TEORIE VĚDY / THEORY OF SCIENCE / XXXVIII / 2016 / 1 ////// studie / article /////////////////////////////////////////// PROJECTIFICATION AND CONFLICTING TEMPORALITIES IN ACADEMIC KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTION Abstract: Th e project format has become a standard and self-evident way to organize research work in today's accelerated university context, leading to the projectifi cation of science. Th is paper argues that the project format is not a mere technical organizational tool, but that it challenges and reshapes research practices and ideals. Th e project format is embedded in a specifi c temporality which is called project time. Th e key characteristics of project time are scrutinized by distinguishing it from process time, which refers to the internal organizational logic of research. In addition, project time is examined through Barbara Adam's theorizing on the commodifi cation, control, compression and colonization of clock time. In the last part of the paper, temporal confl icts in project-based research are examined empirically by drawing upon interview material with Finnish academics working in the social sciences. Keywords: academic research; project time; process time; social acceleration Projektifi kace a konfl iktní temporality v produkci akademického vědění Abstrakt: Projektový formát se stává standardním a zcela zřejmým způsobem organizace vědecké práce v dnešním kontextu zrychlené univerzity a ústí v projektifi ckaci vědy. Tento článek tvrdí, že projektový formát není pouze organizačním nástrojem technické povahy, ale že zároveň postihuje a přetváří vědecké praktiky a ideály. Projektový formát je zakořeněný ve specifi cké temporalitě zvané projektový čas. Článek zkoumá hlavní rysy projektového času a odlišuje jej od procesuálního času (process time), který představuje vnitřní organizační časovou logiku výzkumu. Nadto je projektový čas analyzován pomocí teoretického modelu Barbary Adamové, ve kterém zkoumá komodifi kaci, kontrolu, kompresi a kolonizaci hodinového času. Na pozadí rozhovorů s fi nskými sociálními vědci studie v závěrečné časti pojednává o časových konfl iktech ve projektově orientovaném výzkumu. Klíčová slova: akademický výzkum; projektový čas; procesuální čas; sociální zrychlení OILI-HELENA YLIJOKI Research Centre for Knowledge, Science, Technology and Innovation Studies (TaSTI) School of Social Sciences and Humanities 33140 University of Tampere, Finland email / oili-helena.ylijoki@uta.fi 8 Introduction Th e project format has become a standard way to organize research activities in today's managerial university. Th e image of the lonely scholar who is dedicated to advancing his (seldom her) intellectual pursuits in the peace and quiet of academia's ivory towers has given way to tightly organized teamwork on fi xed-term projects with competitive external funding from various national and international sources. It could be said that university research has moved from individual craft smanship to mass production involving the effi cient distribution of labour. Th is general trend applies to some extent to all disciplinary fi elds, including the humanities and social sciences, where an individual working style has been common. As a consequence, disciplinary diff erences have become increasingly blurred. While traditionally the university could be seen as a community of academic tribes with distinctive ways of organizing research,1 the rise of the project format steers them all towards the same pattern. Th e "projectifi cation of science"2 is not a separate phenomenon, but the project format has become a common way to organize diff erent kinds of activities in diff erent kinds of organizations, thereby creating also an increasing number of working roles as project workers and project managers. Some authors3 even speak about the projectifi cation of the whole of society as project-related principles, rules, techniques and procedures penetrate all aspects of living. Th is includes our private lives and social relationships, as "life is conceived as a series of projects",4 creating "a new iron cage of project rationality".5 Th e triumph of the project format springs from its apparently seamless fi t with the needs of today's unpredictable and turbulent "high-speed soci1 Tony BECHER, Academic Tribes and Territories. Milton Keynes: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press 1989. 2 Niki VERMEULEN, Th e Projectifi cation of Science. Paper for the 5th making projects critical workshop 21–22 January 2010. Bristol Business School, University of the West of England. 3 See Harvey MAYLOR – Tim BRADY – Terry COOKE-DAVIES – Damian HODGSON, "From Projectifi cation to Programmifi cation." International Journal of Project Management, vol. 24, 2006, no. 8, p. 663–674. 4 Johann PACKENDORFF – Monica LINDGREN, "Projectifi cation and Its Consequences: Narrow and Broad Conceptualisations." South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, vol. 17, 2014, no. 1, p. 13 (7–21). 5 MAYLOR et al., "From Projectifi cation," p. 664. Oili-Helena Ylijoki 9 ety" characterized by social acceleration.6 Rosa7 distinguishes three forms of social acceleration that thoroughly shape our lifeworld: technological acceleration (the speeding up of transportation, communication and production); the acceleration of social change (the decline in the stability and permanence of social institutions and practices); and the acceleration of the pace of life (subjective experiences of the fast tempo and rhythm of living). As a result of all these aspects of social acceleration, life inside and outside organizations becomes increasingly unstable, transient and volatile. In this turbulent context, the project format off ers a temporal, fi xed-term, fast and fl exible way to achieve specifi c one-off goals. It is a targeted tool for a targeted function, which matches well with the suddenly emerging and rapidly changing needs of organizations.8 Th e project is established for a fi xed task for a fi xed period: it begins and it ends, without promising continuity, permanence or commitment. Doing this, the project format entails "a promise of a hyper-effi cient organizational form free from any organizational slack".9 In this paper, I will examine the project format in academic knowledge production from a temporal perspective. My argument is that the project format is embedded in a specifi c temporality, which I will call project time. Furthermore, I will suggest that this temporality has important implications for research practices and academics' work experiences, resulting in several temporal confl icts and paradoxes. Th e structure of the paper is as follows. I will start by characterizing some of the key changes in the current higher education context to explain why the project format has become so popular. Aft er this background sec6 See e.g. Barbara ADAM, Time. Cambridge: Polity Press 2004; Robert HASSAN, "Network Time and the New Knowledge Epoch." Time & Society, vol. 12, 2003, no. 2/3, p. 225–241; Carmen LECCARDI, "New Temporal Perspectives in the High-speed Society." In: HASSAN, R. – PURSER, R. E. (eds.), 24/7. Time and Temporality in the Network Society. Stanford: Stanford Business Books 2007, p. 25–36. 