Human capital loss in an academic performance measurement system
| Published date | 08 January 2018 |
| Pages | 53-70 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-06-2017-0085 |
| Date | 08 January 2018 |
| Author | Ann Martin-Sardesai,James Guthrie |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management,Knowledge management,HR & organizational behaviour,Organizational structure/dynamics,Accounting & Finance,Accounting/accountancy,Behavioural accounting |
Human capital loss in an
academic performance
measurement system
Ann Martin-Sardesai
School of Business and Law, Central Queensland University,
Sydney, Australia, and
James Guthrie
Department of Accounting and Corporate Governance,
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to examine the perceptions of academic human capital (HC) towards a
university’s research performance measurement system (PMS), in response to a national research assessment
exercise (RAE).
Design/methodology/approach –This paper draws on a subset of the data from a large mixed method
case study research project about the impact of ERA on an Australian public sector university.
Findings –The findings reveal that the research PMSs were designed, implemented and used as a tool to
measure and manage the research performance of HC within the university. The case study university
performed well in the RAE. However, this also led to several unintended consequences in the form offear and
anxiety, gaming and strategic initiatives, a focus on quantity and not the quality of research, and increased
workload, which led to a loss in the stock of HC.
Practical implications –This empirical evidence can inform governments and policy makers of the
unintended consequences of government research evaluations on academic HC. University managers could
improve the design of HC management systems by not only measuring academic HC performance, but also
providing training and resources to enhance, support and maintain the overall well-being of academics.
Originality/value –This study provides insights regarding the connection between a university’s PMS and
academic HC and contributes to the academic literature on intellectual capital and PMSs.
Keywords Performance measurement systems, Academics, Australian higher education sector,
Academic human capital, Human capital management systems
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The call for papers for this Journal of Intellectual Capital special issue states that universities
are currently undergoing major challenges in their missions of teaching and research.
Universities have long been a fruitful intellectual capital (IC) research topic investigating
matters such as intellectual property (Fine and Castagnera, 2003), management (Sánchez and
Elena, 2006), research and development (Costellanos et al., 2004) and reporting (Paloma
Sánchez et al., 2009). These approaches are akin to whatPetty and Guthrie (2000) identify as
second stage IC research. However, more recently, research hasbegun to focus on IC practice,
identified as third stage IC research (Guthrie et al., 2012a,b), and effective IC management
through praxis (Dumay and Garanina, 2013). Universities continueto be the most researched
public institutions under this stage(see e.g. Esposito et al., 2013; Secundo etal., 2015; Vagnoni
and Oppi, 2015). Dumayet al.’s (2015) review of the literaturehighlights several opportunities
for future IC research,including expansion into third stageIC research to understand how IC
can be managed and operationalised within an organisation. This study fits within the third
stage of IC research, as it explores the management of IC, that is, human capital (HC) in an
organisational setting, and the impacts of an internal performance measurement system
(PMS) on academics.
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 19 No. 1, 2018
pp. 53-70
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-06-2017-0085
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
53
HC loss in an
academic PMS
It is argued that one of the key outcomes of new public management (NPM) reforms has
been an increased focus on performance measurement and its disclosure. It is against this
background that HC management systems in the form of PMSs have become a technology
in the ongoing administration of public sector universities. Consistent with NPM, several
national research assessment exercises (RAEs) have been conducted to measure research
productivity, quality and excellence (Martin-Sardesai et al., 2017a, b; Moed, 2011; Wills
et al., 2013). These have included, for example, the “Research Excellence Framework”in the
UK (Higher Education Funding Council for England, 2010), “Performance Based Research
Funding”in New Zealand (Northcott and Linacre, 2010) and similar activities in other
European countries (Hicks, 2012; Martin-Sardesai et al., 2017a).
Despite differences in scope and application, each jurisdiction’s approach is designed to
measure and assess research performance within its respective higher education sector
(HES) (Martin-Sardesai et al., 2017c; Whittington, 2000). In each jurisdiction, these changes
demand a response from universities, which will necessitate internal organisational
changes. In 2010, the Australian Research Council (ARC) evaluated the research
performance of the Australian HES under its Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA)
initiative. ERA provides the administrative mechanism whereby institutional
(i.e. university) research performance is captured, measured and reported to the ARC for
evaluation and assessment.
There is limited research that focuses on the impact of RAEs at an institutional level,
that is, at the level of individual universities (Martin and Whitley, 2010; Yokoyama, 2006),
and what universities do to ensure Academic HC (AHC) contributes towards their research
performance. This paper aims to fill this gap by examining the perceptions of
academics within an Australian university of HC management systems in the form
of research-oriented PMSs developed in preparation for, and in response to, ERA. It als o
responds to Guthrie et al.’s (2012a, b) call for more research to focus on the critical and
performative an alysis of IC practic es in action. The stud y takes the perspec tive that
organisational PMSs are influenced by external societal structures of control (Agyemang
and Broadbent, 2015). Moreover, that governments regulate the behaviour of
organisations and seek to steer them in particular ways, requiring them to account for
the government resources they receive (Richard Baker, 2002; Ryan et al., 2008). The AHC
of universities is mobilised to produce research outputs, and HC management systems in
the form of research PMSs are targeted towards ensuring that academics’research
contribution is maximised.
A case study method is adopted to investigate the perceptions of academics about the
PMSs and their impact on an Australian university (known as UniA to preserve its
anonymity). The study relies on academics’responses to an open-ended question in a
survey, contextualised with academic policy and organisational literature interpreted from
the perspective of HC. The study finds that the quality and research standing of UniA in the
ERA 2010 exercise increased. However, PMSs have also led to several unintended
consequences in the form of fear and anxiety, gaming and strategic initiatives, focus on
quantity and not the quality of research, and increased workload. The study makes two
contributions, both theoretical and empirical. First, it adds to the existing third stage IC
literature on the effect of university PMSs on AHC and to the limited research on the impact
of PMSs on public sector organisations. Second, it provides empirical evidence that can
inform governments of the effects of PMSs on AHC.
The paper is structured in five sections. Section 2 provides a brief review of the literature
on HC and HC management systems in the form of PMSs. In Section 3, a description of the
Australian HES context is provided. Section 4 outlines the conduct of the study, including a
brief introduction to the case study university, the data and its analysis. Section 5 presents
the findings and discussion, contextualising first the changes implemented within the
54
JIC
19,1
To continue reading
Request your trial