Page 69 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

SELECTING EARLY-CAREER RESEARCHERS 67
Respondent A: What I mean with experience abroad are not so much foreigners. [...] I mean I think it is quite important – and that has to do with the independence that I just mentioned – like having been at another university for a couple of months. That you go and do that, curiosity, that you are willing to take such steps. But also abroad in the sense of conference visits, that you show on your CV or in the interview that you visit conferences, that you present papers, that you are working on a network. And why? Because you just know that it is important for someone’s career. This is particularly important at the beginning of a candidate’s career. So when candidates show that they are working on this, I think it is a positive criterion. Respondent C: And it shows that the candidate knows the rules of the game. Respondent A: Yes. [...]
Respondent C: Do you have fear of flying? If the answer is yes, well, that is a problem.
(SSH, focus group)
For respondents A and C, international experience is something that is needed for building an academic career, “particularly” “at the beginning”, which can be gained via different routes: research stays at universities abroad and conference visits, i.e., long- and short-term international experience. They do not fully consent with the selection criteria formulated by the department. During the focus group discussion, international experience became a signifier for “independence”, “curiosity”, and “willingness”. By doing so committee members link international experience to personal qualities. Additionally, they argue that going abroad demonstrates devotion and suitability. Respondent C briefly touches upon a problematic aspect of this criterion: “fear of flying”. She describes this as a legitimate explanation to not operate internationally, but at the same time she presents it as “a problem” if this would arise during a selection process. Later in the conversation, the focus group respondents argued that conference visits require financial means, so that a lack of finances can hamper the opportunity to gain international experience. Respondent C illustrated that even though they consider international experience “particularly important” a lack of such experience is not a reason to reject an applicant given that the “rest of the CV looks good”. Reinforcing the importance of this criterion, the respondent stated that an applicant who does not meet this criterion has “something to compensate for”. Similar to the findings in the Natural Sciences department, by applying the requirement of international work experience, committee members exclude candidates who face physical, psychological, social, or financial restrictions to their international mobility. The results show that structural hindrances to mobility are hardly recognised by committee members and if they do acknowledge them, the
3