Contested authorities: Accountability reform and the changing nature of relations of authority in academia

In this dissertation, I examine how efforts to introduce new models of accountability into academia have impacted relations of authority inside academic institutions. Based on analyses of 176 interviews with faculty members and administrators at four research intensive universities in the UK, I explore how pressures to demonstrate quantitative accountability have affected terms of governance inside institutions, and propose new directions for work aiming to understand how quantification affects processes of stratification and control inside professional communities. I argue that pressures to measure performance and demonstrate quantitative accountability have shifted discretion away from experts and transformed experts into managers who become responsible for implementing institutional goals and strategy into professional practice; that quantitative measures have become mechanisms of control and stratification which redefine how status and authority is negotiated inside academic departments; and that efforts to introduce quantitative accountability and transparency have encountered particular resistance in disciplinary communities (Chemistry, Philosophy, Psychology, and Business and Management Studies) where quantification presents specific challenges to professional discretion and expert conceptions of quality. In summary, my findings reveal ways in which techniques of standardization and measurement are used to enforce new forms of governance in expert communities, and highlight how the nature of quantitative measures allow for changes in discretionary practices and professional processes of evaluation.