The study examines the academics’ perception and experiences of performative ethos in research universities in Finland and South Korea. It is in the process of analysing the interview data questioning academics’ practical matters (tasks and roles), governing mechanism (assessment and incentives), and value of academics and universities in the performative regime. Based on a doctoral dissertation planned to be written in a monograph, this paper will present a brief of the whole research and preliminary ideas of findings and discussion parts.

The study investigates how academics in Finnish and Korean research universities have experienced and perceived performance-based management (PBM) in the name of effectiveness, efficiency and competitiveness. It embraces academic life and challenges in performative ethos; academic autonomy, assessment, and incentives which are core techniques of PBM on academics; academics’ roles, views on students, and university roles in both countries. A total of 28 academics (researchers, lecturers, and professors in hard and soft sciences) in research universities of two countries participated in the semi-structured interviews.

The main research question is how the globally promoted ideas of PBM in universities get interpreted and translated into socio-culturally different (local) contexts. It is inquired through perceptions and experiences of academics in research-based universities in Finland and South Korea. Along with it, there are four sub-questions: 1) practice: similarities and differences of academics' tasks, working environment and challenges in performative ethos in two countries 2) governance: similarities and differences of impact and effect of PBM (assessment and incentives) on academics in two countries. 3) engagement: similarities and differences of responding to performative ethos in two countries 4) core value: similarities and differences of academics' views on themselves, students, and universities.

The fundamental purpose of the study is to propose the direction and implications for the further comparative education research of Finland and South Korea concerning the academics’ subjectification through their academic lives and work in the performative regime. In addition, to comprehend this global phenomenon, actively respond to the changes and rethink policy borrowing or education export issues, this comparative education study considering socio-cultural aspects can play a pivotal role.

According to Deem (2001), the ‘local dimension can make a difference to how universities respond to global forces because local conditions or a lack of overall national policies can affect the extent to which academic capitalism or entrepreneurialism develop’ (18). Thus, it can shed light on how neoliberal education tendency (policy) in HE, such as research funding scheme and salary system, can have similar effects on academics in contrasting cases despite the different degrees.

Performance-based management is the disciplinary technique (power) which is optimised for neoliberalism based on freedom and flexibility (Son, 2016, p. 9). PBM is in the same line as university marketisation: enhancing efficiency, effectiveness (productivity and responsiveness) and quality by shouldering more accountability and receiving rewards (economic or social incentive) (Brown, 2013). Performativity is pursuing the effective usage of resources by measuring and determining true value (Tolofari, 2005, p. 86), which sophistically permeates the mindset and behaviour of actors. Value, judgement, display, incentives and self-controlling for the performance secured the justification to actors through the discourse of efficiency found on competition and accountability (Ball, 2003; Gunter, 2012, p. 76). These are ‘disciplinary techniques for taking charge of the behaviour of individual day by day and in its fine detail is exactly contemporaneous with the age of freedom’ (Foucault, 2008, p. 67).

Academics’ experiences and views on performative ethos will be analysed and compared between Finnish and South Korean contexts by employing thematic analysis. The purposive sample for this study included twenty-eight interviewees, which consisted of fourteen in Finland and fourteen in S.Korea. The interviewees were lecturers, researchers, or professors in research universities in two big cities. The criteria for selecting samples are as follows: 1) Who is working in the public research university (top university and regional university) as a lecturer, researcher, or professor; 2) Who is working in soft or hard disciplines ; 3) Considering diversity according to gender, age, and position. Given this stance, four research universities are considered from two regions of Finland and Korea, all public or national and comparably similar in size and academic status for the equivalence of comparison between the two countries. In practice, the order of questions was flexible and modified according to the respondents' answers. These specific questions were classified into three broad themes: practice (task, time, ethos), governing(autonomy, measuring and displaying, incentives), and essence (roles of academics and university, views on students). The interviews with the Korean academics were arranged face to face and most were in their own offices. Interviews were conducted from the 8th of October to the 1st of November 2019. All Korean academics were interviewed in Korean. In Finland, interviews were conducted from the 25th of November 2019 to the 5th of March 2020. All Finnish participants fluently spoke English. The interviews with the Finnish academics were arranged face-to-face in their offices. The duration of the interview was generally between 90 minutes and 120 minutes. Each interview was recorded, based on the interviewees’ permission, and the recorded data was transcribed into the spoken language for analysis. Thematic analysis firstly was chosen as a method to analyse the interviews, to ‘minimally organise and describe the data set in detail, and interpret various aspects of the research topic’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The process of the analysis followed the guide to the six phases of conducting thematic analysis, as noted by Braud and Clarke (2006); 1) becoming familiar with the data, 2) generating initial codes, 3) searching for themes, 4) reviewing themes, 5) defining and naming themes, and 6) producing the report. This study will use deductive and inductive approaches for the analysis.

By synthesising literature review and interview data analysis, PBM's impacts on academics’ work were thematically analysed: competition vs competitiveness; transparency vs opaqueness; fairness vs inequality; autonomy vs accountability; Responsiveness vs loss of creativity (diversity). In addition, the academics’ responses to PBM regarding moral and social-emotional issues were discussed. Thus, it illustrates the impacts of performance-based management (PBM) on academics’ work and ethos in Finland and South Korea. In addition, it explores the challenges and dilemmas the academics in the two countries have encountered. Secondly, it will discuss the socio-cultural aspects (such as individualistic vs. collectivistic culture or social democratic vs economic capitalistic) of the two countries to scrutinise how to practise PBM in university and academics. Thirdly, it will also look into historical and political contexts of performance ethos in the two countries, which can clue in on understanding the governing techniques (a mechanism) university. The fundamental purpose of the study is to propose the direction and implications for the further comparative education research of Finland and South Korea concerning the academics’ subjectification through their academic lives and work in the performative regime.

Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228. Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, New Managerialism, Academic Capitalism and Entrepreneurialism in Universities: is the local dimension still important?. Comparative Education, 37(1), 7-20. Gunter, H. M., Fitzgerald, T., & White, J. (2012). Hard Labour? Academic Work and the Changing Landscape of Higher Education, 65-85.