Page 168 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

166 CHAPTER 6
Yet, my analysis shows that principal investigators use a more narrow construction of the ideal postdoc. They look for someone who can successfully execute and complete a temporary project and who will stay for the duration of that project. Principal investigators in my study implied that they tend to opt for low(er) risk candidates who can meet project objectives, in which availability can prevail over other criteria. The investment from both the employer and the employee is seen as only for a limited time, which causes principal investigators to particularly focus on short-term project objectives rather than a candidate’s suitability for a longer-term academic career. Thus, the ideal postdoc is not constructed as a researcher who can invest in the development of a scientific and societal relevant research programme, but as someone who is a project worker. As a result, there is limited attention for the longer-term career perspectives of postdocs and a possible misalignment with the next career step.
Second, I show that ECR recruitment is different from senior positions because of the assessment of potential for junior scholars. Studying hiring practices for both postdoc and tenure-track assistant professor positions revealed an interesting distinction between the two. For tenure-track positions, committee members focus more on the long term than for postdoc positions, as candidates for assistant professor positions are seen as the future researchers that can shape the direction of research. The various studies on assistant professors in this dissertation show that committee members (have to) make judgements based on potential because candidates do not have long track records of academic performance. I observed that hiring based on potential tends to be a subjective endeavour that gives room for selection based on tacit criteria. The studies in this dissertation show that these tacit criteria are conflated with inequality practices, as they give room for personal preference and assumptions. Recruiting and selecting in and of itself are designed to exclude people. However, in the collective, power laden processes of recruitment and selection, unintentional inequalities can come to the fore. Such inequalities pertain for instance to gender, which brings me to the second contribution of this dissertation that I will elaborate on in the next section.
Practices and practicing in recruitment and selection
The second contribution of this dissertation pertains to studying the (re)production of inequalities in recruitment and selection by examining the two-sided dynamic of practices (i.e., what has been said and done routinely) and practicing (i.e., saying and doing in real time and space) (Martin, 2003). I add to the debate on inequalities in recruitment and selection by relating the accounts of committee members (i.e.,