Making ‘Visible’ the ‘Invisible’ Work of Academic Writing in an Audit Culture
The audit-culture approach to measuring academic writing for publication is, by current Australian policy definitions at least, fairly straightforward: count the number and ‘quality’ of publications produced within a specified timeframe, enter into the relevant database. We argue in this chapter that such a view eclipses the ‘invisible’ work of writing. Presenting a narrative exploration of our writing as a group of women academics, our aim is to articulate and render ‘visible’ the ‘invisible’ work that produces an academic article. Our discussion is framed by an institutional ethnographical approach, where we argue that these connected everyday ‘invisible’ practices are both assembled and disassembled through the structures of the neoliberal university, that may paradoxically also produce space for disrupting audit cultures.
KeywordsInvisible work Academic writing Institutional ethnography Autoethnography Audit culture
- Baker, Carolyn. “Membership Categorization and Interview Accounts”. In Qualitative Research, 2nd ed., edited by David Silverman, 162–76. London: Sage, 2004.Google Scholar
- Chang, Heewon, Faith W. Ngunjiri, and Kathy-Ann C. Hernandez. Collaborative Autoethnography. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2013.Google Scholar
- Ellis, Carolyn, Tony E. Adams and Arthur P. Bochner. “Autoethnography – An Overview.” Forum: Qualitative Social Research 12 (2011): art. 10.Google Scholar
- Peters, Michael A. “Managerialism and the Neoliberal University.” Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management 5 (2013): 15–30.Google Scholar
- ——— “Resisting Institutional Capture as a Research Practice.” In Our Studies, Ourselves: Sociologists’ Lives and Work, edited by Barry Glassner and Rosanna Hertz, 150–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar