Page 60 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg
P. 60

58 CHAPTER 3
years (De Goede, Belder, & De Jonge, 2013). A comparative perspective between research departments within the Natural Sciences (also referred to as STEM) and Social Sciences (also referred to as SSH) disciplines has been chosen, because disciplines vary considerably with regard to the evaluation of knowledge development contributions (Lovitts, 2007), the compositions of students and staff, career patterns and recruitment and selection criteria and practices (Van den Brink, Fruytier, & Thunnissen, 2013).
Data collection
The prevalence of macro-discourses of internationalisation and excellence are well- articulated in the literature on the neoliberal university. It will be studied how these discourses are translated to the meso- and micro-level. At the meso-organisational level, both the broader university level and the specifics of a Natural Sciences and a Social Sciences department are considered. University policy documents have been collected, as well as recruitment and staff protocols and job postings of the two departments to study formal selection criteria. These textual data provide an overall picture on how an institution accounts for its activities (Silverman 2011). The university policies included a strategic plan (2015), internationalisation policy (2013) and language policy (2014) of the university. In addition, a recruitment protocol (n.d.) and a tenure-track memorandum (2010) for assistant professorship positions of the Natural Sciences department were collected. For the Social Sciences department, a staff development plan (2013) was included. Finally, 23 job-postings for tenure-track assistant professorships (18 from the Social Sciences and 5 from the Natural Sciences) were analysed, covering all published job-postings for tenure-track assistant professorship positions in the period 2010–2014.
At the micro-individual level, nine semi-structured interviews with selection committee members (hereafter: committee members) were conducted. Also, focus groups with committee members were conducted: one in the Natural Sciences with four respondents, and one in the Social Sciences department with three respondents (see Table 3.1 for more information on the respondents). This study makes use of focus groups, because this enabled respondents to construct criteria in interaction with each other and to discuss, negotiate and question the criteria proposed (Bryman & Bell, 2007). The respondents for both the interviews and the focus groups were selected from those that took part in selection committees for tenure-track assistant professorship positions in the period 2010–2014. Their names were retrieved from appointment reports. During the interviews and focus groups, respondents constructed the criteria that they consider important in the recruitment






























































































   58   59   60   61   62