Social Psychology, Crisis and Neoliberalism: The Case of Social Style Definition: Heading 1

Style Definition: Heading 2

Representations Theory Style Definition: Heading 3
Style Definition: Heading 4
Style Definition: Heading 5
Abstract Style Definition: Heading 6
Style Definition: Title
Style Definition: Subtitle
In this paper we set out to examine whatThis article examines the material and

ideational conditions developed in academia and broader society at large under

neoliberalism (since the late 60’ and early 70’s),) and what bearing this has hadtheir effects

on social psychology, both as an academic community, but also and as a source of knowledge

production. We examineIt also studies how the onset of neoliberalism has impacted on those

features of social psychology which led many scholars to label it is as a discipline in crisis by

the 1960’s and 1970s, and which included: its reliance on realist ontology, positivist

epistemology, quantitative methods and the absence of an axiological frame which led its

distancing from a humanistic, action-oriented social psychology. We argue that far from. Commented [1]: these need to be clearer

Rather than lessening these challenges in Social Psychology, neoliberalism has, in fact,

further entrenched these features, in the followingthree interconnected ways:

● Through its impact on it has transformed individual subjectivity;

● Through its impact by creating neoliberal subjects, imposed its cost-cutting

and highly competitive logic on academia;

● Through its impact on, and has created a culture obsessed with measuring and

entrepreneurship that has stymied knowledge production. Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.5"
Commented [JJ2]: I think you have a lot of rich material
We take Social Representations Theory as a case study to unravel the impact of before you use the case study.

neoliberalism on SRT (as both a theory and as a scientific community) which belongs to the
broader academic discipline of social psychology.
There is one thing that has occurred to me; there’s
really two articles here. One of them provides the case
that neoliberal governmentality has gutted meaningful
research. The other one is a more cautious and
focused approach that only spotlights SRT. I think I’d
suggest putting the two articles in two different journals,
unless you’re going for a book proposal.
Formatted: Footer
 The long crisis in social psychology

Kurt Lewin (1890 – 1947), one of the modern pioneers of social, organizational, and

applied psychology believed it possible for the discipline of that social psychology could not

only to further the scientific understanding of manhumanity, but also to advance the cause

of human welfare at the same time. And yet. Yet, by 1967, Kenneth Ring another the

prominent social psychologist, Kenneth Ring declared that Lewin’s humanistic, action-

oriented social psychology espoused some 30 years earlier, had become entirely

marginalized.1 Ring went on to argueHe argued that “experimental social psychology...is in a

state of profound intellectual disarray” (1967, p. 115)2; and explicitly blamed social

psychology for being “more concerned with demonstrating a cute, clever experimental

manipulation of the latest theoretical toy than with making serious progress in the task of

building a body of worthwhile knowledge” (Ring, 1967; Augustinos & Walker, 1995, p.2).

Others invoked similar arguments to describe what they considered to be aan alleged “crisis

stage in social psychology”..” In 1977, in an article titled “Why social psychology fails”

Silverman exclaimed that: “the predominant experimental tradition in the field has

contributed little for serious export in enlarging and refining our views of social man”

(Silverman, 1977, p.354).3 He further argued that not only theoretical progress is slow to

1
Some described this as an identity crisis, others as a paradigmatic crisis or a crisis of
confidence. But all agreed with Ring that a crisis was indeed taking place” (Berkowitz,
1972, p.967).
2
Kenneth Ring (1967). Experimental social psychology: Some sober questions about some
frivolous values” in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
3
Silverman further argued that, “social psychology became an institution solely on the
basis of the vision that complex social phenomena could be fruitfully studied in
experimental laboratory methods.” (Silverman, 1977, p.355)

Formatted: Footer
arrive, but also and that even laboratory-derived knowledge exhibits little of the cumulative

character we associate with the scientific method (Silverman, 1977, p. 353).4

According to Augustinos & Walker, at the center of this crisis wascentered on a

“serious perturbation in the dynamic equilibrium between the two paradigms within social

psychology: positivism and interpretivism, with the balance shifted overwhelmingly in

favour of the former, at the expense of the latter” (Augustinos & Walker, 1995, p.2). Indeed,

that friction between positivism and interpretivism hadwas already found its expression in

debates which took place as early asthe source of debate during the late 19th and early 20th

century. In 1894, Dilthey argued that ‘“explanatory, natural scientific psychology cannot lie

at the basis of a science about the mind, since it does not leave any room for freedom and

cannot be reconciled with the problem of culture..” (Dilthey, 1894, pp. 37-41; p. 74). 20 years

later, inIn 1914, Lange exclaimed that “Like Janus, psychology showed two different faces:

one turned to physiology and natural science, the other to the sciences of the spirit, history,

sociology; one science about causal effects, the other about values” (Lange, 1914, p. 63).

Vygotsky considered the key differentiator between the two to lie in the principle, whereby

the former focuses on causality and the latter is oriented towards a goal, which is exempt

from all material connections. To this effect he quoted Munsterberg:

‘……what has to be constantly born in mind is that it is the different ontological roots, which are Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

causing the divergence and incompatibility between the two fundamentally different theoretical

disciplines, whereby “one is causal, the other is teleological and intentional psychology”

(Munsterberg, p.12-13).

4
“Anyone familiar with the broad field of psychology knows that it is in theoretical disarray.
The different branches…proceed in relative isolation from one another, at most occasionally
borrowing like a cup of sugar a concept here and a method there from a neighbor. Within
each branch, psychologists also fail to reach consensus” (Buss, 1994, p.1).
Formatted: Footer
The most striking and serious observations on the that there was a crisis in social psychology Commented [JJ3]: Maybe allegation here?

largely took place in are primarily dated to the 1960’s-—which was simultaneously the

decade whichthat preceded the onset of neoliberalism. At the same time however, this was

and the decade when a new theory developed in Social Psychology-— Social Representations

Theory (SRT). ItSRT developed in the context of the crisis and in many ways it attempted to

offer a solution for it, by going back to the ontological and epistemological roots of social

psychology, eschewing the positivist approach that was being critiqued. The period of crisis

in Social Psychology, and the emergence of SRT a couple of years later was followed by the

onset of neoliberalism in the late 60’s and early 70s. (Harvey, 2005). This paper is situated

in the triangular relationship between social psychology, SRT and neoliberalism. Namely, it

seeks to examine the impact of neoliberalism on the potency of SRT to address the key

aspects of the crisis in social psychology, namely: the reliance on realist ontology, positivist

epistemology, quantitative methods and the absence of an axiological frame which led its

distancing from a humanistic, action-oriented social psychology. Formatted: Not Highlight

This article seeks to address how neoliberalism impacted SRT’s ability to address

social psychology’s issues with its realist ontology, positivist epistiemology, quantitative

methods and the absence of an axiological frame. These difficiencies, critics argued,allowed

social psychology to distance itself from a humanistic, action-oriented social psychology. Commented [4]: these need to be clearer

However, the proposed cures other than SRT, rooted in neoliberal governmentalities—the

emphasis on metrics, , when applied

Formatted: Footer
 The SRT - a response to the crisis in Social Psychology? Commented [5]: here we need a section on why SRT
was a response to the crisis and how (need to find
appropriate sections from our thesis for this) 400 words
max for this section +ana.tomicic@yahoo.com
The hegemony of positivism in social psychology has meant that many key problems

that should concern Social Psychology, such as ideology, aspects of human social interaction

embedded in culture, and common sense had not been examined, simply because they are

not amenable to direct study in the lab. SRT offered a possible answer to this. SRT and its

existence apart from neoliberalism to help the reader understand exactly why neoliberalism

made the problem worse.