7 Hartmut ROSA, "Social Acceleration: Ethical and Political Consequences of a Desynchronized High-Speed Society." In: ROSA, H. – SCHEUERMAN, W. E. (eds.), High-Speed Society: Social Acceleration, Power and Modernity. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press 2009, p. 77–111; Hartmut ROSA, Alienation and Acceleration. Towards a Critical Th eory of LateModern Temporality. Malmö: NSU Press 2010. 8 See Gernot GRABHER, "Temporary Architectures of Learning: Knowledge Governance in Project Ecologies." Organization Studies, vol. 25, 2004, no. 9, p. 1491–1514; Damian E. HODGSON, "Project Work: Th e Legacy of Bureaucratic Control in the Post-bureaucratic Organization." Organization, vol. 11, 2004, no. 1, p. 81–100; MAYLOR et al., "From Projectifi cation," p. 663–674; PACKENDORFF – LINDGREN, "Projectifi cation and Its Consequences," p. 7–21. 9 GRABHER, "Temporary Architectures," p. 1491. Projectification and Conflicting Temporalities in Academic Knowledge Production 10 tion, I will move on to the temporal analysis and scrutinise what I mean by project time. First, I will present the core features of project time by distinguishing it from process time, and then I will apply Barbara Adam's theorizing on clock time to elaborate further the specifi c dimensions of project time. In the last part of the paper, I will concretise my arguments by way of empirical material gathered among Finnish academics working in social sciences. Academic knowledge production in transition Academic knowledge production is a good example of the general trend of projectifi cation and social acceleration. In the current knowledge-intensive economy, higher education policies and science policies in most Western countries perceive universities as nodes in the national innovation system, thereby emphasizing their economic contribution. Since scientifi c knowledge is seen to be the core factor in achieving the economic growth and competitiveness of businesses, regions and nations in global markets, the key challenge is to speed up the fl ow of knowledge and high-skilled workforce from academia into society and to accelerate the commercialization of scientifi c knowledge into new products and processes.10 Th is transformation of the science-society contract has been theorized and conceptualized in several ways. One of the most infl uential views is the so-called Mode debate.11 It claims that academic knowledge production has changed from the traditional Mode 1 into the new Mode 2. Th e Mode-1 type of knowledge production is disciplinary, curiosity-driven basic research, carried out in stable institutional structures and assessed by criteria set down by the scientifi c community. Gibbons and his co-authors argue that this traditional model has been overtaken by externally funded, transdisciplinary, problem-oriented Mode-2 type research, which is conducted in an applied context and evaluated by its economic and social utility. Th e sharp dichotomy and straightforward transition embedded in this view have been criticized as simplistic, exaggerated and insensitive to disciplinary and 10 David. C. MOWERY – Phaven N. SAMPAT, "Universities in National Innovation Systems." In: FAGERBERG, J. – MOWERY, D. C. – NELSON, R. R. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2005. 11 Michael GIBBONS – Camille LIMOGES – Helga NOWOTNY – Simon SCHWARTZMAN – Peter SCOTT – Martin TROW, Th e New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage 1994. Oili-Helena Ylijoki 11 organizational diff erences.12 For instance, in many technological fi elds research has always been problem-oriented, aimed at commercial benefi ts and conducted in close collaboration with industry. In these cases Mode 2 does not represent anything new, but is the traditional way of doing research. Yet in spite of these reservations, the Mode debate helps to make sense of the recent changes in academic research and the growth of the project format within it, which is especially apparent in the EU science policy initiatives and programmes. Th e project format is the organizational response to the drive and demand for transdisciplinary, fi xed-term, solution-oriented research on specifi c phenomena that are defi ned as problems at a given time. Th e rise of the project format in academic knowledge production can also be explained by the concept of academic capitalism introduced by Slaughter and Leslie.13 Academic capitalism refers to various eff orts to attract external funding at all levels of academia, both direct profi t-seeking market activities such as patents, licences and spin-off companies, and market-like activities in which academics, research groups, departments and universities compete for external funds without the intention of making a profi t. Academic capitalism is driven by the needs of businesses and universities alike. On the one hand, in order to become and remain competitive in the market, businesses are increasingly dependent on knowledge produced in academia; on the other hand, universities need new sources of income as state funding for higher education has been diminishing. As a result of these interrelated interests, academic research is increasingly conducted with external funding for fi xed-term projects. Due to these kinds of changes in the science-society relationship, the project format has become a standard, self-evident way to organize research work in academia. Th e temporal, fast and fl exible project format is a perfect match with the need to conduct solution-focused, one-off research in transitory interdisciplinary teams with competitive external funding. Research work is project work, involving writing project applications, fi nding project partners, competing for project funding, recruiting project researchers, running project management, meeting project deadlines and reaching the goals defi ned in the project contract. 