The last 30 years have been marked by a profound transformation of the sciences, liberal arts, public universities, and research institutions. Although the details have varied considerably from nation to nation, the general directions of change are remarkably similar. In particular, there has been an increase in emphasis on market-like competition—among institutions, scientists, scholars, and students. Concomitant with increased competition, there has also been an increased emphasis on audits. Numerous questions have been posed about their performance including: Have university rankings improved? Have graduation rates increased? Have students moved quickly through the program? Have faculty published more articles in top journals? Moreover, based on the audit, what should be done? Should those who have done well be rewarded? Should those who have done poorly be reorganized or subject to additional audits?
Considerable effort has been expended in attempts to answer these and related questions. Although there has been substantial resistance to the changes, much of it has come to naught. Instead, there has been a marked shift in faculty behavior, valuing publications above education and public engagement. Confident in their belief in a market world, politicians and government officials have been able to transform institutions, persons, and what counts as knowledge in the process.
In this volume, I attempt to trace the links between the performances of a particular version of economic science known as “neoliberalism” and the restructuring of universities and research institutes. First, I note the multiple crises that face virtually everyone on earth—crises that higher education and research must address. Then I show how economic science has been performed so as to alter the ways in which public research, education, and engagement are undertaken and measured. I contrast that with my own position in this complex and ongoing debate. I follow that by explaining in detail the transformations that have occurred in administration, education, research, and public engagement, respectively. I pay particular attention to the paths not taken and conclude by asking: For whom and for what do we want knowledge? What kind of future society do we desire? How might we get there? Let me begin by describing some of the crises.