Neoliberalism and the crisis in social psychology

In the 1970s, the neoliberal project roseneoliberalism emerged as a set of monetary

and fiscal policies in response; these policies sought to solve the economic turmoil of the

decade aimed at by overthrowing the Chicago School’s Keynesian welfare-state economics

espoused by the Chicago School (Harvey, 2005). According to Harvey, the neoliberal project

argues that neoliberalism was carried out by the corporate capitalist class, which towards

the end of the 1960s into the 1970s felt intensely threatened both politically and

economically; in response it and thus aimed to curb the power of labor (Harvey, 2005, p.

209). In the years that followed, the globalized ideology of neoliberal capitalism came to

constitute a highly predominantdominate contemporary discourse. Neoliberalism Since

then, it has since been described asbecome a hegemonic discourse, such that it and is often

referred to as the TINA doctrine - “—“there is no alternative”, a phrase coined by Margaret

Thatcher. What is more, althoughFurthermore, neoliberalism, which set off as a political

project has gone ontranscended its origins to influence spheres reaching far beyond

economic policies.

Formatted: Footer
Brown outlines theThere are several key features of neoliberalism to include —a radically Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
free market in whichthat maximizes competition is maximized, free trade achieved through,

economic deregulation to attain free trade, privatization of public assets, vastly diminished

state responsibility over areas of social welfare, the corporatization of human services, and

monetary and social policies congenial to corporations and disregardful of the

consequences: poverty, rapid depletion of resources, irreparable damage to the biosphere,

destruction of cultures, and erosion of liberal democratic institutions (Brown, 2003). These Commented [6]: not sure where i belong :(

key features have transcended the world of politics and economics, where they originated,

and affected every facet of society—including academia, and by extension, social psychology.

FoucaultIn addition to its proliferation beyond politics and economics, neoliberalism

became a hegemonic discourse. Foucault’s assessment is useful here; he deliberated on the

multilayered and widely penetrative influence of neoliberalism. He regarded the top-down

transmission of neoliberalism as a political project to bringwith repercussions on many

layers of society, not only on beyond the economic front.56 The hegemony of neoliberal

capitalism is apparent in view of the observation that more people all over the world,

including academics from these social scientific disciplines are shaped by, and reproduce this

worldview (Nafstad, 2002; Nafstad et al., 2007).

Neoliberalism and the crisis in social psychology

As described earlier the main characteristic of theThe crisis in social psychology were

reflected in the predominance of a positivist epistemology, coupled with the methodological

5
Michel Foucault labeled the ideological implications of this project as the “neoliberal turn”. In a series of
lectures he gave over the 1978–1979 term as Chair of the History of Systems of Thought at the Collège de
France.
6
Sugarman (2005) concludes that “a vital function of governmentality is not only to produce and regulate
forms of subjectivity, but also to legitimize the status quo regarding ordinary life and what is deemed
“natural” about it” (Sugarman, 2005, p.114). Formatted: Footer
attempt to simulate a natural science through the reliance on quantitative methods, as well

as its distancing from a humanistic, action -oriented social science. How has the onset of

These issues were not only not solved by neoliberalism impacted on these characteristic

which marked the crisis of social psychology? We argue that far from lessening,

neoliberalism has in fact further, but worsened; neoliberalism’s core ideas more deeply

entrenched these principlesissues in the following interconnected ways: by transforming

individual subjectivity among the individual researchers, remaking academia and its related

institutions in its own image, and transforming the production and dissemination of

knowledge in the field.

● Through its impact on individual subjectivity

● Through its impact on academia

● Through its impact on knowledge production

We first elaborate each of these. Then we take the case study of Social

Representations Theory, to demonstrate empirically the practical consequences of these

influences on a specific theory and its academic community.

Neoliberalism: individual subjectivity, academia and knowledge production

It is argued here that thereSocial psychologists are at least two key ways in

whichtransformed by neoliberalism pervades Social Psychologists: firstly it in two key ways.

Firstly, neoliberalism influences them as individuals in society. Secondly, it influences them

as academic workers (or precarious laborers in academia). Expectedly, this impacts on

theBoth the individual transformation and the change in their lives as academic workers

impact knowledge production and meaning making within the broad community of social

psychology, as well as and its different “thought collectives”. The interaction between these

influences under neoliberalism is inevitably consequential towards the favoring and the Formatted: Footer
rewarding of.” Neoliberalism, like any other hegemonic discourse, favors and rewards

certain paradigmatic choices, which producein turn produces certain research outputs -‘—

or ‘products’-— instead of others. Crucially, it is the neoliberalism’s political project has only

worsened social psychology’s problematic insistence on the ontology of realism,

epistemology of positivism and thepreference for quantitative methods, which will be

hypothesized here to be consistent and commensurable to the neoliberal “political

project”, and thus appears to be both favored and hegemonic within present-day

academic research. Thus, neoliberalism’s dominant modes of thought, which are

reflected in the crisis laden field of social psychology, lead to the favoring of

problematic approaches in academic social psychology discourse.

Neoliberal individual subjectivity

Michel Foucault labeled thecalled this project of neoliberalism’s ideological

implications of this project as the “neoliberal turn”..” In a series of lectures he gave over

thefrom 1978–1979 term as Chair of the History of Systems of Thought at the Collège de

France, Foucault deliberated on the multilayered and widely penetrative influence of

neoliberalism. He used the phrase “Neoliberal governmentality,” is a phrase Foucault used”

to describe the functions and characteristics of all socio-political institutions that shape and

regulate the attitudes and conduct of individuals, aiming at the constitution of neoliberal

subjectivities (Zamora, 2015). Neoliberal governmentality refers tois specifically “the idea

that particular systems requires specific people to do and be certain kinds of things, which

manifests itself in types of individuals who are responsible for themselves and reflexively

manage their skills, abilities, and relationships such that they can be deployed as marketable

assets” (Sugarman, 2005, p.114). For instance, he hasexample, Foucault used the term

‘neoliberal governmentality’ to describe a “political rationality, or a political worldview,

Formatted: Footer
which serves not only as a justification for these neoliberal economic policies, but also as

moral imperatives for remaking the social world in the image of a market, narrowly

construed.” (Zamora, 2015, p. 43) One of the ways through which such neoliberal mentality

of neoliberal governmentality, has been spread and later on anchored within individual and

societal psychologies (common sense) has been the dissemination and imposition of market

values, such as competitiveness, entrepreneurialism and market rationality, in every aspect

of human experience and existence. Wheelan has argued that the consequence of this

development has been that Additionally, this imposition of market values on new fields has

anchored neoliberalism within individual and societal psychologies (common sense). As a

result of this dissemination and imposition, neoliberalism has turned people into subjects

who are predicated by and also rendered predictable by a range of managerial techniques

and market logics (Wheelan, 2015).7

The function of neoliberalNeoliberal governmentality has been to portrayportrays

certain personal attributes (such as individuality, initiative, self-reliance, competitiveness,

ambitiousness, and risk taking) as valuable and superior. The implication has been that thea

variety of fields focus has predominantly been placed on individuals, their initiative and their

responsibility for their actions. Consequently,, with the result that state’s responsibility of

the state to provide has been replaced with the individual’s responsibility of the individuals

to provide for themselves. According to Wheelan, it was this reconstitutionturn from the

responsibility of the state to the responsibility of responsibilities and roles, which has also

served as a justification for the reconstruction, and reconstitution of individual has meant

that public goods and commonshave been reclassified as private ones, and for the

normalization of this reconstitutionnew state of affairs has been normalized (Whelan, 2015).

