Content uploaded by Joanna Kidman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joanna Kidman on Nov 07, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
ARTICLE
Scholar Outsiders in the Neoliberal University:
Transgressive Academic Labour in the Whitestream
Joanna Kidman
1
•Cherie Chu
1
Received: 11 September 2016 / Accepted: 28 March 2017
New Zealand Association for Research in Education 2017
Abstract Over the past 15 years of tertiary sector reform, the nature of academic
governance in New Zealand universities has radically changed. Globalization,
neoliberal experimentation and managerialist practices have come to characterize a
higher education system where the locus of authority is at an ever-widening distance
from the majority of academics. This paper uses sociological analyses of organi-
zational structure to explore how macro and micro-level interactions within the
managerialist university shape ethnicized, classed and gendered institutional status
systems. Drawing on interviews with 43 Ma¯ori and Pacific senior scholars in nine
universities and Wa¯nanga, we consider the role of scholar ‘outsiders’ from the point
of view of minoritized/ethnicized academics and argue that while academic labour
within the institutional margins can be profoundly alienating these sites are less
readily accessed by institutional elites and therefore open up possibilities for
organized scholarly resistance to the neoliberal status quo.
Keywords Higher education Institutional organization Institutional racism
Ma¯ori academics Neoliberalism Whitestream universities
Introduction
The nature of academic labour in New Zealand has changed dramatically over the
past 15 years of tertiary sector reform. During that time the roles of academics and
the work they do have been reconfigured to fit the discourses of a new ‘public
&Joanna Kidman
joanna.kidman@vuw.ac.nz
1
School of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140,
New Zealand
123
NZ J Educ Stud
DOI 10.1007/s40841-017-0079-y
managerialism’ that places the production of knowledge at the centre of a neoliberal
regimen of measurement, audit and performativity (Amsler and Shore 2015; Olssen
and Peters 2005). Shore (2010) contends that this form of governance constitutes a
paradigm shift from the notion of universities as a public good towards a view of
higher education as an economic investment for an educated citizenry. Inside these
managerialist regimes, universities and the groups within them battle for status,
resources and influence. At the same time, debates have intensified about the aims,
purpose and values of university education and the means by which these will be
carried out (Larner and Heron 2005).
As universities become progressively more oriented towards external demands
from policy makers, corporate sponsors, industry partners and funding agencies,
everyday academic decision-making has largely shifted from small faculty-based
units with a relative degree of intellectual and disciplinary autonomy towards more
corporate and distanced forms of governance. The effect of these widening
academic spaces can be described spatially as a form of ‘‘distance decay’’ (Eldridge
and Jones 1991) where the level of day-to-day interaction between institutional
elites and less powerful or influential academics declines and deteriorates as the
physical and cultural distances between them increase.
In this paper we examine the impact of organizational distance on academic
labour and institutional status from the point of view of minoritized/ethnicized
academics in the managerialist academy. We present findings from a two-year
ethnographic study with 43 Ma¯ori and Pacific senior academics in nine universities
and Wa¯nanga across New Zealand. These findings informed two discrete case
studies; one explored Ma¯ori academic socialization and the other examined Pacific
academic socialization. In this paper we focus primarily on findings from the Ma¯ori
case study with supplementary evidence from the Pacific cohort.
Drawing on sociological theories of work, careers and organizational structure
we examine how macro and micro-level interactions within the neoliberal university
create institutional status systems framed by ethnicized notions of academic insiders
and outsiders; a practice known as ‘‘whitestreaming’’ which refers to the structures
of academia that protect and maintain Anglo-European/Pa¯keha¯ privilege (Ritchie
2014). In line with previous studies in this area we contend that these academic
status systems are also highly classed and gendered (Ahmed 2012; Chatterjee and
Maira 2014) but argue that despite the level of isolation experienced by these
scholar outsiders their worksites are less readily accessed and monitored by
institutional elites and as such possibilities exist for creative scholarly resistance to
the managerialist status quo. As a note on terminology, the phrase ‘institutional
elites’ refers here to broad networks of actors within organizations united by shared
interests, priorities and social capital (Zald and Loundsbury 2010) who are integral
to the ‘‘regulative architecture’’ (Morris et al. 2016, p. 2280) of institutions. They
may be involved with the ‘hard’ power mechanisms of an organization (for
example, the enforcement of institutional rules and regulations) or the exercise of
‘soft’ power (for example, shaping the prevailing culture and norms of an
organization) or both.
