The Capabilities of Academics and Academic Poverty

Abstract

Summary This paper presents a novel analysis about the capabilities of academic researchers and academic poverty. Adopting the capability approach, which Amartya Sen developed to address concerns such as poverty, inequality and development, we shift the focus of analysis and discussion around evaluating academic research and academics in the social sciences from measures of so‐called ‘quality’, ‘impact’ or ‘excellence’ to the capabilities of academics. For us, the conceptualization and evaluation of academic research is a question about what academics have reasons to value, and about their ability to achieve valuable beings and doings. It is also about determining what might constitute academic poverty, and what academics are required to do in order to avoid that poverty. Relating our analysis to debates around universities, in particular about quasi‐market pressures, we identify the possibility of basic capabilities in academic research, namely: the capabilities that are necessary to fulfill basic academic needs. Our proposition is that there is academic poverty when an academic researcher is not capable of fulfilling basic academic needs, such as: adhering to standards of coherence, robustness and rigour; searching for and disseminating the spirit of the truth. Moreover, if the academic has the capabilities to fulfill those basic academic needs and yet chooses not to do so, she renders herself in a state akin to academic poverty.

Management Education in a Public University in the Economic Periphery: Reflections in Action on UBC in Interior British Columbia

“…Further challenges lie in understanding the distinct role of public universities and academics. For instance, the argument about university relevance is sometimes interpreted to mean deliver what the market dictates, but presumably a public university has responsibilities beyond the market, to the public; and compare Mooken and Sugden (2014), querying the reason for the existence of academics, if academics are only useful in meeting market interests. Mooken and Sugden suggest that academics have distinct capabilities, associated with pursuing truth and adhering to forms of coherence, robustness and rigour.…”

“…A richer approach to the failure of business schools to address publics is to go beyond the study of public interest in organisational types and socio-economic processes, to explore directly the public interest in management education. The education that is offered in practice could then be centred on the findings; they could be used as a foundation and departure point, albeit in the context of Collini's (2017: 156) idea that a university is "a partly-protected space in which the search for deeper and wider understanding takes precedence over all more immediate goals", and bearing in mind that everything in academia is contestable (Mooken and Sugden, 2014).…”

“…The second defining feature of the journey of inquiry is choice-making based on truth, reason, evidence, and sensibility, and that is a direct appeal to the essence of academic activity. See Mooken and Sugden (2014) and, on sensibility, Docherty (2008;. For him, knowledge is deficient if it is not lived and felt "at the inner level of sensibility" (Docherty, 2008: 4).…”

Conceptualizing academic intellectual capital: definition and proposal of a measurement scale

“…Specifically, we can differentiate the theoretical body necessary when developing any research in a specific discipline, the specific knowledge of a research topic, and the methodological knowledge about the research techniques used in the area. In this sense, Bazeley (2010) or Mooken and Sugden (2014) suggest that, without a deep knowledge of the topic investigated, and without methodological and statistical knowledge of the area, the research generated would normally be considered trivial and open to meaningful criticism. Finally, Wang et al (2006) and Durette et al (2016) emphasized the skills related to both verbal and written expression of knowledge in English as the facilitators of scientific productivity.…”

Ethical Orientation and Research Misconduct Among Business Researchers Under the Condition of Autonomy and Competition

“…This is problematic as we need to understand how individuals interact with their organizational context to minimize misconduct in business research (Hall & Martin, 2019 ), which can be defined as the breach of maxims, standards, and rules of conduct (Taylor, 1975 ). Such understanding is central to the development of practical measures that ensure that research continues to contribute to the vital goal of science: Knowledge generation for the benefit of society (Mooken & Sugden, 2014 ; Stilgoe et al, 2013 ). Research misconduct, such as selective reporting, threatens the integrity of the scientific community (Cabral-Cardoso, 2004 ; Gilbert & Denison, 2003 ; Martinson et al, 2005 ) and can trap science in the tragedy of the commons , that is, that the pursuit of personal benefits that worsens the situation for all (Martin, 2012 ).…”