Organization @21 The journal of disconcerting organization theory and action

Abstract

Organization after 20 will not be for all academics concerned with organizations; only for those who are both interested in doing critical organizational work and who believe in the emancipatory potential of that work for themselves and for others. Academics who not only talk about defying ‘playing the game’ but who do so in text and action; at a minimum actions to refuse ‘playing the game’ and, concurrently writing/calling ‘the game’ by its proper name: concerted actions that squash critique. Organization@21’s key role, thus, would be calling others to actions against ‘the game’, conceiving interventions and facilitating them.

What sort of future for Organization?

We probably are writing as mothers, seeing their children growing up and moving away, proud to see them flourishing and on their own. What a relief! And the empty nest, once a sad prospect, is now more a place to expand and enjoy. How exhilarating! Still, observing our ‘baby’ from the distance we now have, we cannot let go of a nagging worry. What future is there for Organization after 20?

When the baby was born, we had high hopes. The world seemed full of critical potential. Post Thatcher-Reagan era; the end of the first ‘Gulf War’; the election of Bill Clinton … in all likelihood the demise of the ‘Washington consensus’ (we thought naively … ). Meanwhile, postmodernism and feminism had entered even the Academy of Management in the USA! After that, everything was possible! No surprise then that Sage—still a medium size, privately owned publisher with a distinctive interest in new thinking and in not-so-mainstream organization, management and communication scholarship—conceived this ‘baby’ and provided for its healthy life. The editorial ‘manifesto’ in the 1994 inaugural issue articulated the potential we imagined for the Journal: to make a difference in the future of organization; a real intervention, as Sue Jones—the Sage editor who dreamed of this project in the first place—articulated in her invented and named section, Connexions, in that same issue (Jones, 1994).

Organization@10

In 2003 we celebrated the 10th anniversary and, as editors, reflected on the original 1994 ‘manifesto’. A few words from these reflections are worth remembering today, for within the sober but hopeful stance much was left unsaid. Fatefully we stated almost at the start: ‘If number of issues per year count as success we can also think ourselves successful as we are inaugurating a bimonthly format in Volume 11 (2004)’ (The Editorial Team at Amherst, Cardiff, Leicester, Warwick, 2003: 403). We did not say at the time that this was Sage’s interest (more products to sell at a higher price) but that we weren’t so sure this was a great idea. In the main we were uncertain six issues could be filled with the quality of critical material we had been so anxiously cultivating through the prior ten years. Eventually we settled for a format in which every other of the six annual issues would be a themed-issue, which in some ways resolved—we thought then—the question of critical content and quality.

Meanwhile, we were having concerns about the Journal’s identity and it showed. While ‘neo-disciplinary’ had been the Journal’s avowed signature notion since the 1994 ‘manifesto’ (Burrell et al., 1994: 9), it was not on the Journal’s subtitle. Thus, the 10th anniversary editorial (‘Why Neo-disciplinary? Why Now?’) stated explicitly that by then we had learned ‘about product branding and identity [realizing] now that “neo-disciplinary” [as subtitle for the Journal] might have been a better package for our product’ (The Editorial Team at Amherst, Cardiff, Leicester, Warwick, 2003: 404). Paradoxically, however, the new subtitle we negotiated with Sage starting from volume 11 changed from the original 1994 all-in-black ‘the interdisciplinary journal of organization, theory and society’ to become ‘the critical (always highlighted in color) journal of organization, theory and society’. With this gesture it seemed as if our ambivalence about the Journal’s identity was also being resolved. Neo-disciplinarity was clearly stated but kept as the background which gave way to a more critical agenda. And so we said:

we envision a future for Organization in which relevance to the world is ever more present, and more critically so than we may have articulated in the past … our more general message is that writing for Organization means to write for (our)selves in ways that encourage each and all of us to challenge the received wisdom … then go ahead and challenge others … to dare to do a better world for all. In this we reaffirm a commitment to ‘Critique’ in its original form. (The Editorial Team at Amherst, Cardiff, Leicester, Warwick, 2003: 405—emphasis in original)

Yet, while saying this we also qualified the Journal’s primary audience as ‘academics concerned with organizations’ (The Editorial Team at Amherst, Cardiff, Leicester, Warwick, 2003: 405) but, for sure, we did not exhort them to take to the streets to protest or encourage social movements of any kind.

So, what about relevance to the world? … the challenge to dare to do a better world for all? On that score, for the past ten years we certainly didn’t do that well … can we do any better today?

