ABSTRACT
Neoliberalism has emerged as a key concept for understanding how contemporary universities around the world are organized and managed. As a rationality of government, this political-economic ideology is grounded in the belief that human activities in general, and educational ones in particular, are best orchestrated when left to the rationality of the market. The authors discusses how extant research within several scientific fields such as accounting, management, sociology and higher education has provided a number of important insights into the unintended and largely detrimental effects that such a market-based rationality of government has tended to bring about in contemporary universities. Notwithstanding the many important insights generated in this literature though, extant research is according to the authors mostly based on smaller sample studies, which raises the question of whether they are generalizable to a larger sample of academics. Related to this, there is a lack of cross-sectional evidence of the extent to which Swedish universities and researchers display the same type of effects as described in the international literature. Also, the authors claim we know fairly little about whether these alleged effects are universal in character or differ between different categories of academics. After all, recent findings suggest that certain groups of researchers, not least junior researchers and/or women, may be even more negatively affected by the increasing reliance on market-based controls. Based on this, and drawing upon evidence from a survey among a large number of researchers at Swedish universities, the aim of this chapter is to more systematically map out the effects of market-based controls on research(er) quality, autonomy and innovation, motivation and stress, and furthermore, explore the extent to which these alleged effects are more prevalent among junior researchers and women, respectively. In brief, the authors present empirical evidence suggesting that today's reliance on neoliberally oriented forms of governance is perceived as negatively affecting research quality, academic freedom and stress. They also show that these negative effects are generally perceived to be more accentuated among junior academics and women as opposed to men and academics holding senior positions.