NZ J Educ Stud
123
The ‘Hidden Transcripts’ of Academic Institutions
The sociologist, Erving Goffman, famously wrote ‘‘[o]ur status is backed by the
solid buildings of the world, while our sense of personal identity often resides in the
cracks.’’ (Goffman 1961, p. 320). He was referring to institutional identities forged
in the interstices and small corners of complex organizations such as asylums,
prisons, schools and universities. These ‘cracks’ form in parts of an institution that
are generally below the radar for managers and administrators who have little input
into the localized cultures of these environments and rarely appear in them in
person. As such, they are interstitial spaces that provide inmates with opportunities
to resist the ‘‘pull’’ of institutional life (Goffman 1961).
The public ‘front rooms’ of organizations like universities, however, are
characterized by distinctive governance structures, values and practices that
organize and link the everyday interactions and identities of those within them.
The closer an individual is to the institutional core or upper echelons of power, the
greater the degree of symbolic or cultural authority they are generally accorded and
it is in these proximities that displays of institutional unity are rewarded (Abrutyn
2016; Lawler et al. 2016). In line with this, and common in managerialist
environments, a cadre of skilled, calculative and strategic operators, known in the
organizational literature as ‘institutional entrepreneurs’ (Abrutyn and Van Ness
2015), gathers closely around the centre of authority. As Abrutyn (2016) notes,
‘‘[e]ntrepreneurs who carve out cores gain privilege and power and, like any interest
group, work hard to protect and, in many cases, expand their influence over the
institutional environment and across institutional boundaries.’’ (p. 222). Meso-level
institutional entrepreneurs are often highly adept at garnering material and symbolic
resources in order to advance their status and acquire privilege within the institution
(Thornton et al. 2012; Levy and Scully 2007).
In universities, these groups tend to be comprised of academics who have come
to terms with the performative and managerialist ethos of higher education and are
willing to uphold neoliberal practices and strategies on behalf of their university’s
senior leadership (Cribb et al. 2016; Leathwood and Read 2013). In New Zealand
universities and elsewhere, these institutional in-groups are dominated by Anglo-
European academics who are protective of their status and privilege (Pilkington
2013; National Tertiary Education Union 2011).
Conversely, groups positioned at the periphery of large organizations often have
less robust affinities with the official narratives and strategic aims of an
organization. The more extensive the physical, cultural and symbolic reach of an
institution, the greater the distance between the core and those at the outer limits.
Accordingly, it is often more difficult for institutional elites to mobilize support for
key initiatives from those at a symbolic, cultural or physical distance from the upper
levels of university administration (Lawler et al. 2016). Indeed, institutions tend to
be weakest at the margins and this is one of the reasons that ‘‘kings and empires
collapse’’ (Abrutyn 2016, p. 223). It is within these distal groups that local cultures
emerge offering alternative forms of institutional identity and commitment
(Anderson 2008; Collins 1986; Henderson et al. 2010; Moss and Snow 2016).
NZ J Educ Stud
123
Allegiances forged in the academic margins serve multiple purposes for scholar
outsiders. Anderson (2008) argues that interactions within and between these groups
act as ‘‘hidden transcripts’’ (p. 255) of institutional engagement that have the
potential to expand notions of resistance to the incursion of neoliberal manageri-
alism into everyday academic life and work. As such these hidden transcripts, which
often diverge considerably from official organizational narratives, can mount a
significant challenge to the institutional status quo.
Methodology
As part of a two-year study of Ma¯ ori and Pacific academic socialization, in-depth,
semi-structured one-to-one ethnographic interviews and field observations (Skinner
2012) were conducted with 43 Ma¯ori (N =29) and Pacific (N =14) senior
academics in nine PhD-awarding institutions of higher education in New Zealand.
During the pilot stage of the project, participants in two universities in the Pacific
region were also interviewed in order to provide a level of contrast and comparison
with the experiences of indigenous and diasporic senior academics in New Zealand
universities. Two discrete case studies were developed, one comprised of narratives
from Ma¯ori academics and the other focused on Pacific academics. In this paper we
look primarily at the findings from the case study of Ma¯ori scholars.
The participants were Associate Professors, Professors and experienced Senior
Lecturers at the upper levels of the salary scale. We also included people with other
job titles that reflected their status as established senior researchers and scholars.