12 See e.g. Laurens K. HESSELS – Harro van LENTE, "Re-thinking New Knowledge Production: A Literature Review and a Research Agenda." Research Policy, vol. 37, 2008, no. 4, p. 740–760; Oili-Helena YLIJOKI – Anu LYYTINEN – Liisa MARTTILA, "Diff erent Research Markets: A Disciplinary Perspective." Higher Education, vol. 62, 2011, no. 6, p. 721–740. 13 Sheila SLAUGHTER – Larry L. LESLIE, Academic Capitalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press 1997. Projectification and Conflicting Temporalities in Academic Knowledge Production 12 In this project-based and competitive context of academic capitalism, academic knowledge production has become increasingly stratifi ed and polarized. Th e science system has always been hierarchical, but it seems that the divide between those who win and those who lose, those who have and those who have not,14 is sharpening. Individual academics and research groups have diff erent amounts of bargaining power on the funding markets, and accordingly, the academic profession has been found to be increasingly diversifi ed, fragmented and stratifi ed,15 even between colleagues on the same university corridor.16 Furthermore, the project format itself is built on an internal hierarchy. On the one hand there are project leaders and managers; on the other there is the growing mass of project researchers. Th e projectifi cation of science is dependent on a workforce of fl exible project workers who can be employed on short-term contracts and who are willing and able to move from one project to the next. Th eir work involves constant circular repetition as they go through the same project cycle again and again. Th is kind of circularity is also characteristic of career-building in short-term academic employment. In tight project work it is diffi cult to have a linear career advancement; rather, careers tend to move horizontally from one project to another. Th e stratifi cation of academic research concerns also disciplinary fi elds.17 Some fi elds operate in several research markets, while others have substantially more restricted access to funding sources. Th e opposing disciplinary groups in this regard seem to be the technological fi elds and the humanities. For instance, it has been found in Finland18 that technological fi elds attract research funding from a wide variety of sources: from public funders such as research councils, the EU and government ministries, and from private businesses and industry worldwide. At the other end of the 14 SLAUGHTER – LESLIE, Academic Capitalism. 15 See e.g. Joelle FANGHANEL, Being an Academic. London: Routledge 2012; Mary HENKEL, "Introduction: Change and Continuity in Academic and Professional Identities." In: GORDON, G. – WHITCHURCH C. (eds.), Academic and Professional Identities in Higher Education. New York: Routledge 2012; Lynne GORNALL – Jane SALISBURY, "Compulsive Working, 'Hyperprofessionality' and the Unseen Pleasures of Academic Work." Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 66, 2012, no. 2, p. 135–154; Svein KYVIK, "Th e Academic Researcher Role: Enhancing Expectations and Improved Performance." Higher Education, vol. 65, 2013, no. 4, p. 525–538. 16 Oili-Helena YLIJOKI – Jani URSIN, "Th e Construction of Academic Identity in the Changes of Finnish Higher Education." Studies in Higher Education, vol. 38, 2013, no. 8, p. 1135–1149. 17 SLAUGHTER – LESLIE, Academic Capitalism. 18 YLIJOKI et al., "Diff erent Research Markets." Oili-Helena Ylijoki 13 continuum are the humanities, which are essentially dependent on funding from research councils and some foundations – that is, academic funding for basic research. However, even within the same disciplinary fi eld, individual projects diff er in terms of how much money is available, where the money comes from and what kind of money it is. It is not only a question of the quantity of money, but also its quality. Th ere is good money and not-so-good money, depending on how much autonomy it allows and to what extent it resonates with one's own research interests. In cases of exceptionally abundant and long-term funding from highly valued sources, academics may reach a really elite position with luxury time and autonomy. Th ey bring in money and prestige, which tend to be the most valued capital since they can be converted into better ratings in rankings and performance assessments. Th us, academic capitalism interrelated with the projectifi cation of science tend to sharpen and intensify hierarchies and power relations within academia. To conclude, the project format is not a mere technical or neutral organizational tool. Instead, it challenges, shapes, alters and rebuilds research practices and working conditions. Th e argument put forward in this paper is that a temporal analysis can off er new insights into the implications of the project format and the changes of research practices and academics' work experiences. Th e paper claims that the project format is embedded in a specifi c invisible, self-evident temporality, called project time,19 which gives rise to temporal tensions and confl icts in research work. Next I will discuss in more detail what kind of time project time is. Project time versus process time In order to clarify the specifi c features of project time, I will distinguish it from process time. Th ese two times represent opposite organizational logics: process time is grounded in the internal logic of research activity, whereas project time refers to the inherent temporality of the project format. Both times are ideal types. In other words, they do not have any direct empirical counterparts, and they cannot be found in pure form in daily research activities. I will discern six key diff erences between them, each shedding light 19 Oili-Helena YLIJOKI, "Conquered by Project Time? Confl icting Temporalities in University Research." In: GIBBS, P. – YLIJOKI, O.