7
In “Happiness as Enterprise: An Essay on Neoliberal Life”, Binkley (2013) marshals arguments and evidence
to show how even happiness is being recast by neoliberalism as an entrepreneurial project. Formatted: Footer
One of the consequences of thethis overt focus on self-reliance has been to insinuate failure

as self-failure.

“There is diminishing appreciation that individuals’ predicaments are a product of more

than simply their individual choice, and include access to opportunities, how opportunities are

made available, the capacity to take advantage of opportunities offered, and a host of factors

regarding personal histories and the exigencies of lives” (Sugarman, 2005, p. 105).

The preoccupation with individuality and the understanding of individuals as self-sufficient Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

units stems from realist ontology and positivist epistemologies, which likewise consider

individuals asto be units separate from society. There areThis positivism has profound

psychological implications, which such positivism has onimplicationsfor the lives and self-

perceptions of individuals. For instance, Orbach (2001) contendsargues that the life

narratives of neoliberal selves are fragmented and more resemble a checklist of capacities

more than a coherent life story. Such checklists, Orbach believes, are that these checklistsare

not psychologically nourishing and are inadequate forcannot provide a deeply meaningful

experience of self and identity. (Orbach, 2001)

Sugarman thus stipulatesargues that, by institutionalizing the above-described

values, neoliberalism has had not only normative consequences, but also, ontological

ones, extendingwhich extend to the very psychological constitution of persons (Sugarman,

2015). NeoliberalInternalizing neoliberal governmentality has in these ways been

internalized, producingproduced new subjectivities, which have reformulatedreformulating

personhood, psychological life, moral and ethical responsibility, and what it means to have

selfhood and identity (Sugarman, 2015). To the extent thatBecause neoliberalism has come

to bebecome a hegemonic discourse, individuals and groups have internalized many of its

facets. This internalization has in turnsubsequently deconstructed them as agents, who have
Formatted: Footer
at oncesimultaneously been influenced by neoliberalism, but and have also become ‘carriers’

and transmitters of a ‘neoliberal common sense’- —neoliberal governmentality. This trend

has influenced Social Psychologists and members of the SRT community have hardly

remained immune to this trend. In view of the fact that SRT belongs to the social sciences,

the following section looks at the impact of neoliberal governMentality on social science in

academia.

Neoliberal academia8

The neoliberal political project, with its focus on privatization and austerity, has

impacted on the public character and financial sustainability of universities respectively. On

the formal end of the spectrum. Formally, academia has become a highly competitive arena

whose most important features include; both publishing papers, participating and

organizing in conferences, applying for and administering research grants, participating in

various peer-review processes, communicating with colleagues and students, as well as the

didactic aspects such as teaching are competitive, requiring constant production and the

8
According to Harvey, the neoliberal political project was waged on three fronts: the ideological front, the
political front and the front against the power of labour (Harvey, 2005). Initially, at the early stages of the
neoliberal project, the ideological battle of neoliberalism was located outside the universities, since at the
time faculties were overwhelmingly left-minded, both in terms of its student body and the professors. It was
highly anticipated and rightly so, that Universities would not be hospitable to early neoliberal policies, and
even less so predisposed to cultivating and assisting the rise and spread of this new right-wing political
project. Instead, it was newly established think tanks which acted as incubators where the seeds of ideas of
Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman and supply-side economics were cultivated and research was produced
which was then published independently and then transmitted more broadly, in institutions, the press and
society at large, slowly infiltrating also the universities. Over the years however Universities have not only
surrendered to neoliberalism, but have also become its agents, leading Harvey to claim that, “Universities
have pretty much been taken over by the neoliberal projects surrounding them” (Harvey, 2016). In many
ways, institutional behavior in academia, with its whole range of formal and informal rules, requirements,
patterns and behaviours, has been significant for the production of the type and content of knowledge, as
detailed most elaborately by sociologists of science (Kuhn, 1962). Unsurprisingly then, academic institutions,
practices and trends have been under the influence of the neoliberal political project and its miscellaneous
neoliberal subjectivities. Considering that social psychologist and members of the SRT community are
materially and ideationally located within academic institutions, which have according to the previous
discussion become “neoliberalized”, it is important to consider what has the relationship between
neoliberalism and the academic discipline of Social Psychology and SRT been in that context. Formatted: Footer
public transmissiondevelopment of scholarly knowledgenew metrics (Teo & Febbraro,

2003). As state funds availablefunding for financing higher education and research havehas

shrunk over the last three decades (and particularly so since the financial crisis in 2008,), it

has resulted in an exponential rise in the casualisation and precariousness among academics,

as well as in and the intensification and extensification of work. Thrift emphasizes that in

such anargues this this competitive environment, has made academics have collectively

becomea mobile, agile, flexible workforce par excellence,; they are prepared to move and

relocate cities or countries in order to work, responding with ‘hair trigger responsiveness’

(Thrift 2000, p. 679) to new calls for papers, new funding streams, new potential areas of

student demand, and to fit in and reinvent ourselvesthemselves for every changing fashion

on engaging ‘research users’ and developing ‘impact’ (Elias & Gill, 2016). What is

moreHowever, time-constraints have led to rising levels of anxiety. As Mike Crang (2007)

has argued, time has become biggest source of disputeconflict, anxiety and stress in

academia. According to Gill (2014)), this marketization and instrumentalisation of

knowledge has resulted in an ‘assault’ on the very idea of a University, and a new form of

academic capitalism. Thus, “the very nature of education has been reformulated in

instrumental terms to connect it to business and the economy, whilst corporate management

techniques have been introduced in the universities” (Callon & Law, 2005, p.719). This has

led many critical scholars to conclude that nowadays, “it is no longer enough to say that

Universities are like businesses; Universities are businesses” (Readings 1996, p. 35).

One of the key characteristics of neoliberal academia has been the proliferation of a

culture of surveillance through, most specifically, the introductionuse of newbibliometrics

and impact indices to evaluate academics. New and distinct modes of surveillance regimes

of have been introduced— namely, the audit, and ‘qualculation’ —aimed at calculating and

monitoring academics' performances (Gill, 2014, Callon & Law 2005). It is in particular these
Formatted: Footer
These types of monitoring systems, which in particular have had an influence on

theimpacted knowledge production, due to the repercussions they have had on the by

influencing research paradigms chosen. The most prevalent way through which prominent

monitoring system has been the international standardization of rankings have been

standardized internationally in order to assess the quality of; these have allowed academia

has been to focus itto self-regulate by focusing on publication output, which is graded

through a globalized system of Impact Factorimpact factor indexing in Peer Reviewed

Journal Articles. Indeed, thepeer reviewed journal articles. The quantity of publications in

such Journalsthese journals has become the key criteria on the basis of which academics

obtainfor obtaining tenure, are employed, obtainemployment, research funds, and are

respectedrespect within the academic community. The culture of auditing and surveillance

has turned academics into one of the most surveyed occupational groups (De Rosa, 2014).

