Abstract
This paper, using multimodal critical discourse analysis, explores a chain of performance management documents in a university which aim to meet the goal of increasing output and excellence. A system of performance management developed by Kaplan and Norton in the 1990s, which enables both tangible and also “intangible assets” such as “quality” and “excellence” to be monitored and measured, is now used fairly universally to structure the running of public institutions. Looking in detail at one case, we show that the result is an abstraction and de-contextualization of processes and agents, through a series of interlocking texts, lists and tables that follows an administrative, rather than task led, logic of operation. We show how the discourse is legitimized on the one hand by the very impenetrable nature of the resulting interlocking documents and by the Web of Science database on the other. We give reasons why the database itself is highly problematic and also show the abstract ways in which it is communicated and how it leads to research in all subject areas being codified and standardized in a “one-size-fits-all” way. This, we argue, serves the purposes of naturalizing and justifying notions of “quality,” “excellence” and “value for money” that have been promoted in service of neoliberal politics.
About the authors
Per Ledin is Professor in Swedish at Södertörn University, Sweden. He has published widely in different areas of discourse studies, including writing development, multimodality and critical linguistics. His recent publications include papers on the assessment of writing tests, the semiotics of lists and tables, and the language of New Public Management.
David Machin is Professor in the Department of Media and Communication, Örebro University, Sweden. His interests lie in multimodality, critical discourse studies and visual design. His books include The Language of War Monuments (2013) and Visual Journalism (2015). His current research is in the multimodal communication of administration in institutions. He is also co-editor of Social Semiotics.
References
Beck, Ulrich. 1986. Risk society: Towards a new modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Davies, Bronwyn and Bansel, Peter. 2007. Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 20(3). 247–259.10.1080/09518390701281751Search in Google Scholar
Daujotaite, Dalia and Macerinskien, Irena. 2008. Development of performance audit in public sector. Paper Presented at 5th International Scientific Conference Business and management. Vilnius, Lithuania. 177–185.Search in Google Scholar
EUA. 2013: Global university rankings and their impact. (Report II.) Brussels: European University Association. http://www.eua.be/Libraries/Publications_homepage_list/EUA_Global_University_Rankings_and_Their_Impact_–_Report_II.sflb.ashx (accessed 3 June 2015).Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon Books.Search in Google Scholar
Hall, Patrik. 2012. Managementbyråkrati: organisationspolitisk makt i svensk offentlig förvaltning. Malmö: LiberSearch in Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. London: Hodder Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Hellberg, Staffan. 2008. Konflikter i grundskolans kursplaner för svenska. Språk och stil 18. 5–37.Search in Google Scholar
Iedema, Rick. 2003. Discourses of post-bureaucratic organization. (Document Design Companion Series.) Amsterdam: John Benjamin.10.1075/ddcs.5Search in Google Scholar
Jessop, Bob. 2007. State power. London: Wiley.Search in Google Scholar
Kaplan, Robert S. & Norton, David P. 1992. The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review. January-February 1992. 71–79.Search in Google Scholar
Ledin, Per and Machin, David. 2015. How lists, bullet points and tables recontextualize social practice: A multimodal study of management language in Swedish universities. Critical Discourse Studies 12(4). 463–481.10.1080/17405904.2015.1039556Search in Google Scholar
Kärreman, Dan & Mats Alvesson. 2004. Cages in Tandem: Management control, social identity, and identification in a knowledge-intensive firm. Organization 11(1). 149–175.10.1177/1350508404039662Search in Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther and Van Leeuwen, Theo. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Levitas, Ruth. 2005. The inclusive society? Social exclusion and new labour. London: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230511552Search in Google Scholar
Machin, David. 2013. What is multimodal critical discourse studies. Critical Discourse Studies 10(4). 347–35510.1080/17405904.2013.813770Search in Google Scholar
Machin, David and Mayr, Andrea. 2012. How to do critical discourse analysis: A multimodal introduction. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Morrish, Liz and Helen Sauntson. 2013. ‘Business-facing motors for economic development’: An Appraisal analysis of visions and values in the marketized UK University. Critical Discourse Studies 10(1). 61–80.10.1080/17405904.2012.736698Search in Google Scholar
Peters, Michael A, Besley, A.C., Olssen, Mark, Maurere, Susanne and Weber, Susanne (eds.). 2009. Governmentality studies in education. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.10.1163/9789087909857Search in Google Scholar
Piro, Fredrik Niclas, Elisabeth Hovedhaugen, Mari Elken, Gunnar Sivertsen, Mats Benner & Bjørn Stensaker. 2014. Nordiske universiteter og internasjonale universitetsrangeringer (Rapport 25.) Oslo: NIFU.Search in Google Scholar
Pollitt, Christopher and Bouckaert, Geert. 2013. Public management reform – A comparative analysis (3rd edition). New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Power, Michael. 1997. The audit society: Rituals of verification. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rayner, Steve. 2007. The rise of risk and the decline of politics. Environmental Hazards 7. 165–172.10.1016/j.envhaz.2007.05.003Search in Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. Principles of discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4(2). 249–28310.1177/0957926593004002006Search in Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London, Sage.Search in Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 1999. The representation of social actors. In Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Malcolm Coulthard (eds.), Texts and practices – Readings in critical discourse analysis, 32–71. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo and Wodak, Ruth. 1999. Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies 1(1). 83–119.10.1177/1461445699001001005Search in Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2014. Critical discourse analysis and multimodality. In Christopher Hart and Piotr Cap (eds.), Contemporary critical discourse studies, 281–296. London: Bloomsbury.Search in Google Scholar
Vetenskapsrådet. 2009. Bibliometrisk indikator som underlag för medelsfördelning, Svar på uppdrag enligt regeringsbeslut U2009/322/F (2009–01–29) till Vetenskapsrådet. Stockholm.Search in Google Scholar
Waring, Justin J. 2009. Constructing and re-constructing narratives of patient safety. Social Science & Medicine 69(12). 1722–1731.10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.052Search in Google Scholar
©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton
