Metrics, Subjectivity and Meritocracy in Academic Work

Abstract

The proliferation of measurement instruments that datify performance are expressions of the relevance of the culture of meritocratic evaluation in contemporary organizations. In universities, researchers are subject to constant evaluations of their performance, and they are evaluated in coherence with this datification. In this research we seek to understand how academics interact with performance datification devices in the context of a meritocratic regime. To this end, we conducted sixty interviews with high-performing academics in Chile through the analysis of interpretative repertoires, identifying four categories: 1) The evaluation returns a personal image where performance is explained by magical voluntarism, 2) The evaluation constructs a prestige limit that indicates who deserves recognition, 3) Critical distance is generated with respect to the use of evaluation devices, and 4) A playful relationship is established with the evaluation devices that allows them to be used for personal purposes. The conclusion points to the emergence of an academic subject who resolves the contradictions of these repertoires by betting on merit as the best indicator of his or her place in the academy with respect to his or her peers.