IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v48y2021i1p27-36..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Key selection criteria’ as administrative devices: An investigation of academic bureaucratization at Australian universities

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Woelert

Abstract

Over recent decades, tensions arising from the ways universities operate have become increasingly apparent. While there have been ongoing ambitions to reduce traditional bureaucratic mechanisms and ‘red tape’ within universities, there has been mounting concern internationally that the administrative dimensions of academic work are becoming increasingly burdensome (a phenomenon also referred to as ‘academic bureaucratization’). This article explores how a specific administrative device used at Australian universities—the ‘key selection criteria’ (KSC) that applicants have to address in writing when applying for academic positions—manifests academic bureaucratization. The analyses of the size, composition, and content of 273 sets of KSC conducted for this article suggest that academic bureaucratization at Australian universities is well entrenched, fueled by the sedimentation of and redundancy in formal elements, and is further reinforced by vacuously-worded requirements reflecting attitudes of indifference, complacency, or cynicism if considering the prospective informational value of applicants’ response.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Woelert, 2021. "‘Key selection criteria’ as administrative devices: An investigation of academic bureaucratization at Australian universities," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 48(1), pages 27-36.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:48:y:2021:i:1:p:27-36.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scaa056
    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:scippl:v:48:y:2021:i:1:p:27-36.. 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/spp .

    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.