The participants were affiliated with a wide range of disciplines in the humanities,
sciences, social sciences, and professional and applied fields. Very few Ma¯ori senior
faculty are employed outside of Ma¯ ori Studies departments, however, and this
makes them relatively easy to identify. For this reason we have not named
participants’ departments, faculties and universities.
Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed except in a small number of
cases where participants preferred not to be taped. In these instances we took
extensive field notes which we showed to interviewees at the conclusion of the
interview. Most interviews were conducted in person although on a few occasions
follow-up discussions were conducted by telephone or email. Data were also
collected from observations and field journals (Kidman et al. 2015).
Academic Labour in the Whitestream University
The way that Ma¯ori senior scholars articulate their sense of belonging or distance
from academic decision-making in their departments, faculties and institutions
sheds light on how academic labour is organized in different parts of the university.
This, in turn, provides insight into how institutional knowledge circulates through a
range of networks within and across universities. When academics are deeply
embedded in these networks and flows they are more likely to establish identities
that reflect and uphold the values and beliefs of the institution (Abrutyn 2016). On
NZ J Educ Stud
123
the other hand, when they do not have a strong sense of affinity or when the
practices and policies of whitestream institutions limit or exclude their participation
in decision-making protocols are they are more likely to turn towards other scholar
outsiders at the margins for validation and solidarity (Anderson 2008). In this
section, we draw on sociological analyses of work and organizational structure to
frame our analysis. In particular, we refer to the work of Abrutyn (2016) who argues
that institutions operate in ‘four dimensional space’, namely, temporal, social,
physical and symbolic. We have used these four institutional dimensions to scaffold
our findings below.
Academic Time: The Temporal Dimension of Whitestream Universities
Time plays a key role in the organization of academic institutions. It shapes faculty
decisions, academic workloads and institutional and departmental goals, strategies
and responsibilities. Walker (2009) argues that neoliberal academic time is
increasingly commercialized and linked to market demands, globalization and
global capitalism. As such, time has become a contested site within the managerial
university and many scholars assert their resistance to compressed temporal regimes
through collective action, such as the emerging ‘slow scholarship’ movement
(Mountz et al. 2015) and other forms of tacit non-compliance. The Ma¯ori academics
who were part of this study were acutely aware of these pressures.
Yeah, the neoliberal agenda. We’re going to get squashed. Forget about
academic freedom. Research and teaching as an activity that’s government-
funded will take on the American model of nine months teaching; three
months research. At the end of the day we’ll just work bloody hard twelve
months of the year. I think that the luxury that was enjoyed by me and my
colleagues up to this point in time will be something that sits in the past. Then
you’ll get into a ‘‘publish or perish’’ mentality far more than what we’ve
experienced today. (Ma¯ ori academic).
These concerns have been raised by others in New Zealand and elsewhere (see for
example, Vostal 2016; Clarke 2015; Raaper and Olssen 2016; Stahl 2015) but as is
discussed below Ma¯ori scholars also contend with a further set of temporal realities
centred on significant disparities in their academic career trajectories.
Ma
¯ori Academic Careers and Compressed Temporal Regimes
Ma¯ori faculty make up a very small proportion of the nation’s academic workforce
(6%) and the proportion of Pacific academic staff is even smaller (2%) (Sutherland
et al. 2013). Most of these scholars are clustered in the early to mid-career stages
with very few operating at senior and late career levels (Nana et al. 2010). Part of
the reason for this is that Ma¯ori scholars generally begin their academic careers later
than Pa¯keha¯ academics. The average age for a Ma¯ori doctoral student in New
Zealand is 49 years (Nana et al. 2010) and only 5.8% of all postgraduate graduates
are Ma¯ori so only a very small number of these graduates enter academic careers
NZ J Educ Stud
123
(Theodore et al. 2015). Consequently, Ma¯ ori academic careers have a different
trajectory from most Pa¯keha¯ careers (Middleton and McKinley 2010).
