (with limited library budgets), as well as developing countries, find it harder and harder to access knowledge that might lead to improved life chances for citizens, more democratic forms of government, or more useful scientific knowledge for health, agriculture, clean water and the like. Knowledge production and scientific discovery are being perverted from their original purpose of improving the lot of humankind, and turned instead to yet another marketable commodity. The argument is made that, having marketized virtually everything on the planet, including our privacy and “interiority” (van Manen, 2010, p. 1024), the capitalist concern turned to finding new material that might be commodified and hence, marketized (Pirie, 2009). What better than the steady, rich outflow of information, data, knowledge, and proposed applications (or technology transfer) from elite scholarly knowledge workers? The exceptions are open access journals1, and U.S. government regulations which force some government-sponsored research to remain open access for a year prior to publication, so that it may be accessed anywhere in the world. The rapid marketization of knowledge, however, has led to what may be metaphorically termed the “fracking” of the faculty. © 2018 Taylor & Francis.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Amit V., The university as panopticon: Moral claims and attacks on academic freedom, Audit cultures, pp. 215-234, (2000); Bergstrom T., Free labor for costly journals, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15, 3, pp. 183-198, (2001); Capraro R.M., Lincoln Y.S., Navigating the “dollarocracy”: Where did the quality of ideas get lost?; Freeman J.H., Audia P.G., Community ecology and the sociology of organizations, Annual Review of Sociology, 32, pp. 245-269, (2006); Gonzalez L.D., Martinez E., Ordu C., Exploring faculty experiences in a striving university through the lens of academic capitalism, Studies in Higher Education, 39, 7, pp. 1097-1115, (2014); Lincoln Y.S., Commodification and contradiction in academic research, Studies in Cultures, Organizations, and Societies, 5, 1, pp. 1-16, (1998); Lincoln Y.S., The postmodern university: Landgrants in the new millennium, Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 15, 4, pp. 113-126, (1999); Lincoln Y.S., “A well-regulated faculty…": The coerciveness of accountability and other measures that abridge faculties’ right to teach and research, Cultural Studies ? Critical Methodologies, 11, 4, pp. 369-372, (2011); Lincoln Y.S., The political economy of publication: Marketing, commodification, and qualitative scholarly work, Qualitative Health Research, 22, 11, pp. 1451-1459, (2012); Lincoln Y.S., Threat Levels: Qualitative Research, Ethics, Power and Neoliberalism’s Context, The Power of/in Academic: Critical Interventions in Knowledge Production and Society, (2015); Lincoln Y.S., A Dangerous Accountability: Neoliberalism’s Veer toward Accountancy in Higher Education, Public Engagement and the Politics of Evidence, (2015); McGee R., Ideology and political economy: The research publication criterion of academic merit, Sociological Focus, 25, 2, pp. 97-109, (1992); Murphy T., Meet the town that’s being swallowed by a sinkhole, Mother Jones., (2013); Ohmann R., Politics of knowledge: The commercialization of the university, the professions, and print culture., (2003); Pirie I., The political economy of academic publishing, Historical Materialism, 17, pp. 31-60, (2009); Strathern M., Audit cultures., (2000); van Manen J., The pedagogy of Momus technologies: Facebook, privacy and online intimacy, Qualitative Health Research, 20, 8, pp. 1023-1032, (2010); Wexler E., Can data measure faculty productivity? Rutgers professors say no, Chronicle of Higher Education., (2015)
Nơi xuất bản
Taylor and Francis
Hình thức xuất bản
Book chapter
Open Access
Nguồn
Scopus