Organization@21 ?

Our present reflections reaffirm a commitment to ‘Critique’ for Organization after 20. But we find ourselves asking: relevant to whose world? better for whom?; who is ‘all’? To anticipate our ‘punch line’, we believe there may be a future for Organization after 20 if we return to the question ‘who is our audience?’. We still think that Organization is for ‘academics concerned with organizations’ but we also believe that Organization is not for all academics concerned with organizations; only for those who are both interested in doing critical organizational work and who believe in the emancipatory potential of that work for themselves and for others.

These would be academics vehemently opposed to acquiescing to the apparently hegemonic conditions of the institutionalized academic ‘world’ today—i.e. the conditions creating ‘the rules of the game’. And, moreover, these would be academics who not only talk about defying ‘playing the game’, but who do so in text and action, taking actions to refuse ‘playing the game’ and, concurrently writing/calling ‘the game’ by its proper name: concerted actions that squash critique.

What is that ‘game’? At the moment it is ‘the rankings’ game—which Organization has already examined diligently and in-depth for the scam it is as measure of journals and programs quality (Special Section on Journal Publishing and Rankings, Organization, Volume 18 (4), 2011). But, from our perspective, writing and publishing on the topic is not enough.

Rather, Organization after 20’s key role would be to go beyond writing. Writing would be the starting point, calling others to actions against ‘the game’; the rest would be conceiving interventions and facilitating them. What would such a journal be called? Organization@21: The journal of disconcerting organization theory and action. What would it do? Disconcert those concerted actions that squash critique. Now, since that was our ‘punch line’ you can stop reading here and go on to imagine what can be done to make it possible. Just let us know your ideas so we can join you! However, we do have a few ideas of our own.

On the future of critique

For Organization@21 to be possible there has to be a future for critique and this may imply reinventing Organization quite a bit since Organization@10. Mindful of Parker and Thomas’ question: ‘can this journal stay different?’ (2011: 425), this reinvention will require deinstitutionalizing Organization once again. What to do?

Excavating the 2003 editorial we found several important points relevant to our concerns of today. Reflecting on new organizational forms in the global economy we wrote then that,

certain, yet ephemeral contours emerge from minor seismic disturbances of readers, writers, publishers, and editors producing a hegemonic region known as ‘the organizational academic marketplace’, a dominant if invented region that leaves out most other intellectual communities. At the same time, this hegemonic region, much like the world outside of it, is not a featureless two-dimensional community but rather a patchwork of interests, institutions, and intellectuals and political positioning in which divergence rather than convergence come to be sedimented. (The Editorial Team at Amherst, Cardiff, Leicester, Warwick, 2003: 408)

Today it seems clear that the disturbances are no longer minor and that sedimentation has provoked more convergence than divergence. Thus, while ‘hegemony’ may not be fully hegemonic, it would be disingenuous to think that there are no dominant agents or concerted actions making it almost so. The patchwork has taken identifiable shapes, and there is no standing ‘outside of it’. What are those shapes?

As we write, the US Academy of Management continues its efforts to ensure that we all— academics in the world concerned with organizations—know what ‘real organizational knowledge’ is and how it should be done. Among more recent actions, the Academy of Management Journal hosted workshops in Europe (with competitive and limited places—to be paid by attendees) for young European scholars to learn how to publish in that very exclusive and highly ‘ranked’ outlet.

Concurrently, the Academy of Management is now engaged in producing ‘global conferences’, bringing the Academy to those regions of the world where academics ‘need’ but are less likely to be acquainted with ‘world-class’ ¹ (aka US) organization and management knowledge. The first of these conferences is scheduled in South Africa in January 2013, in a graduate business school venue where most of the faculty is white! In the call for papers and on the conference home page there is a link to ‘important information for African scholars’ which indicates ‘The participation of African management scholars (those who live and work on the continent) is highly encouraged at this conference. We understand that some African scholars have the means to attend while others may not’. ² Thus, for those African scholars in greatest need efforts are being made to enable attendance (with no guarantees), such as a discounted registration rate, and a designated block of sleeping rooms (emphasis added) at a lower rate … The funny thing is that the conference is built on the principle of attendees discovering questions worth asking and then building collaborative relationships (emphasis added) to answer them … Who should be there to enable that this actually happens? Who will collaborate with whom?