Since many begin their careers closer to the age of retirement, Ma¯ori academics
tend to be engaged in early career activities at a later age than most Pa¯keha¯. The
shorter duration of Ma¯ori academic careers is problematic because scholarly
reputations generally take many years to build. Accordingly, this ‘‘swinging door’’
situation means that it is difficult to establish a stable, sustainable Ma¯ori research
workforce in the higher education domain (Kidman et al. 2015). There is also a
growing body of evidence that suggests that under the current Performance-Based
Research Fund (PBRF) audit regime universities are increasingly reluctant to recruit
early career academics who are significantly older (Kidman et al. 2015). The
unwillingness of many academic managers and Deans to address these temporal
realities reinforces hiring practices that favour the employment of younger Pa¯ keha¯
academics (Potter and Cooper 2016). In this regard, the recruitment and retention of
Ma¯ori scholars in a highly competitive academic job market contributes directly to
the whitestreaming of the academy. Combined with other factors, such as the ways
that institutional status is acquired and enacted, as is discussed below, these
practices reinforce and maintain existing disparities within the academy.
Academic In-Groups and Out-Groups: The Social Dimension
of Universities
The social territories of universities tend to be partisan, fractionalized and clannish
(Campbell 2009; Becher and Trowler 2001). But the academy also looks outwards
towards wider social norms and values relating to ethnicity, gender and social class
which are incorporated into inter-group and intra-group relations.
…the university doesn’t stand apart from the society it’s in. It’s an institution
that’s embedded in the wider social institutions that surround it. So it’s a nice
idea to hope that the university is going to be […] different or a bit less racist
than anywhere else but in the end the university is a creature of the society that
made it. (Ma¯ori academic).
Ethnicized status distinctions in the social sphere of universities are often enacted in
subtle ways. For example, a Ma¯ ori participant based in a small department
commented on the active social networks of her Pa¯keha¯ colleagues, as follows:
…they are nice enough people and it’s not like they’re deliberately leaving me
out when they go to the pub after work or if they’re taking visiting scholars out
for lunch. Sometimes on Monday mornings I hear them talking about how
they’ve been to dinner parties at each other’s houses. I’ve never been invited
to those little shin-digs. Probably, they think I wouldn’t want to come. Well,
it’s true actually, I probably wouldn’t really but it would be nice to be invited
sometimes even if just to find out what’s going on in [the Department]. But I
don’t lose sleep over it and they’re not terrible, evil people. (Ma¯ori academic).
NZ J Educ Stud
123
The acquisition of institutional status in universities rests on a familiarity with the
unspoken rules and expectations of academia and an understanding of the ways that
in-group interactions are structured; as Gerholm (1990) notes, ‘‘[c]ompetence in the
cultural life of the discipline and the department functions as an informal sorting
device, often without the sorters and the sorted being aware of the fact’’ (p. 263).
Academics who do not have access to this tacit knowledge are often positioned as
outsiders and this was an experience that was shared by most of the Ma¯ori and
Pacific participants.
Academic community…to me, that doesn’t include me really. It’s that
powerful group of academics that sits over there. I’ve never really had a sense
of belonging to that kind of academic group. […] I never saw myself as part of
that kind of community. Even at [name of university removed] we were
academics, but as a Ma¯ori team we saw ourselves as being more part of the
community. Part of the Ma¯ ori community. (Ma¯ori academic).
The circulation of tacit knowledge and information through university networks and
cliques is shaped by subtle messages about ethnicity, gender and social class and
this has a corresponding influence on the way that many academics at the
institutional periphery carry out their work. Accordingly, much of the academic
labour of Ma¯ori scholars is highly visible within cultural and tribal networks outside
the university but often entirely invisible within their departments, faculties and
disciplines. Distinctions in social status are further reinforced by the spatial
organization of universities, as discussed below.
Academic ‘Space’: The Physical Dimension of Whitestream Universities
Physical places, their scale, size and differentiation of space, are a critical factor in
the social organization of institutions. In large or complex organizations, spatial
realities contribute to particular patterns of behaviour especially in the demarcation
of institutional boundaries and statuses. For example, the nature of the encounters
that commonly take place in a campus bar differ from interactions in a lecture
theatre, a university Library, a university Marae or the office of the Vice-
Chancellor.
Smith (1997) argues, the ‘‘educational battleground for Ma¯ori is spatial. It is
about theoretical spaces, pedagogical spaces, structural spaces’’ (p. 203). Our focus
here is on the organization of physical spaces and way they intersect with structural
spaces. This aspect of university life was experienced variously by the participants.
