IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v29y2020i1p87-99..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Performing under ‘the baton of administrative power’? Chinese academics’ responses to incentives for international publications

Author

Listed:
  • Xin Xu

Abstract

Incentivizing international publications is a current topic of national debate in China and some other non-English-speaking countries, echoing the discussion of managerialism in many other contexts. However, there is a shortage of research to conceptualize academics’ responses with empirical evidence. The study draws on 65 in-depth interviews with humanities and social sciences academics at six Chinese universities. It proposes two typologies to categorize academics’ affective responses (proactive, adaptive, resistant, hesitant, and detached) and behavioural responses (reconciling, rejecting, reforming, and rebelling). Building on the typologies, a framework is developed to explain the complicated relationship between incentives and publications. In addition, findings suggest that incentives imposed through administrative power could challenge academics’ agency. The study thereby proposes a reconsideration and reconstruction of current incentive schemes, to move beyond managerialism and towards the integration of intrinsic academic values.

Suggested Citation

  • Xin Xu, 2020. "Performing under ‘the baton of administrative power’? Chinese academics’ responses to incentives for international publications," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 87-99.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:29:y:2020:i:1:p:87-99.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvz028
    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.

    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:rseval:v:29:y:2020:i:1:p:87-99.. 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/rev .

    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.