The ‘logic of escalation’ in performance measurement: An analysis of the dynamics of a research evaluation system

This paper makes a conceptual contribution to the understanding of the ‘alternative logics’ (Pollitt) occurring in performance measurement systems in crucial public policy domains. The major focus is on what has been referred to as ‘logic of escalation’ (Pollitt) that manifests itself where performa...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Policy & society 2015-03, Vol.34 (1), p.75-85
Main Author: Woelert, Peter
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Australian higher education
Edmund Husserl
Number concept
Performance measurement
Public organization
Research assessment & evaluation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This paper makes a conceptual contribution to the understanding of the ‘alternative logics’ (Pollitt) occurring in performance measurement systems in crucial public policy domains. The major focus is on what has been referred to as ‘logic of escalation’ (Pollitt) that manifests itself where performance measurement is strongly geared toward quantified performance indicators. What characterizes this logic is the unfolding of a peculiar dynamics through which performance measurement becomes increasingly expansive and technical (and hence costly), and, in political terms, control-focused. Drawing mainly on the conceptual resources of Edmund Husserl's phenomenological philosophy, as well as on Michael Power's work on (performance) measurement, it is shown that this sort of dynamics is linked to the constitution of quantitative performance measures as ‘abstractions from abstractions’. In addition, I highlight some of the organizational dimensions of the ‘logic of escalation’. I use the current Australian research evaluation system as a paradigmatic case to exemplify and ground my major conceptual points and observations.
ISSN:1449-4035
1839-3373
DOI:10.1016/j.polsoc.2015.03.004