-H. – GUZMÁN-VALENZUELA, C. – BARNETT, R. (eds.), Universities in the Flux of Time. London: Routledge 2015, p. 94–107. Projectification and Conflicting Temporalities in Academic Knowledge Production 14 on the temporal specifi city of the project format in academic knowledge production. First, project time entails a strictly defi ned time frame. Every project starts and ends at given dates agreed in the research contract. In this way, project time has fi xed, preset temporal boundaries which separate one project from other projects that may be successive or overlapping. Each project is an entity of its own, involving a unique life cycle and identity which are oft en cemented in the project's logo, acronym and web pages. Process time, on the other hand, has no strict temporal limits. Its boundaries are unclear and fuzzy. Research is an ongoing creative process, as ideas keep evolving and thoughts ripening irrespective of project boundaries and funding periods. Th erefore it is impossible to say when exactly a project starts and when it ends. Second, in addition to the clearly defi ned beginning and end, project time entails preset milestones which regulate activities. Each project has an internal clock according to which time is measured and outcomes produced. Th e internal clock requires a constant awareness of time, dictating how long research can take, what stages there are and what results need to be achieved by certain dates. Process time does not follow the logic of scheduled time but is embedded in proper time (Eigenzeit),20 the internal logic of research activity. Research and its phases take as much time as is needed to achieve results. Research process has its proper time, which cannot be submitted to predefi ned schedules but has to be cherished and respected. Th ird, project time and process time also diff er with respect to how the passing of time is understood. Project time is linear, cumulative and progressive. Guided by schedules, research moves forwards steadily towards the goals that have been defi ned in the contract. Each new phase is based on the previous phase so that the results are produced in a cumulative chain. While the temporal arrow of project time always points forwards, in process time it may point in any direction. Process time entails periods of standstill, acceleration and deceleration. Research may proceed linearly, but it may also be cyclical and go round in circles when, for instance, a given problem appears again and again. Th ere may be routine phases when nothing much happens, there may be setbacks when it is necessary to go backwards, and there may be phases when research makes big leaps rapidly. Hence, whereas project time is one-dimensional, always heading forwards, process time moves in various directions on neither a regular nor a predictable basis. 20 Helga NOWOTNY, Time. Th e Modern and Postmodern Experience. Cambridge: Polity Press 1994. Oili-Helena Ylijoki 15 Fourth, project time is invariant and independent of context. It is based on dates, timings, durations and sequences which can be quantifi ed, measured and evaluated by the clock and calendar without taking into account the particular work conditions under which research is carried out. In project time, all time is equal. One hour is always one hour, and variation means only that there is an error in measurement.21 In sharp contrast, process time is dependent on a given work situation. Th e context matters: under diff erent conditions and situations time is qualitatively diff erent. For instance, one hour is quite a diff erent thing when the deadline is about to expire than when it is still a long way off . Th erefore it is crucial what specifi c hour is in question. Fift h, project time and process time rest on opposing conceptions of the relationship between the present, past and future. Project time is predictable so that the end is known at the beginning. Th e future is included in the present and can be anticipated on the basis of present knowledge, which in turn is the outcome of past results. Th e predictability of the future is already manifest, for example, in the research proposal, in which it is necessary to articulate what the results will be and what scientifi c and social impact they will have. Th is is reversed in process time. Process time is unpredictable: the future remains open and potential, involving a space for emergence. From the angle of process time, it would be irrational to defi ne the results before the research is actually conducted. Research produces unexpected outcomes, the appearance of something totally new which cannot be identifi ed and known in advance. It is this that makes research work meaningful and signifi cant. Lastly, project time is a typical example of fast time and time pressure, while process time allows experiences of "timeless time",22 which means immersing aff ectively, cognitively and physically in work and thereby transcending the passing of time.23 Project time is tightly scheduled according to fi xed timetables, involving a constant awareness of the time available for the completion of each phase of the project. Th e aim is to achieve the goals in the most cost-effi cient ways without wasting time, which promotes fast time. 21 ADAM, Time, p. 101. 22 Th e concept timeless time was elaborated in my earlier work, see Oili-Helena YLIJOKI – Hans MÄNTYLÄ, "Confl icting Time Perspectives in Academic Work." Time and Society, vol. 12, 2003, no. 1, p. 55–78. 23 See Charalampos MAINEMELIS, "When the Muse Takes It All: A Model for the Experience of Timelessness in Organizations." Academy of Management Review, vol. 26, 2001, no. 4, p. 548–565. Projectification and Conflicting Temporalities in Academic Knowledge Production 16 In addition, because competition for funding is tough, there is a tendency to promise in the application to do a lot, which further speeds up work and creates time pressure. Process time, by contrast, involves timeless time in which academics are absorbed in their work, have fl ow experiences and transcend time awareness.24 Th e tempo of work is not defi ned by the schedule, but by the task at hand. It may be fast or slow, including both heated, hectic moments of discovery and inspiration25 and slow, peaceful periods of refl ection and thinking. Th e crucial thing is that the rhythm of work is internally determined, not externally imposed. To conclude, project time and process time represent opposite temporal regimes. However, the dichotomy between them is merely analytical. Both times are ideal-typical constructions which cannot be traced in pure form in actual research practices. Even real luxury projects established for long periods of time with abundant opportunities for academic freedom and process time have to acknowledge some schedules, deadlines and preset objectives of project time. At the other extreme, particularly short-term and tightly scheduled projects with strictly predetermined targets