According to Roger Burrows, “any individual academic in the UK can now be ranked and

measured on more than 100 different scales and indices (which measure grant income,

research ‘excellence’, citation scores, student evaluations, esteem indicators, impact factor,

PhD completions, etc.), which have become the ‘qualculations’ that measure academics'

value and monetise them” (Burrows, 2012, p.366). This is in spitedespite the the estimate

by Biswas & Kirchherr that an average journal article is “read completely by no more than

ten people”. They write: “Up to 1.5 million peer-reviewed”(Biswas & Kirchherr). Many

journal articles are published annually. However, many are ignored even within scientific

communities – completely overlooked; for instance, a study found that 82% of articles

published in the humanities (journals)are are not evennever cited once” (Biswas and

Kirchherr, 2015). Nonetheless, they add that it is on the basisDespite the relative

unimportance of suchthe impact of the journals, the metrics, which mostly focus on Formatted: Font color: Red, Highlight
Formatted: Font color: Red, Highlight
publications in international indexed journals (IIJs) that funding is generated, by this Formatted: Font color: Red, Highlight

Formatted: Footer
publishing generate funding, enable one to become tenure is attained, cases for , and Formatted: Font color: Red, Highlight

redundancies are basedcalculated and courses are closedshut down. Formatted: Font color: Red, Highlight
Formatted: Font color: Red, Highlight
Formatted: Font color: Red, Highlight
Members of the SRT community have reported similar developments. According to
Commented [JJ7]: This needs to be highlighted and
expanded.
Anna Maria De Rosa, “currently. While there are some moves by publishing houses like

Scopus-Elsevier and WoS are startingto create metrics to cover (to a varying degree)

alsooffset the importance of journal articles by scoring books and book chapters following

the review of a quality based on the standards set by the publishing houses.” (De Rosa, 2009,

2014, p.39) However, she emphasizes that despite the big investment especially by Scopus

in the field of humanities and social sciences, , the sources based on books are still limited.

Often, books and oftenbook chapters cannot be selectedsubmitted by the academics when

required to submit their best scientific outcomes to to the evaluation agencies or committee

to demonstrate their best scientific outcomes, because the elements used by the algorithms

that judge the research’s impact do not comprise indicators based on “book” evaluation”, (De

Rosa, 2014, 2009). Recently, the scholar De Bellis has confirmed this view: “since citation

indexes came into the limelight during the mid-1960s, citation networks have become

increasingly important for many different research fields ”(De Bellis, 2009, p.12). De Bellis

has also investigated the history and the empirical, philosophical and mathematical

foundations of bibliometrics, including the origins of the Science Citation Index, the

theoretical and mathematical underpinnings behind it. He has questioned; his work has led

him to question the applicability of bibliometrics and citation analysisthese commonly used

standards for determining the importance of research in the sciences, particularly in the

sciences and science studies, especially the sociology of science and science policy. De Rosa

(2016) has further remarks He remarked that the evolution of the new bibliometric

culture…:

Formatted: Footer
 “...due to asymmetric applications in the domain of social sciences and humanities

compared natural and applied sciences, has crossed epistemological issues in the history of

sciences and their disciplinary policies. It is evident that the competitive market logic has been

a driving force in the development of Infometrics and complementary methodological

apparatuses for benchmarking. This has been due to the strong commercial interests of

publishing houses in positioning their journals in the bibliometric databases, so that authors

are induced to identify methods of journal benchmarking.” (De Rosa, 2016, p. 1017)

The following section will demonstrate the ideological implications, which these Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

developments and trends in academia have had on the knowledge production processes and

especially on the capacity and ability of researchers to subscribe to scientific prescriptions

such as ‘paradigmatic coherence’, commensurability and consistency.

Knowledge and meaning production in neoliberalism and its results on

SRT Formatted: Font: Arial, 14 pt, Not Bold, Font color: Custom
Color(RGB(67,67,67))

As we have already seen, there are multiple ways in which neoliberalism has

impactedNeoliberalism’s impact on individuals, academic institutions and academic

workers. As a result of the interplay of the above mentioned factors, has transcended

research and funding and deeply infected teaching as well. Academia’s competitive

environment and constant concern about funding have caused institutions to question

traditional teaching practices have been put into question,; student numbers have increased

without a corresponding increase in staff, student loan debt crises have mounted, and

increasingly rigid and competitive research funding mechanisms have added new

responsibilities for academics to juggle. What allows for this to take root under neoliberalism

isBecause the propagation of this idea ofneoliberal governmentality has created a “common-
Formatted: Footer
sense” worldview that treats persons as free, enterprising individuals, who do not require

any support from the state, these crises have gone unchecked.

As PREVIEW THE SRT MATERIAL HERE>

The increase in academics’ teaching commitments, as well as the increased

competitiveness of publication and the expansion of duties, has caused the amount of time

available to deliberate, think, read, research and write has diminished alongside diminished

budgets, so have; academic freedom and independence has also decreased. WhelanWheelan

suggests that this has meant thatis because neoliberalism’s economic rationality has

colonized the valuing and understanding of intellectual, academic and general human

activities, have come to be colonised by the economic rationality prevalent under

neoliberalism, which has this colonisation has , in turn, led to new laboring subjectivities in

academia (Whelan, 2015) Consequently, Whelan concludes that “discussions of while

academia embraces conversations about power, politics, and social justice, are embraced, as

something that might be gestured toward in a predictably bracketed way in the classroom,

there is no real expectation on the part of the academics or the institution that these things

could be discussed or fought for students, but this is not ordinarily expected to be followed

through and brought to bear within the institutionuniversity itself”. (Whelan, 2015, p.38).

What is more, the diminishing funds in academia, due to The neoliberal focus on

austerity and reducing the state’s involvement with social welfare has diminished

academia’s funding, with the scaling back of the state, meansresult that more and more

academics haveincreasingly need to become entrepreneurs who need to “sell“selling” their

research to a funding agency, a private company or a scarce university pool of funding. Under

this logic theWhen academic researcherresearchers start to perceive themselves not as

academics but as entrepreneurs, or as sellers of academic or research products. Thus, they

Formatted: Footer
start to only value their skills and capabilities in relation to what returns they are able to

produce on the academic market. “As When the focus shifts from “knowledge” and “science”

to “performativity”, efforts of, education become nothing more than “becomes a personal

investments” focused on “addinginvestment that adds value” to one’s an academic’s

“entrepreneurial capacities, in order for them to be able to give returns later on”capacity”

(Sennett, 1998, p.10). This shift has profound implications for the production of knowledge

and meaning making.

“As precariousness, time pressure and surveillance, the profound feelings of

anxiety, shame, fraudulence have become prevalent in neoliberal higher education

today, they have come to influence not only on the lives of academics and their

experience within academic institutions, but also the form and substance of their

scientific production as well” (Sparkes, 2007, p.230).

There are three ways in which scientific production inHowever, social psychology has

contributed to not only been shaped by neoliberal governmentality. First; it also reproduces

it and disseminates it in three important ways. Firstly, it has done so by producing either

provided the scientific justification for the various (neoliberal) processes or by failing to

counter these with opposing research approaches and narratives. Secondly, it has influenced

itsocial psychology has promoted neoliberal ideas by encouraging specific, conducive

research paradigms, which are conducive to and contribute towards neoliberal

governMentality.. Thirdly, and in consequence toas a result of the second,research

paradigms it has impacted on promoted, it has influenced the topics, which that are being

researched (as pertaining to “thematic analysis” in the meta-theoretical approach proposed

by De Rosa (2013). Namely, it will be argued that it has led to the under consideration and

under examination)). As a result of neoliberalismthese tendencies, social psychology as

common sense anda discipline has allowed neoliberalism’s emergence as a dominant form Formatted: Footer
of thinking (hegemonic social representation). and a “common sense” form of thinking to be

under-considered and under-examined.

