A Diversity Perspective on
Journal Rankings
Dr Jawad Syed
Kent Business School
1
Introduction
• The purpose of this presentation is to highlight the
implications of journal rankings for diverse academic
staff, in particular, for women and ethnic minorities.
2
3
4
5
• HEFCE (2009) report concludes: “It may be that
some of the differences seen in the report are linked
to individual career choices and deeply rooted
inequalities than of particular discrimination against
specific groups of staff. This is an area that HEFCE
and the higher education (HE) sector will continue to
explore. The extent to which the different selection
rates observed reflect deeply rooted social
inequalities is being acknowledged by the extensive
work the HE sector, HEFCE and the ECU are doing
to support the research careers of different groups of
staff.” (pp.25-26)
6
Inequalities and power differentials
• Tourish (2011) notes that people rarely question
the extent to which journal rankings – so
objective, numerical and precise in appearance –
merely reproduce the inequalities and power
differentials in our wider society.
7
• Burgess and Shaw 2010 view the journal
production system as an academic control
system and not just a communication system
(Nord, 1995) and focus on the editorial review
process given its role in exercising control.
8
9
10
White masculine domination
• Özbilgin (2009) explains why the rankings
should be considered part and parcel of a
broader game of White masculine domination
that excludes research that matters, research
that helps us understand the world of work
and contribute to meaningful improvements
for individuals and organizations.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
A personal example
•
•
•
•
•
Journal *** serves three large communities: (1) students, scholars and
practitioners of spirituality, (2) management academics and practising
managers, and (3) religion scholars and religious leaders. ***aims to serve as a
meeting forum and help cross-fertilisation in these communities. It wishes to
encompass, without prejudging any belief, a multitude of interests and concerns.
Our sole criterion is academic rigour and scientific merit.
Emails:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 10:30 AM, J.Syed <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Professor ****** Thanks for the note.
Just a thought. Do you have any expert on Islamic scholarship and management
in your editorial board? Did they have a chance to read the paper? I think what
we tried to propose in the paper was not to prioritize any one faith over the
other. I am sorry if the purpose of the paper was either miscommunicated or
misunderstood.
18
Reply by the Editor-in-Chief
•
•
In terms of having Islamic scholars on the board, the answer is an
unequivocal "no". We have no scholars focused on any particular faith
on the editorial board. The scholars on the board were chosen for their
reputation in behavioral research, not in theological scholarship.
Because we do not publish ideologically-based research, we did not
constitute the board according to religious orientation. Undoubtedly,
there must be a forum for good theologically and ideologically based
research--but the Editorial Board has decided that this journal is not
that forum. Our goal is not to publish work a body of work that is
fragmented along ideological lines, but to publish a body of work that
connects and integrates our understanding of how faith impacts our
workplaces.
I hope that this helps to clarify our position. I apologize if the transition
in Editorial Boards created any confusion.
19
Finch Report
•
According to Daniel Carey :
•
The orientation of the report seems very much toward the sciences. For
the humanities, it is problematic because it assumes university
affiliations and therefore excludes independent scholars, retired
academics, and in all likelihood graduate students and postdocs, parttime staff and others in ‘liminal’ positions. For those with university
positions, the proposal depends on the assumption universities
reallocating the ‘savings’ associated with journal subscriptions to
individual academics to pay for their article costs. This might or might
not happen but is unlikely to occur uniformly across institutions,
creating invidious disparities between ‘research’ and ‘teaching’
institutions. The most likely scenario is that this system will be used to
obligate researchers in the humanities to secure research grants in
order to cover the cost of their publications. This may be the norm,
effectively, in the sciences, but is very damaging in the humanities not
least because the funding levels are so much less significant than in
20
the sciences. (RIN, 2012)
Conclusion
• “Has the scholar asked an important question and
investigated it in such a way that it has the
potential to advance societal understanding and
well-being?” (Adler and Harzing, 2009)
• Reform? How?
21