need some temporal autonomy, sensitivity to contextual factors and breakaway from the overwhelming grip of project time in order to reach its objectives. Th us, project time is not an all-encompassing straightjacket but leaves room for process time and individual agency in research practices. Moreover, project time, off ering temporal structuring, may even support process time. For instance, external schedules are not necessarily always coercive but they may also promote proper rhythm and tempo in work and create opportunities to process time. In this sense, project time and process time are not fundamentally mutually exclusive but they can co-exist, albeit in constant tension with each other. Hence, the crucial question concerns the balance and power relations between project time and process time. It can be argued that due to the dominant, taken-for-granted status of the project format in knowledge production in the current academic context, project time tends to become the dominant, taken-for-granted timeframe in research work. Furthermore, the domination of linear, decontextualized, predictable and fast project time over multidirectional, context-dependent, emergent and timeless pro24 Process time is a broader concept than timeless time; experiences of timelessness are one dimension of process time. 25 Filip VOSTAL, "Academic Life in the Fast Lane." Time & Society, vol. 24, 2015, no. 1, p. 71–95. Oili-Helena Ylijoki 17 cess time creates confl icts and paradoxes at the level of research practices. Th erefore it is important to analyse further the nature of project time and its implications for research practices and academics' experiences. Next, I will unpack some of the key elements of project time by drawing on Barbara Adam's theorizing on clock time. Four Cs of project time Adam,26 one of the most infl uential theorists in time studies, has scrutinized the characteristics and implications of clock time. Clock time is the self- -evident and common-sense understanding of what time is: time is what clocks tell us. Although clock time seems to be natural – time as such – it is actually a special kind of social construction, originating in medieval Benedictine monasteries. Adam emphasizes that clock time is standard, invariant, abstract, quantifi ed, context-independent and measurable time, which can be analysed with four conceptual categories, constituting the four Cs: the commodifi cation, control, compression and colonization of time. In this paper I will argue that project time represents clock time par excellence, and accordingly, the four Cs elaborated by Adam apply to project time extremely well. Like clock time, project time is standard, invariant, abstract, quantifi ed, context-independent and measurable time which has attained a self-evident status. By using the four Cs as a theoretical lens, some of the core underlying, hidden assumptions of project time can be unveiled and made visible. Th e commodifi cation of project time refers to the exchange of research time for money. Academics sell their work time, and funding bodies buy it. Th us project time is a commodity in research markets. Academics are on the market, follow funding opportunities and try to fi nd buyers for their work. Th e commodifi cation of project time also means that research is fragmented into separate, commodity-like projects, with or without continuity of content. Th e fragmentation of research is interlinked with instability and uncertainty, since the predictability of funding markets is weak. Th is is challenging for the quality of research, which as a norm would need a longterm perspective. Th is uncertainty is a special challenge for those whose living is dependent on project funding – i.e. the mass of temporary project researchers. 26 Barbara ADAM, Timescapes of Modernity. London: Routledge 1998; ADAM, Time. Projectification and Conflicting Temporalities in Academic Knowledge Production 18 Th e second C in Adam's theorizing is control. Project time is controlled time, as academics are accountable for the use of their time to funding bodies and oft en also to university management. Time needs to be used eff ectively in order to achieve the outcomes specifi ed in the research contract on schedule. Consequently, wasting time becomes a vice to be avoided and eliminated, for instance by time management and performance assessment systems. In this way, project time acts as a powerful control mechanism in academia, making academics accountable to their superiors and the buyers of their work time. What is more, external control is not necessarily needed, because time discipline is internalized as self-discipline.27 Project time becomes one's own time and external schedules one's own schedules. Academics control and monitor their own activity in order to ascertain that their time use is effi cient and productive, that they meet their deadlines and provide value for money. In this case, external control and self-control reinforce each other. Th e compression of time refers to the speeding up of the tempo and pace of work. Project time is hectic, fast time which proceeds to predefi ned goals in the maximally effi cient way. It involves constant competition for funding, recognition and visibility. Although competition in itself is in-built in the science system,28 the current managerial context in academia strengthens it because of the growing dependence on external funding sources as well as the introduction of new audit, control and measurement mechanisms. To have success in this competition, it is vital to have an outstanding research record and a long and impressive publications list. Th is creates a strong pressure for academics to achieve continuously more and better outcomes in a smaller amount of time. Likewise the project schedules themselves tend to be tight, as the funders are not eager to pay for anything extra. As a result, project time is compressed time, characterized by tight schedules and time pressure. Lastly, the colonization of time means that project time subordinates other time frames. Commodifi ed, controlled and compressed project time penetrates various areas of life. It entails working long hours, including over weekends and holidays, potentially at the expense of one's health, family obligations and other important commitments in life. Furthermore, the logic of project rationality easily takes over how time is experienced and valued. 