Meanwhile, at this very moment (late May 2012) a broadcast announcement arrived for a Professional Development Workshop (PDW) at the next Academy of Management meeting (Boston, August 2012). Under the title ‘Publish or Perish Goes Global—are YOU ready?’ the organizers urge readers to ‘Come hear a panel of prolific non-US scholars representing a range of countries share practical tips and strategies for successful publication in top-tier North American journals’. Beyond the ‘North American’ euphemism (i.e. how many Mexican and Canadian journals are ‘top-tier’?) the urgency of the announcement reiterates that,

management scholars located outside North America experience increasing pressure from their universities to publish in top-tier management journals. At the same time, top-tier management journals are still dominated by North American research paradigms and standards of scholarship, making it especially difficult for scholars trained outside North America to publish successfully in top-tier management journals.

The circularity of the argument notwithstanding, we further read that while the doctoral degrees of all eight panelists were from universities outside North America, all of them ‘have very successfully published in top-tier North American management journals’. What are we to make of this? It is not too farfetched to imagine what’s going on now in these non-North American doctoral programs.

It would be an understatement to say we are concerned with events such as these and their influence on the future of critique as we envision it. These kinds of events are not really new, but their mainstream naturalization now (straight-face unreflective neocolonialism) is troubling because there seems to be ‘no outside’—‘the rankings’ not only define what is worthy as ‘knowledge’ but also who is and will be in the know—the rest doesn’t exist because it cannot be heard.

In Organization@10 we were already examining the outlines of similar issues for their institutionalizing consequences. For instance, we wrote:

The loss of relevance for what really matters is a cause for concern, no matter how fancy or fanciful our intellectual engagements. Up to what point has ‘being critical’ or ‘being POMO’ entered the fads and fashions of the ‘marketplace of ideas’ to further enhance careers, sell journals, or play reputational games, while keeping all of us, regardless of where we come from, ‘out of trouble and out of sight’ just in case we had the audacity to point through our intellects towards the craziness of the world outside our lauded hallways? (The Editorial Team at Amherst, Cardiff, Leicester, Warwick, 2003: 409)

But we also recognized that there was something larger lurking under the ‘fads and fashions’. While the ‘rankings game’ had not yet showed up with the intensity we experience today, we expressed awareness that more sophisticated surveillance and control systems were emerging. Thus, we considered that perhaps,

The political possibilities offered by poststructuralist analytics, insofar as they can be articulated in the context of everyday life to contribute to a public and broad based ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ may have been lost amid the ‘fads and fashions’ of academic posturing [but] such political possibilities continue to be available. (The Editorial Team at Amherst, Cardiff, Leicester, Warwick, 2003: 411)

Thus, in Organization@10 the signs were there that the future of critique was at risk, and we were cognizant of many of its manifestations at the time. In light of this, our agenda was clear: the future, as we saw it, hinged on maintaining the relevance of critical scholarship by preventing its institutionalization as another academic pursuit. Somehow, regaining the critical potential of poststructuralist analytics was the weapon of choice, for ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ seemingly could have taken us a long way. We thought of publishing ‘material that is more obviously critique, more avowedly challenging of political systems, more iconoclast, more open to alternative forms of organizing human life and altogether less worried about appearing utopian’ (The Editorial Team at Amherst, Cardiff, Leicester, Warwick, 2003: 418).

Did we really live up to those aspirations? Rather, we may have fallen into the ‘fads and fashions’ grips too easily precisely by focusing too much on being on ‘the leading edge’ while abandoning too fast the political edge of what we were already doing. The current editors have a clearer vision of what matters today, and have said so explicitly: ‘We want papers which understand that any form of institutionalized knowledge has a politics and that means that publishing in a journal is not merely a line on a CV but an implicit claim about what problems matter’ (Parker and Thomas, 2011 : 425). Yet we don’t think that publishing in a re-newed Organization-as-we-know-it would be enough now.

Two areas on which the future of critique hinges are particularly under siege: the future of theory and the future of critical selves. We see them intertwined and, in their contemporary manifestations, they will easily erase the future of critique, at least in the way we are imagining it for Organization@21.

On the future of theory—where’s the theory? Who are the theorizers?