Academic staff in Ma¯ ori/Indigenous Studies and Pacific Studies departments and in
academic units where there were clusters of Ma¯ori or Pacific staff, for example, had
access to regular daily contact with other Ma¯ori or Pacific colleagues. These
participants reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction with their work-
places. In departments with few Ma¯ori or Pacific academic staff, having a Ma¯ori or
Pacific colleague nearby had a positive effect on participants’ sense of institutional
belonging. In general, and with only two exceptions, Ma¯ori faculty were more likely
to experience intellectual, social and professional isolation in departments where
NZ J Educ Stud
123
there were few or no other Ma¯ ori staff. In these departments and faculties, the level
of regular, positive engagement that departmental heads and Deans have with Ma¯ori
academic and professional staff became very important and had a considerable
impact on their professional well-being (Kidman et al. 2015). These findings
provide an interesting comparison with the level of workplace well-being reported
by academic staff in Wa¯nanga who are more likely to report that their level of
satisfaction had improved over time since starting work in the sector than those in
universities or polytechnics.’’ (Bentley et al. 2014, p. 29).
The highest levels of workplace satisfaction, however, were reported by Ma¯ori
academics who had experienced and institutionally astute Ma¯ori academic managers
at the helm. One of the participants in this study, a Ma¯ori senior scholar who leads a
high-functioning academic unit, spoke of making a conscious decision to run the
department in ways that complement the cultural and family responsibilities and
priorities of staff. The physical environment was organized so that children and
older family and tribal members were welcome and comfortable spaces were set
aside for them.
It’s a place where people aren’t just stuck in their office. We move around and
talk to each other in that space. Physically, wairua is in that space. I’m not
interested in whether people are there nine to five. It’s about the work that
people are doing, the projects that they’ve got, making sure that whatever
work they’ve got, it’s reasonable in terms of time, energy, support,
expectation, et cetera et cetera.’’ (Head of academic unit/Ma¯ori academic).
In these environments, Ma¯ ori academics are more likely to consider themselves part
of an academic community that is attenuated to their intellectual, cultural and
personal priorities. At the same time, the willingness of academic managers to
welcome Ma¯ori community members into the academic space reduces the sense of
distance between members of academic departments and university administrators.
In this respect, spatial organization has a significant impact on the degree of affinity
people have with institutional aims and goals.
The Treaty of Waitangi: The Symbolic Dimension of Universities
Alongside the spatial organization of universities, the cultural and symbolic aspects
of academic institutions are evident in their distinctive rituals (e.g., graduation
ceremonies), practices (e.g., the structuring of faculty meetings, large group
lectures) and ‘official’ values and beliefs (e.g., institutional mission statements and
strategic plans). In New Zealand government discourse, a great deal of attention is
given to the relationship of government with Ma¯ori peoples and the Treaty of
Waitangi is a central symbol that has come to represent values of cultural fairness,
inclusion and equality (Crocket 2009). Accordingly, New Zealand universities
reference the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in their mission statements and
equity and diversity policies, yet in most institutions, there has been little or no
corresponding structural change to facilitate equitable relationships with Ma¯ori. As
NZ J Educ Stud
123
a result, the participants expressed considerable cynicism about the translation of
these symbolic relationships into institutional practice.
So there’s an institutional narrative about Ma¯ ori that talks about the Treaty and
partnership. This university has a statute about the Treaty and there’s a lot of
‘‘soft’’ talk about partnership. I think that some managers think that
partnership just means being nice to Ma¯ori people and smiling at us when
we go past them in the corridor. I don’t think they have a sense that it means
changing anything structural about the institution itself. I don’t think they see
it in terms of changing institutional priorities, changing behaviours, changing
their employment practices. It’s kind of like if they smile at one Ma¯ori a day,
they’ve ticked the diversity box for the institution. (Ma¯ori academic).
Institutional policies that are not accompanied by structural change are perceived as
being highly tokenistic (Pilkington 2013). Frustrations ensue amongst minoritized/
ethnicized groups when universities develop elaborate narratives about diversity,
equity and cultural responsiveness without creating the conditions for these values
to be enacted. Several participants noted that they are frequently called upon to
serve cultural roles at university po¯ whiri or turn up when a Ma¯ ori voice is needed by
university managers. While this bolsters the institution’s public identity as a fair and
equitable employer, the participants commented that, in the main, Ma¯ ori staff
continue to be excluded from macro and meso-level decision-making and this
reinforces the marginalized and ethnicized positioning of many Ma¯ori scholars
within the university.
Opportunities and Transgressions at the Academic Margins
Recent work on the micro-politics of resistance within institutions throws light on
how marginalized institutional ‘actors’ exercise agency in their daily working lives.