27 See Judith WALKER, "Time as the Fourth Dimension in the Globalization of Higher Education." Th e Journal of Higher Education, vol. 80, 2009, no. 5, p. 483–509. 28 Robert MERTON, "Science and Democratic Social Structure." In: Social Th eory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press 1068. Oili-Helena Ylijoki 19 In this sense, the colonization of project time means that one begins to see all time as an investment, and hence to calculate which temporal investments are the most profi table and therefore the most desirable. Time outside of this kind of rationality is then seen as what Adam29 calls "shadow times", times that have less value because they cannot be converted into money. Viewed from the angle of the four Cs, project time glorifi es new values such as economic rationality, instrumental orientation, effi ciency, accountability, short-termism, fl exibility and speed. Since the project format has become a standard and dominant way to organize academic research, the grip of project time has intensifi ed, challenging process time and easily subsuming it. Th is has implications, not all necessarily intended or wanted, for research practices and creates tensions and confl icts in work. Temporal confl icts in research practices Project time and process time are ideal types, but what happens in actual research practices? How does the domination of project time, which is inherently attached to the project format, reshape and remould research work and academics' experiences of it? In this last section of the paper I will discuss these questions by exploring empirically the temporal confl icts in academic knowledge production in the today's accelerated university context. Th e empirical data comprise interviews with Finnish academics collected in the research project "Timescapes of knowledge production" fi nanced by Academy of Finland (Finnish research councils). All interviewees were working in the social sciences: sociology, social policy and social work. In total, 15 individual interviews were gathered with professors and other senior, well-established social scientists at three Finnish research-intensive universities in which social sciences have a fi rm position. In terms of gender, 8 interviewees were male and 7 female. All these senior academics had a permanent university position, and their work entailed both research and teaching duties. In addition, three focus group discussions at two Finnish universities were arranged with altogether 12 junior social scientists (9 female, 3 male). Th ey all had recently received their PhDs, but their age and work experience varied since some had worked for several years in the university along with their doctoral studies and some had had a more direct doctoral school path. All of them were working on temporary contracts, varying from a couple of months to four years. Th e majority of junior academics were 29 ADAM, Time. Projectification and Conflicting Temporalities in Academic Knowledge Production 20 focused on research work. Only few had a more teaching-oriented position but also they were active in research. Both the individual and focus group interviews covered a wide array of themes related to research work, including changes in research, a typical working day, the best and worst aspects of research work, and hopes, fears and plans for the future. In the following analysis of the interview material, I will utilize the four Cs – commodifi cation, control, compression and colonization – as my analytical lens. By relying on these conceptual categories, I will explore how the academics interviewed navigate between project time and process time, and what kinds of temporal tensions and confl icts they encounter while doing this. Th e aim of this empirical section is to concretise what the conceptual analysis can mean at the level of daily work practices and experiences. Th e empirical grounding is small-scale, concerning only the social sciences in one country; hence, the fi ndings do not necessarily apply to diff erent disciplinary, institutional and national contexts. However, in this paper the function of the empirical part is not to present generalizable results, but instead to off er a nuanced feel for what it is like to live and work under the project format, and accordingly to catch project time "in action". For this purpose, several quotes from the interview material are provided. Commodifi cation of time One of the core temporal confl icts in the academics' accounts originates from short-term funding cycles. Project time is a commodity on the market, and thus researchers need to seek buyers for their work time and time again. Th us, paradoxically, linear project time evolves cyclically as the exchange of work time for money is repeated again and again. It is a widely shared opinion among academics that research and researchers need longer-term concentration on their work instead of running at full speed on a "project treadmill". Furthermore, project research is strongly dependent on the changing needs and expectations of funding bodies. Since funding markets are continuously fl uctuating, it is not possible to know whether there will be continuity for the ongoing project. Th is makes research vulnerable and risky. Th e future becomes insecure and uncertain, which is especially stressful for early-career academics working on short-term contracts. Th eir employment is repeatedly threatened, which creates extra strain and anxiety. Th e following two quotes reveal the tensions caused by short-term funding: Oili-Helena Ylijoki 21 Th is is a big problem especially for young researchers. Th e funding cycles have become so intensifi ed that research projects tend to be irritatingly overlapping. We would really need more time so that we could get old projects fi nished, and only then move on to new ones. Many young researchers are working on a real project treadmill, the funding arrangements should really be steadier. (Professor, sociology) I think that this kind of chaos is built into this work in a special way. You cannot do research work in peace because you must apply all the time for the next funding, this is built into this. I don't know whether I have learnt to cope with this better over the years, but quite oft en I think that oh no, so what, I can't cope with this any more. (Junior academic, sociology) Th e insecurity and uncertainty of project research is linked with a waste-time problem. Writing research applications takes a lot of time and energy, but it is experienced as wasted time, since