Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:11:09.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Improving ratings’: audit in the British University system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2009

Marilyn Strathern
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper gives an anthropological comment on what has been called the ‘audit explosion’, the proliferation of procedures for evaluating performance. In higher education the subject of audit (in this sense) is not so much the education of the students as the institutional provision for their education. British universities, as institutions, are increasingly subject to national scrutiny for teaching, research and administrative competence. In the wake of this scrutiny comes a new cultural apparatus of expectations and technologies. While the metaphor of financial auditing points to the important values of accountability, audit does more than monitor—it has a life of its own that jeopardizes the life it audits. The runaway character of assessment practices is analysed in terms of cultural practice. Higher education is intimately bound up with the origins of such practices, and is not just the latter day target of them. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Review , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , July 1997 , pp. 305 - 321
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1McWilliams-Tullberg, R. (1973) Women in Cambridge. A Men's University—Though of a Mixed Type. London, Victor Gollancz, p. 27.Google Scholar
2Sutherland, G. (1994) Emily Davies, the Sidgwicks and the education of women in Cambridge. In Cambridge Minds. Mason, R. (Ed.). Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p. 36.Google Scholar
3Hoskin, K. (1996) The ‘awful idea of accountability’: inscribing people into the measurement of objects. In Accountability: Power, Ethos and the Technologies of Managing, Munro, R. and Mouritsen, J. (Eds). London, International Thomson Business Press, and references therein.Google Scholar
4Beer, G. (1996) Can the native return? In Open Fields: Science in Cultural Encounter. Oxford, Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Power, M. (1994) The Audit Explosion. London, Demos.Google Scholar
6Cambridge University Reporter, 16 October 1992.Google Scholar
7Rose, N. (1990) Governing the Soul. The Shaping of the Private Self. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
8Gibbons, M. et al. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London, Sage.Google Scholar
9Beck, U. (1994) The reinvention of politics. In Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Beck, U., Giddens, A. and Lash, S. (Eds). Oxford, Polity, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar
10Glasner, A. (1966) Teaching and learning in anthropology: the HEFCE review of anthropology provision in England and Northern Ireland. Anthropology in Action 3.Google Scholar
11Shore, C. and Wright, S. (1997) Introduction. In Anthropology of Policy: Critical Perspectives on Governance and Power. London, Routledge.Google Scholar
12Cox, R. (1996) Teaching, learning and assessment in higher education. Anthropology in Action 3, 22.Google Scholar
13Riles, A. (1996) The Actions of Fact. Ph.D. dissertation, Trinity College, Cambridge.Google Scholar
14The Guardian 5 November 1996.Google Scholar
15Munro, R.. The cultural performance of control. MSS University of Keele.CrossRefGoogle Scholar