Theory development and conceptual work was a signature item from the day Organization was imagined. From day 1 we were working in distinction to the disciplining efforts of US positivism, ³ and therefore neodisciplinarity became our aim, our response as ‘the other’:

We want to engage with the world we face today with a complex net of understandings arriving from different locations and probably moving into different destinations. But it is in the space of the journal (journey?) where we find each other and exchange our differences, hopefully becoming better through these encounters. Thus, from this ‘non-place’, organizational analysis moves towards a different space located nowhere but being everywhere … a space we would like to call ‘neo-disciplinary’. (Burrell et al., 1994: 9)

What has changed? As recognized by Parker and Thomas (2011: 420) perhaps Organization should now ‘retire gracefully’ having accomplished its mission, for much critical scholarship—mostly conceptual—found earlier only in Organization can now be found in many other journals. However, the journals they mention are primarily of European provenance, which evidently are not the ones where those ‘under the gun to publish or perish’ must publish. What about conceptual work in those ‘North American top-tier’ journals?

Two recent Academy of Management Review editorials caught our attention (Hillman, 2011; Suddaby et al., 2011). In both cases, the editors decry the lack of new organization theory. In both cases, the editors recognize institutional barriers to new theory development. For as much as we agree with their diagnoses, there is also something troubling for the future of theory—as we think of it—in their solutions. For instance, Suddaby et al., in their editorial for a special topic forum (STF) on ‘Where are the New Theories of Organization?’ are prompt to acknowledge that both they and the authors of their published contributions recognize they have made few inroads in that regard—i.e. there are no new theories of organization included within their STF.

The editors wonder if ‘we should try to find bold new theorizing in “top-tier” US journals’ (Suddaby et al., 2011: 244), but they see this as an unlikely solution since these journals are self-referential and domesticated. Instead they suggest looking in non-US journals ‘to provide intellectual innovation because of their predilection for citing more widely than their US counterparts and … more likely to cite philosophers, sociologists, and other influential intellectuals’ (Suddaby et al., 2011: 244). However, there was no shortage of non-US authors (some critical scholars) in this STF, and all the editors were also non-US and well acquainted with critical organizational scholarship; scholarship which is indeed more likely to cite widely and provide intellectual innovation. More paradoxical, despite the editors’ hand-wringing, their editorial cites two non-US journals but most of their citations went to top-tier US journals.

So, what happens to editors and authors such as these, senior scholars who have already done innovative organization theorizing, when having the chance to publish in North-American top-tier journals? Why can’t they produce new theories of organization? Do they get paralyzed and forget what they already know how to do well? It seems that in these journals domestication and self-referentiality are impossible to evade.

The second editorial, by Amy Hillman—as outgoing Academy of Management Review editor—questions directly ‘What is the future of theory?’. In this case the initial problem is stated in terms of the flat submission rate for the journal, which has remained unchanged over several years despite considerable increases in the Academy of Management’s membership in the same period. Conceptual work is not happening at the rate it should. The diagnosis provided is fairly straightforward: there are some misconceptions about difficulties of publishing or even writing conceptual work, but these can be easily dispelled. There are more outlets for conceptual work than one may think (all examples given are US journals favouring positivist orientations) and doing conceptual work is not more difficult than doing empirical work. However, there are some very real hurdles: doctoral programs may be emphasizing methodological courses and empirical research but paying little attention to theory development. At the same time, the trend toward dissertations comprising three empirical articles deters the theory development framing of former book-length dissertations (the author also acknowledges she ‘cannot speak to trends outside North-America’, (Hillman, 2011: ftnt 1: 608).

The remedies are equally straightforward: method may be a science but theory building is an art, and doctoral students must be educated in this art. Theory building seminars are needed but doctoral students should also write conceptual papers for their courses, and three-paper dissertations should include at least one conceptual paper. To facilitate the task of educating doctoral students in the art of theory development, AMR has created a website with resources, including doctoral seminar syllabi—two at the moment; both from US institutions—and a list of references. ⁴ One syllabus is clearly intended for a course to develop theoretical framing for positivist research; the other (Hillman’s own) is for a seminar more oriented to the ‘art’ of theory development. The literatures for both are (with very few exceptions) from US mainstream journals; not surprisingly, Hillman’s uses AMR as her favourite exemplar throughout. The additional list of references so far includes only North-American work in US top-tier journals. But why is ‘theory’ so important, aside from resolving AMR’s flat submission rate? At the end we learn:

Theory has an important place in our discipline as citation impact scores to AMR have consistently shown […]. I would argue that theory is not merely a differentiator for us as management scholars but, rather, a competitive advantage in educating business students and influencing the practice of business. (Hillman, 2011: 608)

From these examples, it seems to us that ‘North American top-tier journals’ have a hold on limiting what can be thought and said as theory within their borders. But, in effect there is no-thing outside their borders once the instrumental ‘business’ logic driven by ‘the rankings’ sets in—no matter how much editors and authors may want to escape that hold. At the end, the circularity of ‘the rankings’ has the upper hand—no surprise then about the dominance of references from ‘North American top-tier journals’.

