Comments on: Institutionalizing Critical University Studies https://academography.decasia.org/2017/06/09/institutionalizing-critical-university-studies/ Critical Ethnography & Higher Education Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:50:35 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.3.4 By: Davydd Greenwood https://academography.decasia.org/2017/06/09/institutionalizing-critical-university-studies/#comment-842 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 09:50:35 +0000 https://academography.decasia.org/?p=428#comment-842 What is at stake in the “institutionalization” of CUS? It pays to be clear about this. In the neoTaylorist world of the university, multidisciplinary studies (other than those funded in the sciences and engineering by the government and private sector) are examples of Mary Douglas’ “matter out of place”. The only model neoTaylorists understand is siloed disciplines and departments under the thumb of a dean, provost, president, professsional association, accrreditation authority, and auditors. The analogy with prior generations of Science and Technology Studies and feminist studies (now reduced to departments) is clear. The best account of the details of the procerss I know is Ellen Messer-Davidow’s Disciplining Feminism. The capacity of contemporary universities to sweep up matter out of place is awesome. Having been victimized by this repeatedly, I clearly did not find a strategy of resistance that works. Practically speaking, if resistance is to work, how do you envision it?

]]> By: Can Critical University Studies Survive the Toxic University? https://academography.decasia.org/2017/06/09/institutionalizing-critical-university-studies/#comment-839 Mon, 11 Jun 2018 05:10:54 +0000 https://academography.decasia.org/?p=428#comment-839 […] Several things in the news recently have made me want to write again about Critical University Studies (CUS) – a discipline that has been given momentum in the UK by the USS pensions strikes of spring 2018. As I visited a number of campus rallies and teach-outs, I became aware of a real thirst for analysis of the UK and global higher education landscape. The pensions issue seemed to be a conductor for a whole host of other grievances about marketization, financialization, audit culture, management by metrics and the distortions of league tables and concern with university ‘reputation’.  These objections have spawned critique from all areas of the academy, from blogs by experimental scientists (Bishop 2013, Colquhoun 2016 ) to theorised analysis in social science (Burrows 2012; Holmwood 2011;  Petersen and Davies 2010; Hall & Winn 2018), to perspectives from literary scholars (Warner 2014; 2015; Docherty 2011; 2014; 2015). This work has now coalesced under the banner of critical university studies (CUS) which in many cases contains (but is not confined to) expressions of discomfort at changes influenced by neoliberal and market fundamentalist ideologies. There are now three book series oriented towards the field, Palgrave, Johns Hopkins  and Berghahn , a journal, LATISS http://journals.berghahnbooks.com/latiss , a university research centre at Roskilde, Denmark, as well as an early career researcher network at the University of Cambridge.   These are all positive developments, although it is wise to be cautious about the ‘institutionalisation’ of CUS, as Eli Thorkelson advises. […]

]]> By: Can Critical University Studies survive the toxic university ? | Academic Irregularities https://academography.decasia.org/2017/06/09/institutionalizing-critical-university-studies/#comment-835 Fri, 08 Jun 2018 21:07:53 +0000 https://academography.decasia.org/?p=428#comment-835 […] Several things in the news recently have made me want to write again about Critical University Studies (CUS) – a discipline that has been given momentum in the UK by the USS pensions strikes of spring 2018. As I visited a number of campus rallies and teach-outs, I became aware of a real thirst for analysis of the UK and global higher education landscape. The pensions issue seemed to be a conductor for a whole host of other grievances about marketization, financialization, audit culture, management by metrics and the distortions of league tables and concern with university ‘reputation’.  These objections have spawned critique from all areas of the academy, from blogs by experimental scientists (Bishop 2013, Colquhoun 2016 ) to theorised analysis in social science (Burrows 2012; Holmwood 2011;  Petersen and Davies 2010; Hall & Winn 2018), to perspectives from literary scholars (Warner 2014; 2015; Docherty 2011; 2014; 2015). This work has now coalesced under the banner of critical university studies (CUS) which in many cases contains (but is not confined to) expressions of discomfort at changes influenced by neoliberal and market fundamentalist ideologies. There are now three book series oriented towards the field, Palgrave, Johns Hopkins  and Berghahn , a journal, LATISS http://journals.berghahnbooks.com/latiss , a university research centre at Roskilde, Denmark, as well as an early career researcher network at the University of Cambridge.   These are all positive developments, although it is wise to be cautious about the ‘institutionalisation’ of CUS, as Eli Thorkelson advises. […]

]]> By: Heather S https://academography.decasia.org/2017/06/09/institutionalizing-critical-university-studies/#comment-269 Tue, 29 Aug 2017 19:49:16 +0000 https://academography.decasia.org/?p=428#comment-269 Finally got that Wikipedia entry up: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_university_studies

(I didn’t write it)

]]>