29 November 2016 14 Comments
At a recent international conference focused on research administration, there was the usual palaver about every researcher, their institution, and their dog achieving excellence.
It’s presented as why we’re in the game – to achieve this highly circumscribed and metricised ideal of ‘excellence’.
We’ve all heard this rhetoric before so I have a certain level of ennui every time I see the posturing.
This feeling also emerges for me these days when people use ‘innovation’, ‘engagement’, or ‘impact’. I’m extremely fond of Rolin Moe’s statement that “innovation means less than any other word we use in regular discourse” (The Innovation Conundrum).
I would say the same applies to ‘excellence’. Just about every organisation uses it, government policies are ridden with it, and senior executives at universities mouth it at every opportunity. But it usually signals little, and indulges in the conceit that if we say we have it, it makes us better than others who don’t say they have it (it doesn’t actually matter whether they have ‘it’ or not). Read more of this post