Thus our worry; if these journals were to become ‘the only game in town’ what would happen to the future of theory?—what would new scholars worldwide—those who must publish in these outlets—learn about ‘theory’? In the middle of this parochialism, we also note a rather high degree of concerted action defining the future of theory. Who is ‘in charge’ of defining what theory is? How to intervene in this?

On the future of critical selves

In Organization@10 we were troubled by the precariousness of employment under market neoliberalism (a theme of continuing interest), but part of our reflections also addressed what we called ‘“ordinary organizational members” (ourselves included)’ (The Editorial Team at Amherst, Cardiff, Leicester, Warwick, 2003: 412). As we observed, it seemed as if we all:

have yet to realize the pervasiveness and the persistence of what is happening. It seems as if nostalgia has set in as a form of incredulity, in which even the most egregious acts of workers’ dispossession are responded to with a ‘wait and see’ attitude. It is as if ‘this cannot be happening to us’. And yet, it is the ‘us’ to whom it is happening that is no longer there. Who are ‘us’ now? (The Editorial Team at Amherst, Cardiff, Leicester, Warwick, 2003: 412)

These considerations certainly apply today. In our own work lives we observe the unease of our doctoral students. As professors we want to make sure they are ‘well educated’; to give them a good exposure to both ‘mainstream’ and ‘critical’ perspectives in theory development and empirical research. We want to make sure they are ready to publish when they have learned enough to make a reasonable contribution on their own to something that really matters to them, even if it is still under our guidance. We want to make sure they love what they do and carry it into their future.

In response, we increasingly confront much ‘instrumental reasoning’—they have no time to engage too much with any of this—speed not depth is beckoning. Publishing quickly and frequently will be demanded even in their first year of study, otherwise they risk losing employment prospects to another competitor with more publications. On this, the ‘brand’ and name recognition of their programs is also a key concern; meanwhile many of their programs have less and less funding to support them. Doctoral students just have to finish faster. And that’s the way it is.

While our descriptions are a bit of a caricature, they are not too far from the tensions we often experience not only with our students but with those from other programs—inside and outside the US—with whom we interact periodically. Perhaps a generation gap? But what is hidden in such a ‘gap’? These younger scholars do not deny what we are saying, but it is just that it doesn’t matter that much anymore considering the price that is involved. Publish or perish, ‘theory-lite’ indeed. Meanwhile, they gain academic capital by reviewing for major conferences—even if half the time they are not sure how much they know about what they are reviewing. But reviewers are a scarce commodity these days under the accelerated volume of submissions, thus conference organizers use whatever labour they can find … and so it goes.

In this cycle, the social construction of ignorance can grow at an exponential rate. And, not surprisingly, the potential for thoughtful critical work plummets at the same rate. Who has the time for such a thing? Where would it be published? As we are also informed periodically by our students: ‘US top-tier journals would not publish critical work’; our own evidence to the contrary notwithstanding—‘maybe so in the past, but not now … ’ they think. Who says so? Their peers in our and in other institutions; visiting faculty; some of our colleagues, the conferences and PhD consortiums they attend… The insidiousness of this machine, carrying ‘the winds of truth’ is overwhelming … And thus, as we look at ‘them and us’ today, we are not sure we can say who is the ‘we’ we are now. What to do?

Creating disconcerting organization theory and action

Despite the ‘gloom and doom’ we have outlined above—or precisely because of it—we still think Organization@21 can make a difference as an intervention in these conditions and that something better can come out of it. As we announced as our ‘punch line’ above, Organization@21’s key role would be calling for academics interested in doing critical organizational work and who believe in the emancipatory potential of that work, to create actions against ‘the game’, to conceive interventions, and to facilitate them. How to do that?

Recently a young scholar in Gothenburg, not quite convinced by our arguments in a presentation about the potential of feminist theorizing for critical interventions, let us know that short of fighting the revolution she knew there was no hope. That got us thinking and then other options came to mind. While perhaps there is no hegemon (yet), our discussion above was meant to highlight that there are enough concerted actions, moments of coalescence, in which to intervene. These interventions must be more like skirmishes—they must disconcert whatever concerted action is going on—which, of course, will keep on changing as time goes on, and so would the interventions. Again, we are taking a cue from Parker and Thomas (2011: 427) in that Organization should annoy and delight its readers in equal measure. We agree with this, but not concurrently. In the times we live now annoying must come first; thus here are a few ideas for Organization@21’s prospective authors.