Why and when did publishing articles in well-indexed journals become the first and
foremost criterion to “make it” in the academia, when the calling, or vocation, of teaching and
researching required so many other skills and abilities. As sociologist David Pontille
remarked,

“Given the spiralling number of published articles—and of authors per

article—we urgently need to move away from an obsession with the number
of published articles and find a better way to speak about science. One way
of achieving this is to reduce the importance of published articles in the
evaluation of researchers and take into account other contributions such as
conference presentations, teaching contributions to courses and seminars,
administrative responsibilities, and communication with various audiences”
(Pontille, D., 2016).

As de Rosa maintains: “Scientific quality is critical for the viability of any discipline and for
making an informed and responsible contribution to societal debates. But the sole emphasis
on number of publications, impact factors, Hindex and the like, contributes to an unwelcome
homogenisation of the field in general, and of European social psychology in particular” (de
Rosa, A.S., 2014, p. 2).
The impact on the form of knowledge production has been amongst the most

prevalent ways in which most important way that neoliberalism has influencedinflucenced

academic outputs. Namely, Journal articles have come to be the preferred and favoured

forms of is by changing the form of knowledge production, namely by favoring the

publication. The consultancy Digital Science looked at the forms of research, which

academics have submitted to UK research assessments since 1992, and found a sharp

reduction in books in favor of articles (HEFCE, 2016). Additionally, the study found that the

Formatted: Footer
proportion of journal articles at the expense of books, as a student from the UK has

conclusively demonstrated. (HEFCE, 2016). more than doubled, making up over 80 per cent

of social science submissions by 2014. This is hardly the case for the UK alone, as similar

practices have been reported around the world (De Rosa, 2013, 2012, 2014b, 2014c).

One of the reasons is certainly the fact that publishing in Journals allows academics

to be included in highly This is the result of the preference for algorhythmatically

demonstrable excellence, which is more easily tracked in varies influential databases that

track citations and impact, such as Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science and Elsevier’s Scopus.

Indeed, as it has been previously elaborately discussed, a key requirement for career

progression and advancement in academia is the publication in high-ranking Impact Factor

Journals. “It has become a convenient tool in the hands of academic, and which is easily

understood and deployed by administrators to determine ‘author impact’, which helps

determine promotion and tenure, and a person's scientific worth, but also to easily compare

between the performances of institutions. Books have lostwho seek to audit and surveille

their value in the eyes of evaluators who use simplistic indicators as ‘impact factors’, which

are defined only for journals and cannot be used for books” (De Rosa, 2014b; Larivière et al,

2006, p. 56).increasingly precarious employees.

The preference of Journal article publications at the expense of the publication

offor journal articles over books has an impact onimpacted the content and substance

produced. Indeed, the of scholarly publication. The content produced, represents in scholarly

publication can be considered an element of neoliberal governmentality because it is

knowledge which is diffused and circulated in society, and becomes the basisit can become

a tool for either maintaining or challenging the status quo. Thus, it can also be considered to

be an aspect of neoliberal governmentality. As Kolozova has argued, the favouring of

publishing Journal articles instead of books has multiple implications, as it is direct collision Formatted: Footer
with the more traditionally accepted scales on determining the category of paper in social

sciences and humanities. Namely, contrary to practices in natural and technical sciences, in

these academic fields the most important achievement is publication of a monograph and

not an article that often has the form of research summary or report. In such ways,

attempting to fit social sciences into molds adapted from the applied sciences, affects not

only the type of output, but also its substance. Fundamental research may rely more on

language and elaboration, and restraining it to the requirements of academic journals may

lead both to alienation and demotivation by researchers, but also to lack of funding and

appreciation of more traditionally performed research and output (Kolozova, 2013).

One of the central limitations withBy publishing journal articles, instead of rather than Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

longer format manuscripts andlike books, is that theyscholars are limited to a smaller word

count, which does not allow for the full extensiveness of theultimately restricting them from

fully accounting for or elaborating on ontological, epistemological, methodological and

axiological concerns to be elaborated on or indeed even taken an account of.. This has

contributed to the encouragement of created a corresponding preference for

positivist/realist/quantitative approaches. Indeed,These positivist/realist/quantitative

research approaches in fact mirror the very metrics on which citation indexes are based,

which is itself rooted in positivist epistemologies, realist ontologies, and quantitative

methods, which fails. These metrics fail to measure and thus take into account for other

aspects of research, such as social impact, didactic influence, or emancipatory value.

Neoliberal knowledge production Formatted: Font: Arial, 11 pt, Not Bold

Formatted: Normal
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Not Bold

OntologyTherefore, ontology and epistemology therefore representare the roots

from which the method of this research stemsmethod (Carter & Little, 2007). The

ontological/epistemological positions define the paths of inquiry and the ways of judging Formatted: Footer
knowledge claims (Bernstein, 1975) and they inform choices made in terms ofabout

research design and tools for data collection tools, the relationship between the researchers

and the participants as well asand the data analysis techniques adopted to ensure the quality

of methods is rigorous. Moreover, epistemology influences the manner in whichhow the

researcher conceptualizes, and communicates with their audience –—determining whether

varied mechanisms can be used to involve the participants to act as active interpreters to

both produce and disseminate the research findings through multiple forms (Carter & Little,

2007). Thus, these paths of inquiry are not rooted simplysolely in matters of epistemology

but also in “ontological relations of power, influence, and control within communities of

inquirers” (Hart, 2000, p. 43). Moreover, “to dismiss them is to reduce social inquiry to

matters of technique separating the means of inquiry (i.e. method) from issues of purpose,

value, and assumption that shape the very act of inquiry itself” (Schwandt, 1994, p. 119). Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Font color: Auto, Not Highlight

Considering that eachBecause every project is shaped by social and political realities,

values, and standards and each is situated within a complex web of background knowledge,

the first decision a researcher should make when shaping the research is adopting a clear

ontological and epistemological stance should be the first decision made when shaping the

research. And yet. Yet, as Dillon & Walls (2006) point out, not all researchers pay

sufficient attention to the epistemological, and indeed ontological, aspects of the

research process. Indeed, Teo (2002) reminds that the relationship between ontology and

epistemology is not acknowledged in mainstream psychology, and, thus it is a problematic

issue for the discipline.

It is in particular the The ideological implications of positivism, aswhich is rooted in

realist ontology, and implying a imply the same kind of quantitative methodology and a value

neutral axiology, that is predominantare found in neoliberalism.

Formatted: Footer
 It is the discussion over the The ideological implications of research choices, and

particularly the impact of the hegemony of positivism, andare important for understanding

how thisneoliberal governmentality plays out in the “thought collectives” or academic

communities of mainstream Social Psychology and Social Representations Theory, which

will serve as the backdrop for examining the consequences of the previously described

relationships.

FirstThe first issue that needs to be investigated is the issue of (social psychologists’

false) consciousness amongst (social), which is cultivated by the neoliberal Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
governmentality; social psychologists regarding bothoften do not recognize either their Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
(un)consciousness over their own paradigmatic embeddedness within specific

thought collectives andor the ideological implicationimplications of their

paradigmatic choices and consistency. The second issue refers tois the (false) academic

(un)consciousness regarding theof these social psychologists as researchers, who

misrecognize or overlook their real motives impelling them (researchers) to conductwhen

conducting work within a specific field of (social) scientific interest and on a specific topic.