Moss and Snow (2016) argue that in these contexts collective action may take place
directly, for example, through calls for structural change in institutional relation-
ships with subordinated/subaltern groups; through challenges to the normative
values and practices of institutional elites; or by appropriating and reconfiguring
elements of an organization to better suit the needs of institutional out-groups within
those structures (Moss and Snow 2016). At the same time, more covert micro-
resistances may also be mounted through various kinds of tacit non-compliance
(Snow 2004). Alternative forms of academic resistance frequently involve the
deployment of disciplinary knowledge and expertise to challenge the status quo both
within the institution and beyond. In her work on scholar-activism, Mendez (2008)
describes situations where ‘‘the researcher uses her position within the academy to
contribute to social justice struggles, while at the same time working to place at the
centre alternative voices and ways of knowing’’ (Mendez 2008, p. 138). This
approach was taken by many of the participants in this study.
The positioning of minoritized/ethnicized groups of scholars at the periphery of
the social organization of universities was a cause of considerable frustration and
resentment for the majority of participants who spoke at length about the impact of
NZ J Educ Stud
123
institutional racism on their own careers and those of their colleagues. However,
they were also well aware of the creative possibilities of operating in the academic
margins. As Smith (2015) suggests,
There are also researchers, scholars, and academics who actively choose the
margins, who choose to study people marginalized by society, who themselves
have come from the margins, or who see their intellectual purpose as being
scholars who will work for, with, and alongside communities who occupy the
margins of society. If one is interested in society, then it is often in the margins
that aspects of a society are revealed as microcosms of the larger picture as
examples of a society’s underbelly.’’ (Smith 2015, p. 358).
In this study, the participants were deeply committed to mobilizing their academic
expertise to create genuine and lasting change in Ma¯ori and Pacific communities. To
that end, they established sophisticated strategies for meeting the formal require-
ments of academic life in managerial universities, such as publishing their research,
carrying out teaching responsibilities, sitting on university committees, and
participating in PBRF, while maintaining strong primary commitments to
marginalized communities and groups outside the university with whom they had
shared affinities, connections and concerns.
So I could publish in a journal that a handful of white scholars will read and
forget about by the end of the day or I could go to [name of tribal area
removed] and talk to the wha¯nau there who are at their absolute wit’s end and
look at ways of sorting out the problems they’re dealing with. Or, I could
choose between getting into a polite debate with some earnest, tweedy,
corduroy-ed don over a glass of sherry and a vol-au-vent or I could duke it out
with the bloody stroppy kuias in the back blocks of [name of region removed]
and maybe…possibly…hopefully make some sort of constructive change to
the lives of real people…Who am I going to choose? Well, what do you
reckon? Seriously? I hate sherry! (Ma¯ ori academic).
Institutional identities that reside in the ‘‘cracks’’ and clefts of academic life pose
particular challenges for managers and administrative elites who work hard to create
unified and unifying organizational narratives. Operating within the margins can
also be a profoundly alienating experience for academics who, as a result
institutional racism and/or sexism, are positioned at a distance from the institutional
core but once in these spaces, academics can be remarkably creative in developing
transgressive identities that serve them and their communities well. As Ewick and
Silbey (1993) note, ‘‘[r]esistance, to the extent that it constitutes forms of
consciousness, ways of operating and making do, may prefigure more formidable
and strategic challenges to power. Through everyday practical engagements with
power, individuals identify the cracks and vulnerabilities of institutions’’ (p. 749).
Universities have become progressively more complex in neoliberal times and as
such the distance decay effect between institutional elites and scholars at the
margins is more readily observable. At the same time, relationships between distal
groups of academics and the organizational core are increasingly mediated by meso-
level ‘entrepreneurs’ willing to endorse and uphold whitestream neoliberal practices
NZ J Educ Stud
123
and institutional policies on behalf of senior leadership. Many Ma¯ ori scholars, as
well as other marginalized groups, have responded to these pressures by asserting
scholarly identities and affiliations that are not easily accessed, managed and
monitored by institutional elites and we contend that it is here that opportunities and
possibilities for creating genuine social change as well as mounting resistance to the
neoliberal ‘creep’ of managerialism into academic life is frequently asserted.
Acknowledgement This paper is based on a study funded by a grant from Nga¯ Pae o te Ma¯ramatanga,
University of Auckland, New Zealand.
