Page 71 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

SELECTING EARLY-CAREER RESEARCHERS 69
were asked to explain how quality is measured, the data show that this is a complex endeavour:
Respondent: That [quality] is hard to objectify, because you cannot put it in numbers. [...] It is subjective; it also has to do with interest. I consider one topic more interesting than the other. Some people conduct a specific research, because they think it is interesting, but I might not share their interests. Thus, I would put this candidate lower [in ranking] than someone whose research I find exciting. Interviewer: [...] How do you measure the quality of publications?
Respondent: [...] Actually, you just have to read those publications, of course. As nobody has time to do so, this happens too rarely. (STEM, 4, M)
The respondent argues that his personal interest in and excitement about research topics play a role in evaluations. Additionally, he explains that in order to judge the quality of applicants’ publications, one should read them but this “happens too rarely” because “nobody has time to do so”. The subjective and hasty evaluation of quality makes it an ambiguous undertaking, which creates room for personal preference and bias. This honest reflection on the subjectivity of evaluation runs contrary to the opinion of most grant reviewers in the study of Porter (2005), who rate the review panel’s objectivity as very high.
Even though committee members want to select on scientific quality, they argue that this is particularly difficult for assistant professorships, as applicants for such positions are still early in their career. A respondent argued that because of the junior level of applicants, committee members cannot judge the quality of publications on its impact. Therefore, he explained to look for other signifiers of quality, such as “the length of publications”, “celebrity” co-authors, the esteem of journals, but also what publications are still to come (“pre-prints” and papers “in the pipeline”) (STEM, 3, M). Thus, the ‘publishability’ or publishable quality of the work is assessed (Clarke & Lunt, 2014). Hence, the university’s and department’s strive for excellence becomes difficult to apply as a selection criterion, particularly for early-career researchers, who have limited evidence to prove their scientific excellence. This implies that the measurement of excellence is particularly suited for more senior academics, yet, the respondents do adopt the excellence discourse in their rhetoric regarding early-career researchers.
Even though selecting for research quality seems to be taken for granted by the majority of committee members, this study also found resistance towards the discourse of excellence:
3