Selecting early-career researchers: the influence of discourses of internationalisation and excellence on formal and applied selection criteria in academia

Abstract

This article examines how macro-discourses of internationalisation and excellence shape formal and applied selection criteria for early-career researcher positions at the mesoorganisational and micro-individual levels, demonstrating how tensions between the various levels produce inequalities in staff evaluation. In this way, this article contributes to the literature on academic staff evaluation by showing that Selection Committee members do not operate in a vacuum, and that their actions are inextricably linked to the meso-and macrocontext. This study draws on qualitative multi-level data that comprise institutional-level policies, recruitment and staff protocols, job postings and individual-level interviews and focus groups with Selection Committee members. Findings show that a majority of Selection Committee members consent to university policies and macro-discourses when evaluating early-career researchers, but a smaller group questions and resists these criteria. Furthermore, the analysis revealed four inequalities that emerge in the application of criteria and reflect on disciplinary differences between the Natural and Social Sciences. The article concludes that with only a few Committee members to critically question and resist formal selection criteria, they limit the pool of acceptable candidates to those who fit the narrow definition of the internationally mobile and excellent early-career researcher, which may exclude talented scholars.

The world-systemic network of global elite sociology: the western male monoculture at faculties of the top one-hundred sociology departments of the world

“…Internationalization, that is the core concept of a neoliberal and global university, (Herschberg et al 2018) has become a norm that most universities strive for. The main features of internationalization include, among others, an international curriculum, inward and outward student and staff mobility, and engagement with international networks and collaboration (Ennew and Greenaway 2012).…”

“…Regarding the first, departments must recruit the most productive employees in order to boost the research output of the institution that is measured by all prestigious university rankings (Pietrucha 2018). Regarding the second, departments must recruit an internationally-diverse faculty in order to agree with the concept of a neoliberal and global university (Ennew and Greenaway 2012;Herschberg et al 2018). Thus, the classical view holds that universities, or more precisely, selection committees hire an extraordinarily productive and internationally diverse staff (Burris 2004;Tomlinson and Freeman 2018).…”

The gendered diversification of academic career paths in comparative perspective

“…The academic profession is no exception to this rule. A ream of research literature has pinpointed the structural changes currently sweeping across higher education (HE) and research institutions (Enders and de Weert 2009a;Fassa and Kradolfer 2013;Fumasoli, Goastellec and Kehm 2015;Herschberg, Benschop and van den Brink 2018;Musselin 2005Musselin , 2009Musselin , 2017Teichler, Arimoto and Cummings 2013;Tuchman 2009). As indicated below, these shifts interact with parallel changes to the gender composition of the academic workforce (European Commission 2016) to produce untoward challenges to the academic professional ethos.…”

The World-Systemic Dynamics of Knowledge Production: The Distribution of Transnational Academic Capital in the Social Sciences

“…Moreover, in the neoliberal era universities are encouraged in many ways to internationalize (Herschberg et al 2018). This fuels mobility as a habitus, making it an important source of academic capital for individual researchers, but also a valuable feature that international universities support and appreciate as well.…”