References
Abrutyn, S. (2016). Institutional spheres: The macro-structure and culture of social life. In S. Abrutyn
(Ed.), Handbook of contemporary sociological theory (pp. 207–227). Switzerland: Springer.
Abrutyn, S., & Van Ness, J. (2015). The role of agency in sociocultural evolution: Institutional
entrepreneurship as a force of structural and cultural change. Thesis Eleven. doi:10.1177/
0725513615575935.
Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Amsler, M., & Shore, C. (2015). Responsibilisation and leadership in the neoliberal university: A New
Zealand perspective. Discourse. doi:10.1080/01596306.2015.1104857.
Anderson, G. (2008). Mapping academic resistance in the managerial university. Organization, 15(2),
251–270.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture
of disciplines (2nd ed.). Bury St Edmunds: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open
University Press.
Bentley, T., McLeod, L. & Teo, S. (2014). The state of the tertiary education sector in New Zealand,
2013. Auckland, New Zealand: New Zealand Work Research Institute. Auckland University of
Technology. Downloaded from: http://teu.ac.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/TEU-Final-Report.
pdf.
Campbell, D. (2009). Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omniscience. In M. Sherif
& C. W. Sherif (Eds.), Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences (pp. 328–348). London:
Aldine Transaction.
Chatterjee, P., & Maira, S. (2014). The imperial university: Race, war, and the nation-state. In P.
Chatterjee & S. Maira (Eds.), The imperial university: Academic repression and scholarly dissent
(pp. 1–50). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Clarke, J. (2015). So many strategies so little time…Making universities modern. In S. B. Hyatt, B.
W. Shear, & S. Wright (Eds.), Learning under neoliberalism: Ethnographies of governance in
higher education (pp. 129–151). New York: Berghahn Books.
Collins, P. H. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist
thought. Social Problems, 33(6), S14–S32.
Cribb, A., Gewirtz, S., & Horvath, A. (2016). Compliance and contestation in the neoliberal university:
Reflecting on the identities of UK social scientists. In R. Normand & J. L. Derouet (Eds.), A
European politics of education: Perspectives from sociology, policy studies and politics (pp.
155–178). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Crocket, A. (2009). Interpreting ‘‘partnership’’ as a core value: Some implications of the Treaty of
Waitangi for the NZAC code of ethics. New Zealand Journal of Counselling, 29(2), 61–72.
Eldridge, J. D., & Jones, J. P., III. (1991). Warped space: A geography of distance decay. Professional
Geographer, 43(4), 500–511.
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. S. (1993). Conformity, contestation and resistance: An account of legal
consciousness. New England Law Review, 26(3), 731–749.
Gerholm, T. (1990). On tacit knowledge in academia. European Journal of Education, 25(3), 263–271.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New
York: Doubleday Anchor.
NZ J Educ Stud
123
Henderson, T. L., Hunter, A. G., & Hildreth, G. J. (2010). Outsiders within the academy: Strategies for
resistance and mentoring African American women. Michigan Family Review, 14(1), 28–41.
Kidman, J., Chu, C., Fernandez, S. & Abella, I. (2015). Ma
¯ori scholars and the university. Nga¯Paeote
Ma¯ramatanga. Ma¯ oriCentre of Research Excellence, Auckland, New Zealand: University of Auckland.
Downloaded from: http://www.maramatanga.co.nz/sites/default/files/project-reports/Kidman%20Chu%
20Fernandez%20Abella-%20Maori%20Scholars%20Final%20report%202015.pdf.
Larner, W., & Heron, Le. (2005). Neo-liberalizating spaces and subjectivities: Reinventing New Zealand
universities. Organisation, 12(6), 843–862.
Lawler, E. J., Thye, S. R., & Yoon, J. (2016). The problem of social order in nested group structures. In S.
Abrutyn (Ed.), Handbook of contemporary sociological theory (pp. 149–166). Switzerland:
Springer.
Leathwood, C., & Read, B. (2013). Research policy and academic performativity: Compliance,
contestation and complicity. Studies in Higher Education, 38(8), 1162–1174.
Levy, D., & Scully, M. (2007). The institutional entrepreneur as modern prince: The strategic face of
power in contested fields. Organization Studies, 28, 971–991.
Mendez, J. B. (2008). Globalizing scholar activism: Opportunities and dilemmas through a feminist lens.
