Page 46 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

44 CHAPTER 2
is known if the candidate “works hard” and “is easy to get on with”. The respondent argues that this can be decisive if two candidates “seem equally good”. An Italian respondent reveals his inclination to hire candidates that he knows and appreciates. We learn from him that his preference for “someone you know” creates a closed “competition” and puts unknown candidates at a disadvantage (IT, SSH, M). Italian PIs often tailor the job description to the candidate recruited informally. Here we find that formal policy that requires an open competition for postdoc positions can partly be circumvented. Our findings show that despite the ostensible openness of published vacancies, access to a position is generally restricted to people benefiting from a local gatekeeper or network connection outside the department.
Thirdly, we find that informal networks are used for acquiring recommendations from network connections, which can play an important role in the recruitment of postdocs. A Swiss respondent argues: It’s true that word of mouth, a telephone call, is shall we say, compared to impact factor, is much, much more important (CH, STEM, M). This quote shows the impact of “word of mouth” recruitment through informal channels. According to the respondent, a reference from another person is “much, much more important” than a journal “impact factor”, illustrating the use of referees for the legitimation of a candidate’s scholarship (Thornton, 2013). This reveals the power of networks and the trust PIs have in their network connections.
The selection of postdocs
In this section we show how the selection of postdocs takes place, as this is the process in which the ideal postdoc is constructed. Most respondents in the various universities and departments argue that they require postdocs to have published a (small) number of articles, mainly looking whether or not the content of these publications matches the topic of the research project they are hiring for. However, our analysis shows that there are other, more decisive, criteria that play a role in the selection of postdocs. We will now turn to these criteria that together construct the ideal academic.
The criterion of expert knowledge
The first selection criterion that PIs consider important is related to the content of the research project at hand.
In the case of our postdocs, there are some difficulties that persist. Let’s say that we think a bit egoistically, we have obtained the funding and now we need to find someone who can do this, and assuredly do it. (BE, SSH, M)