To annoy … and perhaps delight …

To keep the future of critique alive, write a disconcerting theoretical meditation on how the institutionalization of US management ‘knowledge’ as ‘world-class knowledge’ is happening—tying together what may otherwise mostly pass by as ‘loose strands’. Make it as clear as possible that ‘the emperor has no clothes’ but do not stop there. Once it is accepted for publication (in Organization@21, of course) start sending it around to everyone to whom it may apply (e.g. symposium/conference/PDW organizers). Make sure they know you know what they are doing (which they will vehemently deny—and accuse you of conspiracy theory (!)). Pay no attention; that was the start of your disconcerting social action; an intervention without guarantees, which if you are lucky may make a difference for you and for others for whom it may really matter (think about those African scholars…).

Next, make sure you post a reference to your disconcerting theoretical meditation on that Academy of Management Review Theory Building Resources website, and also flood the site with your syllabi, reading lists and whatever else occurs to you as beffiting of ‘teaching how to do critical theorizing’ while telling your friends to do the same. Also, stop complaining that ‘they don’t publish critical work’—it’ll be your fault if you don’t act on it.

Meanwhile, invite a colleague to do something else regarding the future of theory, remembering that the key here is that the rankings game has a lot to do with which journals sustain ‘legitimate claims’ about what ‘theory’ is. In this case, your colleague can use materials already available in Organization. For instance, she can gather the articles included in the ‘Special Section on Journal Publishing and Rankings’ (Baum, 2011; Macdonald and Kam, 2011; Rowlinson et al., 2011, Willmott, 2011a, 2011b) and write a ‘think-piece’ on the future of theory as a working paper based on these articles. Importantly, this piece should be written as a ‘working paper to be submitted to’, for instance, Administrative Science Quarterly—but whether it is ever submitted there that’s another matter. Further, it should also include the articles in the ‘Special Section on Journal Publishing and Rankings’ as an appendix.

Next, this piece should be circulated as widely as possible as a working paper. Ask your colleague to post it visibly; send it around; let people find it ‘casually’ in list-serves; tell her friends to share it widely and so on. Also, she should send it directly to young scholars who are the victims of the ‘publish or perish game’, as well as to deans and publishers. The last two are probably as tired of this game as we all are, but they cannot back out unless everyone does.

Just imagine the immense service to the profession your colleague would be doing just by engaging in this disconcerting strategy, and putting it into action! How fast do you think the buzz will go around about the scam ‘the rankings’ were? (This last sentence is only 82 characters with spaces, so don’t forget to Tweet it … ). Once she gets enough responses—which will likely happen—she will pack the whole thing together to be published in (where else?) Organization@21!

For sure, this action will have an important implication for Latin American universities, which just recently held a conference in Mexico (part of North America—in case you forgot) regarding ‘the negative consequences that comparisons based on global rankings can have on Latin American universities, especially when used by the news media and governments to evaluate a university’s overall performance’. ⁵ According to the article, participants agreed that a focus on these rankings affects the public financing they receive as well as their ability to attract students, while the measures are meaningless in regard to their expected educational outcomes.

Finally, the disconcerting theorizing and actions we are suggesting are intended first and foremost to open space for the future of our students as potential critical selves; they are the future of critique. At the moment they can just rest, for we—senior scholars—are the ones who should be doing the ‘heavy lifting’ in all these matters. On the scale of institutionalized insecurity, we are the ones for whom the cost of a misstep will be minimal, if at all. Thus, we can engage in these skirmishes and even have fun while doing them. Meanwhile, our students can use their time with us to practice ‘theorizing disconcerting organizational actions’ at no risk—in case, just in case—we fail in our intent and they must become our replacement. However, if we succeed they will be on their own for, provided that the rankings game collapses, what oppressive regime will happen next is anyone’s guess. They better be prepared for the unknown—uncertainty and insecurity are the sustaining forces of a critical self.

But there is something to hold on to. While there will always be a game squashing critique, neo-disciplinarity will always be at hand—not as a subtitle but as a sustaining force. It will be available for interventions, for it can be reinvented all the time from within the game itself. In the wording of 2003: ‘The teeth of the machine are dangerous, but where the cogs do not mesh completely exists a space for neo-disciplinarity. It is a place that is in the heart of the machine but cannot be engineered out of it’ (The Editorial Team at Amherst, Cardiff, Leicester, Warwick, 2003: 417).