In C. R. Hale (Ed.), Engaging contradictions: Theory, politics and methods of activist scholarship
(pp. 136–165). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Middleton, S., & McKinley, E. (2010). The gown and the korowai: Ma¯ori doctoral students and the spatial
organisation of academic knowledge. Higher Education Research and Development, 29(3),
229–243.
Morris, J., Farrell, C., & Reed, M. (2016). The indeterminacy of ‘temporariness’: Control and power in
neo-bureaucratic organizations and work in UK television. Human Relations, 69(12), 2274–2297.
Moss, D. M., & Snow, D. A. (2016). Theorizing social movements. In S. Abrutyn (Ed.), Handbook of
contemporary sociological theory (pp. 547–569). Switzerland: Springer.
Mountz, A., Bonds, A., Mansfield, B., Lloyd, J., Hyndman, J., Walton-Roberts, M., et al. (2015). For slow
scholarship: A feminist politics of resistance through collective action in the neoliberal university.
ACME, 14(4), 12535–12539.
Nana, G., Stokes, F., & Lynn, A. (2010). Academic workforce planning: Towards 2020. Wellington:
Report to Universities New Zealand Human Resources Committee Steering Group.
National Tertiary Education Union (Australia). (2011). I’m not a racist but…: Report on cultural respect,
racial discrimination, lateral violence & related policy at Australia’s universities. Report to the
National Indigenous Unit of the National Tertiary Education Union. Melbourne.
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and knowledge economy: From the free
market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345.
Pilkington, A. (2013). The interacting dynamics of institutional racism in higher education. Race,
Ethnicity and Education, 16(2), 225–245.
Potter, H. & Cooper, L. (2016). Project whitestreaming: A report on the generalising of Ma
¯ori specialist
staff positions in the tertiary education sector. Wellington, New Zealand: Tertiary Education Union,
Te Hautu
¯Kahurangi o Aotearoa. Downloaded from: http://teu.ac.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/
20160314-Project-Whitestreaming-Report-FINAL.pdf.
Raaper, R., & Olssen, M. (2016). Mark Olssen on neoliberalisation of higher education and academic
lives: An interview. Policy Futures in Education. doi:10.1177/1478210315610992.
Ritchie, J. (2014). Post-Te Wha¯riki early childhood care education policy and practice in ‘‘whitestream’’
early childhood care and education in Aotearoa. In J. R. Ritchie & M. Skerrett (Eds.), Early
childhood education in Aotearoa (pp. 92–112). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shore, C. (2010). Beyond the multiversity: Neoliberalism and the rise of the schizophrenic university.
Social Anthropology,18(1), 15–29.
Skinner, J. (2012). The interview: An ethnographic approach. London: Berg.
Smith, L. (1997). Decolonising intellectual identity: Maori/woman/academic. In M. Peters (Ed.), Cultural
politics and the university (pp. 192–210). Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.
Smith, L. T. (2015). Choosing the margins: The role of research in indigenous struggles for social justice.
In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry—Past, present, and future: A critical
reader (pp. 349–371). CA: Left Coast Press Inc.
Snow, D. A. (2004). Social movements as challenges to authority: Resistance to an emerging conceptual
hegemony. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change, 25, 3–25.
Stahl, G. (2015). Performance anxiety: Audit culture and the neoliberal New Zealand university. Culture
Unbound, 7, 618–626.
NZ J Educ Stud
123
Sutherland, K., Wilson, M. & Williams, P. (2013). Success in academia? The experiences of early career
academics in New Zealand universities. Report to Ako Aotearoa National Centre for Tertiary
Teaching Excellence. Wellington.
Theodore, R., Tustin, K., Kiro, C., Gollop, M., Taumoepeau, M., Taylor, N., et al. (2015). Ma¯ori
university graduates: Indigenous participation in higher education. Higher Education Research and
Development. doi:10.1080/07294360.2015.1107883.
Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Loundsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new
approach to culture, structure and process. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vostal, F. (2016). The pulse of modern academia. In F. Vostal (Ed.), Accelerating academia: The
changing structure of academic time (pp. 1–10). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Walker, J. (2009). Time as the fourth dimension in the globalization of higher education. The Journal of
Higher Education, 80(5), 483–509.
Zald, M. N., & Loundsbury, M. (2010). The wizards of Oz: Towards an institutional approach to elites,
expertise and command posts. Organization Studies, 31(7), 963–996.
NZ J Educ Stud
123