ItThis false (un)consciousness is in particular in relationparticularly pronounced when it

comes to understanding the ideological implications over the predominant role, orof

hegemony of the epistemological paradigm of “positivism” within Social Psychology that this

issue will be explored. The intention is to contribute towards greater academic

consciousness about the value of and repercussions of ‘paradigmatic (in)coherence’

(De Rosa, 1994, 2013, 2014)..

Formatted: Footer
The case of Social Representations Theory and neoliberalism
With this in mind, the study of ideology within Social Representations Theory

and Social Psychology would imply the study of social psychological processes and

mechanisms by which certain social representations and constructions of the world

as developed and promulgated within the disciplines, serve to legitimate, maintain

and reproduce the existing institutional arrangements, social and power relations

within a society (AugoustinosAugostinos & Walker, 1995, p. 288).

Why did people consider SRT to be a possible liberating force?

The case of Social Representations Theory and neoliberalism

In the disciplinary box of social psychology, if there is one question that is being
perennially discussed since the emergence of this field of study, it is the interplay of
the individual and the social. Around this issue, a number of theoretical but also
methodological questions, such as data collection, remain unsolved. The
“revolutionary paradigm” of Social Representations Theory (Valsiner, J., Sammut, G.,
Andreouli, E., Gaskell, G., 2015) was viewed by many as a new direction, which “[has]
caught the imagination of social psychologists in Britain - the battleground between
European and American traditions and paradigms - and the theory promises to
dislodge attribution theory from its grip on the discipline” (Parker, I., 1989, p. 91), but
the theory is acknowledged by North American social scientists as well: “Part of its
appeal is that it emphasizes the social in social psychology, whereas so much work in
social psychology emphasizes the workings of individual cognition in social
situations” (Beattie, P., 2016, p. 145). Because they are formed and develop within the
framework of social interactions between the social and the individual, social
representations are a form of knowledge that is difficult to grasp in its conceptual
fullness (Jodelet, D., 1989). And because of that, the theory has encountered ample
criticism.
Formatted: Footer
 Although well established in the tradition of European science and social
psychology in particular, the use of the theory of social representations was
sometimes concealed by certain authors when their work was to be published in
“mainstream” high-indexed journals.
From the perspective of Social Representations, the issue is even more crucial. As Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"

Raudsepp notes, “Most of the contemporary conflicts in the world are symbolic
conflicts, mediated and regulated by certain social representations and social
identities related to them” (Raudsepp, M., 2005, p. 465). These remain rarely
addressed in the literature, and Social Representations Theory has strong potential in
bringing light to such issues. The current world is characterized by rapid and
profound changes from the global to the local level. The knowledge produced by the
social sciences has proved to be useful in understanding and overcoming the
complexity of our world, but governments, as well as all social and economic actors,
must make a more systematic use of the social disciplines. Social scientists and
policymakers need to re-evaluate the contribution that social science can make to
public policy, while particular attention must be paid to combining curiosity based
activities with activities more directly relevant to public policy. The importance
currently attached to the following research tendencies should also be re-examined:
is research funding determined by publications or determined by social change?
This section will include an empirical part based on interviews with members of the

SRT community. The primary purpose of the empirical section will be to ask to what extent

has SRT been self-reflexive, i.e. to what extent the researchers within the discipline have

been conscious of how their social and historical position, choice of paradigm and ideology

is influencing their research. For instance, some of the questions posed will inquire to what

extent have researchers been aware of the domination (and its implications) of

operationalization and statistical-methodological analysis, what are the pressures they face

as academic workers, and the outputs produced in this context? An empirical section follows,

based on 23 interviews conducted with randomly selected members of the SRT community

Formatted: Footer
(Annex 1 & 2). The empirical examination, is supplemented with meta-theoretical data

derived from the SoReCom “A.S. de Rosa” @-library. Commented [JJ8]: Are these notes?

As elaborated in Chapter 1, a (social) psychology of knowledge is concerned with

individuals who choose certain paradigms and examines their motivations, unconscious

motives, group dynamics and so on (Teo & Febbraro, 2003). Thus, the latter would be Commented [JJ9]: Is this a book proposal?

concerned with exploring the motivations behind the social psychologists’ choice of

paradigms, or research program and determining the extent to which these choices are

conscious or not. The second issue which pertains to the (social) psychology of knowledge is

the issue of (false) consciousness amongst (social) psychologists regarding both their

(un)consciousness over their own paradigmatic embeddedness within specific thought

collectives and the implication this carries over towards their ontological, epistemological,

methodological and axiological choices, as well as the consistency between them. Second is

the issue of a (false) academic consciousness or lack of awareness on the real motives

impelling researchers to conduct work within this specific field of (social) scientific interest.

It is in particular in relation to the ideological implications over the predominant role, or

hegemony of the epistemological paradigm of “positivism” within social psychology and the

hegemony of neoliberal governMentality that this issue will be explored in the empirical

section that follows.

The following section reports findings from semi-structured interviews (Annex 1 &

2), which were conducted on a random sample of 23 members of the academic community,

who participated at the 13 International Conference on Social Representations (CIRS) in

Marseilles, France, from 14-17 September 2016. The Conference represents the biggest

annual event for the SRT community. Since 1992, the ICSR is held biannually, alternating an

organization in and outside Europe (Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2014 Evora, Portugal 2012;

Gammarth, Tunisia, 2010, Bali, Indonesia, 2008; Rome, Italy 2006; Montreal, Canada, 2004; Formatted: Footer
Stirling, Scotland, 2002; Guadalajara, Mexico, 2000; Mexico City, Mexico, 1998; Aix-en-

Provence, France, 1996; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1994 and Ravello, Italy, 1992).

The starting point for the research was the wish to start a direct dialogue with

members of the SRT academic community. The objective of the research had been to not only

obtain data for publication purposes, but also to begin a reflexive and introspective process

amongst members of the community, regarding meta-theoretical questions, which have

hitherto been insufficiently explored. The interview responses reported here form part of an

exploratory study, which following positive feedback from the interviewees is likely to be

extended into a full scale research project targeting a larger pool of interviewees, which can

be combined with other methods.

The interviews (Appendix 1 and 2) were jointly prepared and conducted by Ana

Tomicic, the author of the present work (Gjorgjioska Marija Adela) and Borja De Madeira, all

enrolled in the SoReCOM Joint PhD in Social Representations and Communications under the

mentorship of Professor Ana Maria De Rosa. Three language options were presented to

interviewees: French, English and Spanish, from which they were able to select a preferable

option. A semi-structured process was followed whereby the interviewees were allowed to

elaborate on their answers more extensively if they felt urged to do so. A consent form was

prepared and signed by each participant. When a permission from the interviewee was

obtained the interviews were also were recorded. The main criteria for inclusion were

participation in the Conference as a registered attendee; the respondents included Post-Doc

students, early career Professors, as well as established Professors. Not all interview

answers are reported here. Only those relevant for the analysis as developed in the present

work have been extracted and presented here. As the preparation of interviews as well as

their realization was done collectively, there is likely to be overlaps in the reported findings

among the participants in the design. The data analysis and interpretation were not

conducted collectively, which was a purposeful decision to demonstrate the role of Formatted: Footer
subjectivity in the interpretation in data analysis, and the importance of its

interconnectedness with the specific research question.

