Abstract
This article relies on two international projects to argue for the existence of a ‘centrarchy’ in the fields of education and technology (and beyond). Centrarchy denotes a power structure in which power rests with ‘the Centre’. The Centre signifies well-respected departments, top-tiered journals, the best editors, critical reviewers and leading authors; the Periphery denotes anyone else. The Centre has assigned itself the mission of guiding the Periphery out of its underdevelopment. It has served as a proxy for quality scholarship and believes that Periphery’s societies require a saviour (the Centre). It has ignored the knowledge that has (and could have) been produced by the Periphery’s researchers. Its ways of researching the world have been internalised and taken for granted by the Periphery’s academics, who have come to see these ways as the natural order and common sense. It has seen the Periphery’s societies as outliers appropriate merely for local case studies, whereas its case studies transcend locality and have universal value. The Centre–Periphery ‘wall’ is unbreachable because of empirically uninspected factors, which are unearthed here. This article, furthermore, shows some academics to be on ‘the periphery of the Periphery’.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams, H. (1976). The academic tribes. New York, NY: Liveright.
Alcadipani, R., Khan, F. R., Gantman, E., & Nkomo, S. (2012). Southern voices in management and organization knowledge. Organization, 19(2), 131–143.
Alvares, C. (2002). The multiversity enterprise. Penang: Inaugural Conference of Multiversity.
Arrighi, G. (2001). Global capitalism and the persistence of the north-south divide. Science and Society, 65(4), 469–477.
Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. McGraw-hill education (UK).
Chant, S., & McIlwaine, C. (2009). Geographies of development in the 21st century: An introduction to the global south. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Cooke, B. (2004). Managing the third world. Organization, 11(5), 603–629.
Ellis, C. (1993). There are survivors: Telling a story of a sudden death. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(4), 711–730.
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 4(138), 273–290.
Fanon, F. (1986). Black skin, white masks. London: Pluto Press.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. Critical Inquiry, 8(4), 777–795.
Glass, R. L. (2000). A letter from the frustrated author of a journal paper. Journal of Systems and Software, 54(1), 1.
Gramsci, A. (1995). Further selections from the prison notebooks. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Harzing, A., & Metz, I. (2013). Practicing what we preach: The geographic diversity of editorial boards. Management International Review, 53(2), 169–187.
Hayano, D. M. (1979). Auto-ethnography: Paradigms, problems and prospects. Human Organization., 38(1), 99–104.
Hodgson, G. M., & Rothman, H. (1999). The editors and authors of economics journals: A case of institutional oligopoly? The Economic Journal, 109(453), 165–186.
Hwang, K. (2005). The inferior science and the dominant use of English in knowledge production: A case study of Korean science and technology. Science Communication, 26, 390–427.
Islam, G. (2012). Can the subaltern eat? Anthropophagic culture as a Brazilian lens on post-colonial theory. Organization, 19(2), 159–180.
Jackson, T. (2012). Postcolonialism and organizational knowledge in the wake of China’s presence in Africa: Interrogating south-south relations. Organization, 19(2), 181–204.
Keim, W. (2011). Counter-hegemonic currents and internationalization of sociology. International Sociology, 26, 123–145.
Kim, J. (2012). The birth of academic subalterns: How do foreign students embody the global hegemony of American universities? Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(5), 455–476.
Lee, N., & Greenley, G. (2010). Brief reflections. European Journal of Marketing, 44, 697–699.
Meriläinen, S., Tienari, J., Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2008). Hegemonic academic practices: Experiences from publishing from the periphery. Organization, 15, 584–597.
Montaigne, M. D. (1991). The essays of Michel de Montaigne trans. and ed. MA Screech. London: Allen Lane.
Murphy, J., & Zhu, J. (2012). Neo-colonialism in the academy? Anglo-American domination in management journals. Organization, 19(6), 915–927.
Parker, M., & Thomas, R. (2011). What is a critical journal? Organization, 18(4), 419–427.
Peekhaus, W. (2012). The enclosure and alienation of academic publishing: Lessons for the professoriate. tripleC: Communication, capitalism & critique. Open Access Journal for a Global Sustainable Information Society, 10(2), 577–599.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raelin, J. A. (2008). Refereeing the game of peer review. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(1), 124–129.
Roth, W. M. (2002). Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education, 32(2), 215–240.
So, A. (1990). Social change and development: Modernization, dependency, and world-systems theory. London: SAGE.
Tadajewski, M. (2016). Academic labour, journal ranking lists and the politics of knowledge production in marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 32(1–2), 1–18.
Tietze, S., & Dick, P. (2013). The victorious English language: Hegemonic practices in the management academy. Journal of Management Inquiry, 22(1), 122–134.
Trowler, P., Saunders, M., & Bamber, R. (Eds.). (2012). Tribes and territories in the 21st-century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. London: Routledge.
Wallerstein, I. (1974). The modern world-system I: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European world-economy in the sixteenth century. New York: Academic Press.
Willmott, H. (2011). Journal list fetishism and the perversion of scholarship: Reactivity and the ABS list. Organization, 18, 429–442.
Acknowledgements
The author (i.e. the mediator of the crowd-authoring project and the first crowd-author) would like to thank the other crowd-authors for their collaboration and critical engagement with the project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Al Lily, A.E. Academic Centrarchy: a Political System of Governing Education and Technology. J Acad Ethics 20, 23–38 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09374-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09374-1