IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v51y2024i2p297-308..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The precarity paradox: the precarity-driven inefficiencies of research at a public university

Author

Listed:
  • António Ferreira
  • João Quesado Delgado

Abstract

Precarity is often interpreted as a neoliberal management strategy to maximize profits in private companies through the endorsement of insecure jobs, inadequate wages, and limited rights for workers. This interpretation, however, is unsuitable to analyse situations where the State endorses precarity in non-profit public organizations, for example, State-sponsored universities. We hypothesize that in these situations, the ‘precarity paradox’ is particularly prone to manifest. Such a paradox can be defined as the endorsement of precarity to induce organizational productivity and flexibility that, instead, leads to overwhelming inefficiencies and productivity losses. To test this hypothesis, we conducted empirical research at the faculty of engineering of a Portuguese public university where precarious contracts are dominant among researchers. Based on the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative data collected, it is concluded that productivity- and flexibility-oriented precarities reduce the productivity of researchers while jeopardizing the capacity of the faculty to rationally employ its human resources.

Suggested Citation

  • António Ferreira & João Quesado Delgado, 2024. "The precarity paradox: the precarity-driven inefficiencies of research at a public university," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(2), pages 297-308.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:2:p:297-308.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scad075
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:2:p:297-308.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.