5.1 Field of Research

SRT has been widely reported (De Rosa, 2013) to be a widely geographically diffused

theory. This relates both to the geographic location of the researchers, as well as the research

field. Amongst the interviewed the following countries were represented: France, Italy,

Hungary, Romania, Malta, Greece, Spain, Brazil and Mexico. This is indicative of the highly

international character of the community. The respondents’ field of research is similarly

diverse as can be observed in Table 1, with the largest number of respondents belonging to

general psychology. However within those 11 who reported their field of research as Social

Psychology the following subfields were also reported: Deviance/Stigmatization; Dietary

Plans; Work/prematurity and nursing; Theories of Influence; Research on societal and

collective action and movements.

5.2 Choice of Research Focus/Theme

The second question aimed to derive answers regarding the perception on the

motivations behind researcher's’ choice of research focus/themes. The interviewees usually

Formatted: Footer
reported a mix of different factors (context/opportunity/preference), which they can be

loosely categorized in the four clusters:

· Academic Market/Power Relations/Career:

“It is often based on what is fashionable on the market, the thematic networks which offer more

job possibilities, the themes that are more conducive to receiving grants; there is certainly a

sense of practicality in the choices, researchers choose their themes to be able to balance what

they have invested in school loans”

· Social Context/Proximity with Topic/Intellectual Curiosity

“It depends on where they are coming from, their field experiences, the political context; I deal

with issues I registered on the field, my professional field. I used to work in the hospital and I

want to make conditions better for my colleagues.

· The formation/training already received

“In my case, it was to keep a certain continuity with my master one, to make it easier.”

· Personal identity, choice and opportunity

“Their own identity and their own experiences, I think. The interest in research has to do with

lived experiences, the stimuli we were exposed to and which somehow affected our lives.”

5.3 Choice of Methodology

The third question of relevance to the present study concerns the issue of

methodology. As observed throughout the thesis, the choice of methodology is inseparably

connected with the ontological and epistemological precepts of a chosen theory, and it

impacts on the relationship with the subjects, the way in which data is dealt with and

interpreted, as well as on the results obtained. What is more, it has been demonstrated that

the choice of methodology is also highly ideological, as oftentimes relations of oppression

Formatted: Footer
and inequality are kept undisclosed because of the method chosen. In view of the inquiry

about the counter-ideological aspect of SRT, this question aims to ascertain motivations,

introspection and consciousness amongst the members of the SRT community, regarding the

far-flung repercussions of the choice of method. Contrary to expectations, the results

demonstrated that the choice of methodology is often automatic and does not bear

consciousness with the full scale of implications this brings. The results reported in Table 2,

have been clustered in four main categories.

We can see that the largest cluster falls to the perceived factor: Training in a specific

methodology and the impact of the institutional context. Considering that in neoliberal

education methods likely taught are likely to be positivistic, the higher prevalence in

quantitative training is likely to also impact on ideological implications of research, as well

as their (in)consistency with certain theoretical frameworks. 13% of respondents also

report that they purposefully adapt their methodology to the requirements of publishing.

This is a highly worrying trend. However, there seems to be a high level of awareness about

the inter-connectedness between theory, method and ideology, as observed in the 35% who

have listed these factors as key determinants of the choice of method. Selected quotes as

pertaining to the specific clusters are presented below, in order to communicate in full the

views of some of the members of the SRT community.

· Training in a specific methodology/Institutional context

“Researchers often use methods they know. Methods sometimes do not correspond to what is

needed to answer a research question.”

Formatted: Footer
“Continuity with academic training, prior knowledge. Easier than to go read loads of new

books.”

“The institution they work in, the methodology that is taught at their Uni, their professors, the

bibliography the access.”

· To appear scientific/publishable

“Quantitative methods are easier to sell”

“Logically, it should come about from the topic of research. But there is this tendency towards

scientificity, which is not necessarily realistic, but we will use experimental methods to achieve

it for example. It might not even be the best match to approach a topic of research.”

“There are a lot of people that choose mainstream/publishable method.”

· The requirements of the research question/theoretical framework

“It depends on the research question, on the hypothesis. When you are researching “How?” and

“Why?” verbal communication is better. So I create methodological plans that would take that

into account.

“Ideally, the methodology is defined by the research questions. however, in practice, methods

are chosen which justify our being scientists. there is focus on data and not on content. A focus

group can give you more insight than a survey with 700 participants.”
Formatted: Footer
“Most of all it is the aim of the research that determines this. But also how you understand the

social problem. It’s also an ideological question/ to understand, question and explain in certain

ways. Method is ideology. It’s related with epistemology/ how we want to approach social

issues.”

5.4. Choice of format for publication (Book or Journal

Article)

As outlined in Chapter 2, one of the ways in which neoliberalism has influenced the

outputs and the content of academic work, has been through the preferred and favored

forms of publication, namely the journal articles. Fundamental research may rely more on

language and elaboration, and restraining it to the requirements of academic journals may

lead both to alienation and demotivation by researchers, but also lack of funding and

appreciation of more traditionally performed research and output. (Kolozova, 2013) One of

the central limitations with publishing journal articles, instead of longer format manuscripts

and books, is that they are limited to a word-count, which does not allow for the full

extensiveness of the ontological, epistemological, methodological and axiological concerns

to be elaborated on and indeed taken an account of. Unanimously (23/23) the interviewed

members of the SRT community confirmed hypothesis that books have been almost entirely

sidetracked by Journal articles. This was reported by 100% of the respondents, who only

different in their interpretation of this trend.

“Articles are the preferred option because of the evaluation of scientific output, the impact

factors. Books take a similar effort but less gain. There is a strong hierarchy in publication
Formatted: Footer
formats. Before it was books that were preferred because it is easier to express ideas, there are

less editorial constraints.”

“Articles are expected most of the time, you need a certain number of national and international

publications to get your credits and your PhD. If you want to climb the academic hierarchy you

need to publish journal articles”

“I think it’s basically about the criteria imposed by the CNU (national council of universities),

or in psychology for example, only publishing is recognized. To pass the CNU, books do not

matter.”

“Publishers do not have the means nor the scope to publish books anymore. Articles have better

ratings (in more than one dimension) and are important for grant applications.”

5.5. Choice of Journal: Perceptions regarding the guiding

factors

The impact factor and the prestige of the Journal were listed as the key factors

determining the choice of Journal.

“Impact factor are crucial of course because you need to be thinking of funding. They have to

be prestigious, thematically compatible of course, and some Journals are trendier than others.” Formatted: Footer
“The prestige of the journal, its impact factor is key. And then if you don’t get accepted you keep

lowering your criteria. The topic of your paper and your methodology have to be in line with

the Journal’s, with that seems to be the mindset of editors.”

“In general this is imposed by the Universities, so the people try to publish in high impact factor

Journals or journals with high prestige. We all do that, it is imposed by the system. Publish or

perish. If you don’t play by it, you don’t survive.”

The general feeling observed amongst the respondents when they answered this

question was one of frustration at the unfairness and stressfulness of the academic system.

The interviewees often indicated that the current situation is markedly at odds with what

could be said to be an ideal situation:

“Ideally, you need to see your audience. In reality, it is the market which justifies the choice,

more impact factor becomes more important than the questions, being acknowledged,

(connected to academic politics and power in your field), more important than ideas.”

5.6 Motivation for using Social Representations Theory

Formatted: Footer
 As it has been demonstrated in Table 3, the two main factors why SRT appeals to

researchers is the Institutional Context/Academic Training (44%) and the Research

Question/Explanatory power of the theory (35%).

· Institutional context/Academic training

“It depends on where you did your PhD, the supervisor’s influence on the choice of theory. This

doesn’t mean you can’t change. There’s a normativity established during the PhD. Also, ideology

plays a role.”

