Table 1. Process of constructing... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1.

Process of constructing calculating selves

Timeline	Phases in the translation process	Main events	The performative technology’s subjectivizing effects	Rhetoric used	Rationale for professionals to follow the construction of calculating selves
2015	Problematization phase	Clustering of different critiques incentivizes change External push: the transformation of the evaluation system of Swedish universities Internal push: internal rhetoric – avoid finding ourselves, “outside the club”	The performative technology represents an idea It is not able to discipline the academics, nor does it mandate compliance as the rules of the market are not yet set The idea is seen an opportunity rather than a setback and a risk	Convincing actors of the relevance of accreditation	An opportunity
2016–2017	Fabrication phase	Academics are actively engaged in fabricating practices into numbers. This is not because of a desire to comply, but rather to be proactive and try to influence commensurability	Subjectivizing work through self-realization (Englund and Gerdin, 2019) Academics are actively engaged in order to influence the prospective competitive milieu	Engagement, active participation, opportunism	To influence who will be the winners and make sure you will not end up as a looser
2017 – 2018	Materialization phase	Reduction of qualities into measures The rule of the game is statured It becomes possible to compare, express standards, mandate normal behavior, and categorize employees Winners and losers of the system appear	Subjectivizing work through compliance (Englund and Gerdin, 2019). The performative technology becomes a powerful force that puts pressure on individuals to behave according to externally defined priorities Through visualization (mirroring), the performative technology incites self-reflection and self-discipline among individuals	Visibility, accountability	Reward and punishment
2018–2019	Challenging commensuration and reclassification phase	The ones designing the system contested the commensuration In order for the performative technology to seduce and colonize academics, it needs to include several more values and attributes. As a consequence, a reclassification of the system occurred	Subjectivizing work mainly through mirroring (Englund and Gerdin, 2019). Individuals meeting or almost meeting the criteria incite self-reflection and self-discipline, and thus become seduced and colonized. In this way, the technology most likely becomes so powerful that it starts to appeal to the inner mentalities of the professionals	Transition from a problem to asset	Living up to expectations
2020–	Stabilization phase	The Business School invests in a software solution that helps them collect and generate data on employee competencies	The performative technology becomes more stable Subjectivizing work through value identification, mirroring and compliance (Englund and Gerdin, 2019)	Accountability through self-reflection and self-discipline	Normalization

Timeline	Phases in the translation process	Main events	The performative technology’s subjectivizing effects	Rhetoric used	Rationale for professionals to follow the construction of calculating selves
2015	Problematization phase	Clustering of different critiques incentivizes changeExternal push: the transformation of the evaluation system of Swedish universitiesInternal push: internal rhetoric – avoid finding ourselves, “outside the club”	The performative technology represents an ideaIt is not able to discipline the academics, nor does it mandate compliance as the rules of the market are not yet setThe idea is seen an opportunity rather than a setback and a risk	Convincing actors of the relevance of accreditation	An opportunity
2016–2017	Fabrication phase	Academics are actively engaged in fabricating practices into numbers. This is not because of a desire to comply, but rather to be proactive and try to influence commensurability	Subjectivizing work through self-realization (Englund and Gerdin, 2019)Academics are actively engaged in order to influence the prospective competitive milieu	Engagement, active participation, opportunism	To influence who will be the winners and make sure you will not end up as a looser
2017 – 2018	Materialization phase	Reduction of qualities into measuresThe rule of the game is staturedIt becomes possible to compare, express standards, mandate normal behavior, and categorize employeesWinners and losers of the system appear	Subjectivizing work through compliance (Englund and Gerdin, 2019). The performative technology becomes a powerful force that puts pressure on individuals to behave according to externally defined prioritiesThrough visualization (mirroring), the performative technology incites self-reflection and self-discipline among individuals	Visibility, accountability	Reward and punishment
2018–2019	Challenging commensuration and reclassification phase	The ones designing the system contested the commensurationIn order for the performative technology to seduce and colonize academics, it needs to include several more values and attributes. As a consequence, a reclassification of the system occurred	Subjectivizing work mainly through mirroring (Englund and Gerdin, 2019). Individuals meeting or almost meeting the criteria incite self-reflection and self-discipline, and thus become seduced and colonized. In this way, the technology most likely becomes so powerful that it starts to appeal to the inner mentalities of the professionals	Transition from a problem to asset	Living up to expectations
2020–	Stabilization phase	The Business School invests in a software solution that helps them collect and generate data on employee competencies	The performative technology becomes more stableSubjectivizing work through value identification, mirroring and compliance (Englund and Gerdin, 2019)	Accountability through self-reflection and self-discipline	Normalization

Source: Authors’ own creation