IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indcch/v26y2017i6p1109-1124..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paradigmatic warfare: the struggle for the soul of economics at the University of Notre Dame

Author

Listed:
  • Hamid Bouchikhi
  • John R Kimberly

Abstract

Between 2003 and 2010, the College of Arts and Letters of the University of Notre Dame had two rival economics departments, one that was resolutely mainstream and the other that was just as resolutely heterodox. This unusual organizational arrangement was an effort to accommodate a paradigmatic conflict about the kind of economic scholarship needed to lift the university in national rankings while, at the same time, maintaining its Catholic identity, a conflict that unfolded over three decades and that resulted, ultimately, in the closure of the heterodox department in July 2010 and a full embrace of mainstream economics. This article traces the history of this conflict and documents the kind of organizational, political, and personal issues that together influenced this extended, intense, and highly divisive case of paradigmatic warfare. Our analysis shows how the goal of becoming a major research university and the use of rankings to measure the performance of academic departments created contested terrain, where existing interests and commitments struggled to maintain legitimacy in the face of the emergence of new strategic priorities and set off a variety of conflicting moves and counter moves that engaged identity and power and that required forceful leadership to resolve.

Suggested Citation

  • Hamid Bouchikhi & John R Kimberly, 2017. "Paradigmatic warfare: the struggle for the soul of economics at the University of Notre Dame," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(6), pages 1109-1124.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:26:y:2017:i:6:p:1109-1124.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/icc/dtx011
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indcch:v:26:y:2017:i:6:p:1109-1124.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/icc .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.