know, I think, Business a Business problem the word Business represents a “You – – whole set of issues and some of those issues relate to different A disciplines… business is a team just as a soccer does not consist of eleven goalkeepers. team … Goalkeeping is a very specific skill. And you know, a business is much more […] complex than a football team. And if Business schools start to really loose the so… roles of disciplinary foundations ... I think that those Business School will actually loose Dean of Research, interview). standing” (ST, School’s Muttering and discontent there may be, as with any change; however, no voice of organised dissent has emerged in any of the and brought forward translating representational devices by the School. No one, in other words, has put forward an alternative vision for the School or organised action around it: the critical voices, amongst which the present authors must be included, are aligned to the mainstream. The reasons are numerous. First, change is de facto seen as unavoidable, canonically, with the current process just one of many changes that have to be endured: the new dean, the new building; the new branding; the new curriculum were a perfect recipe for change. Second, the organizational changes being promoted are not revolutionary but do introduce a new rhetoric with which interests can be aligned in some cases while in other cases the norms of disciplinary formation will serve to limit the changes required (Dawson, 2003). Third, those academics employed in stable academic positions tend to delegate political affairs to the level, knowing that both material and status rewards Dean’s go to those who research and publish successfully while younger academics are usually more concerned with their career prospects than the form of the institution, one which they take for granted. Fourth, since what the School is doing is derived from models and is “successful” depicted as making the School become a no one seems willing to “world leading” institute, question a process to which a great deal of legitimacy attaches. Finally, there is a healthy cynicism that the whole process is more a ritual of representations than anything that will practice in a deep way; there are no specific control modes to ensure that personnel research
“You know, I think, Business – a Business problem – the word Business represents a whole set of issues and some of those issues relate to different disciplines… A business is a team just as a soccer team … does not consist of eleven goalkeepers. Goalkeeping is a very specific skill. […] And you know, a business is much more complex than a football team. And so… if Business schools start to really loose the roles of disciplinary foundations ... I think that those Business School will actually loose standing” (ST, School’s Dean of Research, interview). Muttering and discontent there may be, as with any change; however, no organised voice of dissent has emerged in any of the translating and representational devices brought forward by the School. No one, in other words, has put forward an alternative vision for the School or organised action around it: the critical voices, amongst which the present authors must be included, are de facto aligned to the mainstream. The reasons are numerous. First, change is seen as unavoidable, canonically, with the current process just one of many changes that have to be endured: the new dean, the new building; the new branding; the new curriculum were a perfect recipe for change. Second, the organizational changes being promoted are not revolutionary but do introduce a new rhetoric with which interests can be aligned in some cases while in other cases the norms of disciplinary formation will serve to limit the changes required (Dawson, 2003). Third, those academics employed in stable academic positions tend to delegate political affairs to the Dean’s level, knowing that both material and status rewards go to those who research and publish successfully while younger academics are usually more concerned with their career prospects than the form of the institution, one which they take for granted. Fourth, since what the School is doing is derived from “successful” models and is depicted as making the School become a “world leading” institute, no one seems willing to question a process to which a great deal of legitimacy attaches. Finally, there is a healthy cynicism that the whole process is more a ritual of representations than anything that will practice in a deep way; there are no specific control modes to ensure that personnel research