“Most people just inherit the theoretical framework.”

· Research questions/Explanatory power

“I think it’s based on research questions. Certain theoretical frameworks rather than others are

derived from certain research questions because they are more prone to answer them. It is

better than choosing research questions depending on one’s theoretical framework. I need to

understand certain phenomena and I will use the theories I feel are more conducive to the

understanding of said phenomena and to find solutions.”

Formatted: Footer
“The object of study. SR give me a framework to understand the complexity of phenomena. SR

theory gives me good instrument tools, to use and complement with other theories.”

· Epistemological/Ideological Issues

“Ideologically, SR theory allows us to see how social regulations influence cognitive functioning

contrary to the psychological theory of capitalism.”

“SR because it gives a framework to understanding (freedom). SR is a meta-theory, gives more

explanations of social phenomena and how to understand them. It completely changes the

focus. Go against dominant non-functional theories. I try to integrate social identity theory w/

SR theory.”

“Partly it is ideological and partly epistemological (how you understand reality and social

problems. SR theory (qualitative approaches) help understand how people think. I originally

started with social cognition theory, but it wasn’t enough. It was too concrete/specific, it didn’t

help. I was skeptical of it (social cognition) because it is limited. Social representations theory

can be applied more widely. It is also motivated by social problems.”

Interestingly, although only 17% reported ideological/epistemological issues to be

behind their choice of SRT, we can see in section 4.9 of the present Chapter that 78% of

respondents answered that they believe that ideology influences their research.

Formatted: Footer
 · Trends/Norms in Research

“The norms in research (Is it a trendy theory?), I guess I chose SRT because Moscovici

once said SRT does not enable us to study reality as it is but society as we construct it. It has its

limitations because it does not really help in a critical approach; it is more helpful to understand

the cognitive universe of people. Also, methods are often based on declarative responses. SRT

researchers should develop their methodologies more.”

5.7 Perceptions about factors that impact a scholar’s

academic success

This question inquired into the perceptions amongst members of the SRT community

regarding what they believe is behind scholar’s academic success. Unanimously, the

interviewees responded that publication in Journals with impact factors is the key factor,

combined with the networking embeddedness of the academic.

“I have to say, in the UK at least, if you have a strong record of publications and a strong record

of grants, it definitely increases a lot your chances of getting the job. Everyone wants money,

everyone wants publications, for money, you need publications and…”

“It is more about the number of publications, but also about networking skills, etc.

Unfortunately, it is not necessarily the best. ”

Formatted: Footer
 There was a sense of disappointment reported, due to the almost complete disregard

of other factors such as for instance the didactic role of the Professor, the imaginativeness of

the ideas, and their social objectives.

“What I find to be a pity is that we are supposed to become researchers and professors, but the

only thing that is valued is the research part and publishing. Not even conference

communication. It’s a shame.”

“In my university investing time in teaching is not valued as much as having publications.

Success is related to publications in Journals, more than Conferences and non-scientific papers

which are with social impact.”

“Ideally, it should be about the ability to explain reality and contribute to it through teaching

and involvement/participation in local developments. But it is about publications“

5.8 Perceptions about the impact of (social) science on

society

We next examined the perception over the impact of (social) science on society. 80%

of respondents felt that it has no impact at all, or only a marginal impact. Only 20% felt that

Formatted: Footer
(social) science has impact on society. (Table 4) Most of the respondents who commented

that it had no impact, qualified their answer to apply only to the social sciences:

“I think in social sciences, we have very little impact. For example, economists have had a strong

impact, for good or bad. We have a very fragmented theoretical landscape of theories about,

you know, human behavior, theories of the self… It is very difficult for a policy maker to get

something actionable. Because you have very different theories about the same behavior. A lot

of theories are called cheap theories, developed on very little data, and it is not a surprising that

they are not very useful. It will take an effort from the social sciences to establish a dialogue

with policy makers.”

“I feel like there is no impact whatsoever. It’s the politicians that have the major impact on

society and scientists do not play much of a role.”

“The way that social scientists work there is not much impact. They pretend to be natural

scientists but are not. No social scientist realises this.”

40% reported little impact, which was indirect and only accumulated incrementally

and observed in the long run.

“When it comes to the issues I tackle in my research, the impact, if any, will happen in the long

term. Whatever the researcher is working on will help get things moving as to their

representations of the object of study. But he doesn’t affect them directly, because this change
Formatted: Footer
in representations has to first go through political channels. So my job is basically to change

the politician’s perspective on said phenomena, hoping to change the policies themselves.”

However, a third of the respondents added that they strongly believed that it should

have a greater impact on society and gave suggestions on how this should occur:

“Ideally, it should if there’s also the role/relation with civil society (NGOs). at the moment

scientific community only talk to itself. only few experts make the bridge.”

“Science vulgarization is very important. To do research is worthless if its results are not given

back into society. You have to give back to the field what you have taken from it.”

5.9 Perception over Ideological positioning and Impact on

Research

The overwhelming number of respondents self-classified themselves as belonging to

the ideological left. For a random sample, the 83% is very high and it seems to indicate the

alternative character, its criticality towards mainstream social psychology, has attracted a

larger number of left-wingers compared to rightwingers.

Formatted: Footer
 What we are however more interested here is in the consciousness over the

ideological impact on research. As it has been repeatedly shown throughout the present

work, the dialectical relationship between ideology and research is apparent in the choice of

research paradigm, the consistency between the tenets of the theoretical framework; the

wider (neoliberal) social and academic context and the choice of topics/themes for research.

The majority of respondents demonstrated an awareness regarding the ways in which their

ideology is impacting on their research.

22% answered that ideology does not impact on their research:

“Not really in the research. In society yes because i collaborate with NGOs. Scientifically not so

much because impact depends on publishing.”

78 % answered that ideology impacts on their research:

“Of course ideology influences me and everyone – you will interpret your results differently, over

interpret them. It happens in those moment when you get disconnected from the research

question.”

“Yes. Everyone concerned with social issues has a certain value system. If you care about what

people think, it’s social concern. Most social scientists are left leaning, and it shows in their

research and results. It shows in the methodology (a constructivist approach is more

democratic).”
Formatted: Footer
“Yes, I am happy to admit that. It impacts everybody, only left people are the only ones that

admit it.”

“Absolutely. If someone is on the left will be going into social change. It someone is right, there

will be bigotism. In the middle it is influencing it is more objective.”

Yet others qualified what such an impact of ideology on their research entails:

“Ideology impacts not the research output (which should follow the method), but the choice of

the theory/ the theoretical framework.”

5.10 Conclusion

There are several conclusions that can be drawn from the interview insights that were

summarized above. Firstly, the constraints and pressures of neoliberal academic practices seem to

be a major influence on all respondents without an exception. This suggests that further research

is needed about the impacts of neoliberal academia on the members of the SRT community. The

second key finding has been that the overwhelming majority of interviewed members identify as

belonging to the ideological left. This is consistent with the theory’s challenge of mainstream

social psychology, which has relied on philosophical and methodological precepts, which are in

theory and effect right wing, in that they serve to conserve and protect the dominant status quo. In
Formatted: Footer
view of the fact that Moscovici was highly interested in innovation and social change, it is

unsurprising that the theory has attracted those who share the same worldview. The third

conclusion has been that a large majority of respondents finds the impact of social science to be

very limited or non-existent. This requires the exploration of ways in which SRT can reinvent itself

to change this in a more positive direction.

Formatted: Footer
Formatted: Footer