most applications will be unsuccessful because of the heavy competition. Th is creates a paradox: the project format, which was intended to produce maximal effi ciency, creates waste-time and ineffi ciency. Moreover, since waste-time threatens to take an overwhelming hold, it diminishes motivation and meaningfulness in work, as is manifest in the following quote: You need to write applications quite madly all the time. When a lot of my time and sometimes clearly the major part of my time goes into writing applications, the meaningfulness of work gradually disappears. Especially when you know that mostly it is wasted time, since we won't get the funding because the competition is so hard. (Junior academic, sociology) Control of time Commodifi ed, short-term project time is intermingled with the control of project time. EU-funded projects are oft en mentioned in this context. Th ey represent a kind of paradigmatic example of externally controlled project time, including preset milestones which act as control points for successive work packages. Th e tightly scheduled timeframes along with external control lead to what is called "superfi cial work". In the following quotes two professors point to this by making a distinction between the superfi cial work of the EU projects and the ambitious, real research which they themselves appreciate: Projectification and Conflicting Temporalities in Academic Knowledge Production 22 I have never really wanted to participate in these EU projects. When the schedules are tight and teams big, the research easily becomes superfi cial. You just collect data and do some superfi cial analysis. But this way of working does not satisfy me. I would like to do research which has historical depth, for instance, research which is ambitious. You just cannot do it quickly because you need to think, refl ect and rewrite your ideas several times. (Professor, social policy) If you get funding from the EU, the work packages need to be defi ned in the application. It means that you must get those results on schedule, oft en quite fast. So it oft en happens that the results are quite superfi cial. (Professor, sociology) Apart from the EU projects, the control of project time appears mainly in the form of self-control. Academics have internalized the demands for time discipline and accountability: they carefully monitor their own activity and keep watch that they work effi ciently and reach targeted outcomes. Th is kind of self-control is emotionally laden, arousing negative emotions such as guilt and shame if one falls behind with the objectives.30 Th e burden of self-control is particularly heavy for junior researchers who are taking their fi rst steps in their academic careers and still need to establish themselves as fully recognized academics: In fact I should be on holiday but I just cannot go on holiday. Somehow I feel it would be wasted time, I feel I should accomplish more. I know I should slow down, I cannot manage all this. But then again I feel guilty for not achieving enough. [...] I have been diagnosed with burnout twice. I really don't learn. (Junior academic, sociology) Th is is a damn diffi cult job. You really must be a master of life so that you are able to stick to the limits and be productive. It really requires self-governance. Awfully many feel continuously guilty because of this, but luckily I don't feel that way any longer. (Junior academic, sociology) Compression of project time In accordance with the notion of compressed time, a shared view among academics is that the rhythm and tempo of research work is fast, involving 30 See also Charlotte BLOCH, Passion and Paranoia: Emotions and the Culture of Emotion in Academia. Farnham: Ashgate 2012. Oili-Helena Ylijoki 23 heavy time pressure. Th is creates a confl ict between fast time and timeless time. Apart from being personally the most desirable time for academics, timeless time is perceived as a precondition for high-quality research. Conversely, quality is seen to be compromised when the schedules are tight and the pace of work hectic. For instance, short-term funding cycles enforce the selection of topics and methods that are feasible within a given timeframe, and tight schedules push researchers to play safe and stay in the conformist mainstream. Th erefore academics tend to long for timeless time, oft en in nostalgic tones: Academic work is much more fragmented and fast-paced than it was when I started. But science would require laziness. Getting new ideas requires laziness, or quasi-laziness and idleness. At the moment I have no opportunity whatsoever for this. (Professor) I don't believe hectic working improves the quality of research. We are not working in a sausage factory, aft er all. I really think the quality of research would be better if we could work more slowly. Doing less but doing better. (Professor, social policy) A special case which is oft en mentioned is reading, especially reading books. It seems that time for reading has become exceptional luxury-time. Th ere is a paradox: at the same as academics produce more and more publications, there is less and less time to read.31 What is more, this is not only a question of time use; it concerns the basics of academic work and identity. Reading is seen as one of the core elements of being and working as an academic in social sciences. When this activity is threatened, it decreases the sense of meaningfulness in work and creates emotional distress. Two professors describe their experiences in the following ways: I didn't dare to look at books. Although I enjoy reading books, I didn't even want to look at them because I knew that I would not have time to read them. I felt really anxious. (Professor, sociology) If you want to accomplish something new you must have time, otherwise it's just rehashing old things. Time is pretty essential in this. Th ere is too little time. I don't have time for reading books, nothing of the sort. (Professor, social policy) 31 Th omas H. ERIKSEN, Tyranny of the Moment. London: Pluto Press 2001. Projectification and Conflicting Temporalities in Academic Knowledge Production 24 Colonization of time Academics' accounts also involve a temporal confl ict between work time and non-work time, pointing to the colonization of project time. In itself, working long hours is nothing new since academic work has traditionally been perceived as a calling and a way of life where work is life and life is work.32 Yet, in the current context, working long hours does not stem only from academics' internal motivation and passion but rather from externally imposed deadlines and performance requirements. When the demands of hectic project-based research penetrates all areas of life, one's health is at risk. Academics speak of experiences of burnout, severe backache, mental breakdown and other illnesses that they or their colleagues have suff ered. Th erefore one should protect oneself against working too long and intensively. In this way, internalized self-control and time discipline need to be supplemented by a sort of internalized well-being controller which monitors one's use of time and tries to prevent excessive working. You get shattered so easily in this work. Th erefore you must control and restrict yourself and your work. You must know when you are capable of doing something and when you must have some rest. (Junior academic, social policy) When I was younger I tended to work too much. Although I didn't end up with any acute burnout, I certainly had clear signs of exhaustion a few times. When I think about it now I realise that you really must have some balance between work and life if you want to escape those sad consequences. (Junior academic, sociology) In addition to endangering one's health, the colonization of work causes confl icts with other life commitments, such as caring for children, parents, partners and other signifi cant persons. Since work time easily takes over non-work time, academics need to struggle to fi nd and keep a balance – sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Some academics even ponder their work time in the light of existential time, contemplating what role work 32 See e.g. Johanna HAKALA, "Th e Future of Academic Calling? Junior Researchers in the Entrepreneurial University." Higher Education, vol. 57, 2009, no. 173, p. 173–190; Kamilla PETRICK, "Fast Times in Hallowed Halls: Making Time for Activism in a Culture of Speed." Studies in Social Justice, vol. 9, 2015, no. 1, p. 70–85; Oili-Helena YLIJOKI, "Boundary-Work between Work and Life in the High-Speed University." Studies in Higher Education, vol. 38, 2013, no. 2, p. 242–255. Oili-Helena Ylijoki 25 should take in their lives. Th e last quotes show how two sociology professors refl ect on their use of time: I have age-related health problems, and I take care of my baby and a teenager with teenage problems and my mother, who suff ers from Alzheimer's. All at the same time, in my private life. I'm dreaming that for the fi rst time in six years I might shove off in my boat and go somewhere, just to be quiet, in peace. (Professor, sociology) If you are inclined to feel guilty, you always feel that you have done too little. I neglect students, I don't do enough admin, I don't see my partner enough, especially just the two of us, I don't spend enough time with my children, I don't sleep enough. [...] Th e time I have, the time of my life, it goes so quickly. (Professor, sociology) Coda Th e project format is not only a technical organizational tool but it challenges and reshapes research practices and academics' work experiences. It is embedded in a specifi c temporality, which I have called project time. Th e dominance of project time over process time, the inherent temporality of research activity, creates tensions and confl icts. Paradoxically, the project format, which aims to improve effi ciency, produces ineffi ciency; it has impacts that are not intended or wanted. In this paper my empirical fi ndings have concerned only the social sciences. Yet, I would suggest that in spite of disciplinary diff erences, the four Cs have resonance in other fi elds too. Many "hard" fi elds diff er from "soft " fi elds since the project format – competitive and hectic teamwork – has been the traditional way to organise research activities in them, whereas in social sciences and humanities individual working style with long-term timeframe (oft en lifetime) has been the norm (see Becher's Academic Tribes and Territories), thereby making "hard" fi elds more compatible with the current project-based environment. However, my earlier studies33 have indicated that academics working in natural and technological sciences tend to have similar kinds of experiences of temporal confl icts and tensions like academics in humanities and social sciences: short-term and insecure funding, increasing external requirements and time control, fast tempo, and work-life imbalance, all characteristics of the fours Cs. 33 YLIJOKI, "Boundary-Work." Projectification and Conflicting Temporalities in Academic Knowledge Production 26 Th e dominance of project time is not, however, absolute or inclusive. Both project time and process time are ideal types, and in actual research practices their relationship has a diversity of forms. Individual agency has its say – including in the context of accelerated knowledge production in which academics build their unique paths and career trajectories. Academics are not mere objects or victims of projectifi cation, but active agents who appropriate, adapt, negotiate and shape the ways in which they navigate project time in their particular socio-material contexts.34 Furthermore, shadow times outside the commodifi ed, controlled, compressed and colonized project time still exist, and practices, which cannot be converted into money or H-index – such as mutual support, mentoring and engaging in civic activities – have not totally lost their importance. Th e picture is not black and white, but has shades and variations. All in all, the dominance of the project format interrelated with the rise of academic capitalism intensifi es the grip of project time over process time in academic knowledge production and promotes the polarisation and stratifi cation in research work. Together they also contribute to the increasing quantifi cation and metrifi cation of academic life. Th e amount of funding and person years off ers exact numbers that can be utilized as a sign of the quality and success of academic research, with implications for the commonsense ways of understanding what counts in academia, what is valued and appreciated, and what being a real and successful academic means. In this sense, the tension between project time and process time raises ultimately a question about the basic idea and core values of academia and academic research. 34 Judy WAJCMAN, Pressed for Time. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2015. Oili-Helena Ylijoki