The different results from this interpreta8ve analysis could be outlined in terms of the leaky pipeline in a model adapted from Brink and Benschop (2012) about recruitment processes and from Karl Weick’ sense-making (1976) as follows; the postdoc period is enacted and enac8ng the compe88on-based criteria of scien8fic/academic recruitment, whereby the early researchers account for mee8ng the demands of these criteria. In this process, research development becomes a means for career progression rather than an objec8ve for work. Indeed narra8ves give us a variety of different accounts that are career strategies and choices according to the discursive resources (Kuhn, 2006) that are available to them. These discursive resources are oVen located in compe88on-based recruitment criteria that promote certain areas of prac8cing career progression strategies, such as networking, publica8on, mobility, collabora8on, hyper-produc8vity, funding, mentoring. In his proposal about higher educa8on organiza8ons as loosely coupled systems, Weick (1976) speaks about how “given the ambiguity of loosely coupled structures, this suggests that there may be increased pressure on members to construct or nego8ate some kind of social reality they can live with. Therefore, under condi8ons of loose coupling one should see considerable effort devoted to construc8ng social reality, a great amount of face work and linguis8c work, numerous myths and in general one should find a considerable amount of effort being devoted to punctua8ng this loosely coupled world and connec8ng it in some way in which it can be made sensible.” In this way, a loosely coupled system that is the university or scien8fic/academic world is regulated by adhering to and enac8ng standards and criteria that are either compe88on-based or nomina8on-based (Dubois-Shaik, Fusulier, 2015) for membership purposes, and also by adhering to a myth or illusio (Bourdieu, 1987) of the “omnipresent” and “hyper-engaged” scien8st that strives in his quest for knowledge. A further myth that is sustained is that of “separate worlds” (Kanter, 1977) in terms of
carer roles and professional roles. Indeed, as we can observe from our results is that the carer, especially being the parent is considered an “obstacle” toward professional prac8ce and progression, even toward permanent and upheld membership. From interviews we glean that women are s8ll the primary carer, whereby their career progression and upholding becomes more of a struggle.
Moreover, in this career progression compe88on-based criteria enactment through early researchers, academic tasks such as teaching, genuine research development and ins8tu8onal engagement become lost and down-played, although they are arguably the pillars of scien8fic/academic work and professions. All the more, because for final nomina8on as permanent member, these undervalued tasks and secondary collabora8ons become important, as is shown in D 7.2. There seem to be mul8ple ambigui8es or tensions that can be named with respect to this opposi8on between the compe88on-based criteria and logic of recruitment and the nomina8on-based logic; A) firstly the difference between the focus of requirements of the scien8fic career in its early stages, as of the PhD, which is clearly connected with demands and requirements of scien8fic or research orienta8on; developing ones’ research, consolida8ng it and valida8ng this in visible publica8ons. The postdoctoral criteria affirm this research profile, by its “passport” frame, the project type work and its par8culari8es (8me frame, work load, leadership, coordina8on, independence, innova8on etc.) and the criteria named by that group of interviewees. The final selec8on criteria are however much more academic, simply because finally the recruitment of C-level posts are “academic” posts and not research posts. Ensuring teaching, ensuring ins8tu8onal engagement become key criteria for an academic appointment. The scien8fic factor or excellence shiVs therefore into the background, and in fact is some8mes penalized as a too “individualist” or ego-centric “star” logic, which cannot func8on as a sole criteria. So there is a problem of making and promo8ng scien8sts through the scien8fic excellence criteria gaining ground in ins8tu8ons, and then requiring academics, who finally have very different quali8es and require certain very local ways of being. This becomes visible when commimee member interviewees speak about having made “mistakes” in recrui8ng excellent researchers, who however could not fulfil the academic teaching mandate, because they simply did not like teaching and did not have rapports with the students. And others who wanted to be leV in peace for doing research. This becomes visible in these results with three interviewee groups of current postdocs, newly tenured and movers, who show the paradoxes of s8cky floors in teaching devalued tasks, lack of ins8tu8onal rootedness, isola8on at work, lack of collabora8on possibili8es etc. So there is a major de-coupling between these two levels of engagement.
120 Criteria for
recruitment and levels of engagement
Networking practices (and social capital)
Power dynamics in
recruitment process Gender Practices
Sense-making of early researchers Competition- based: formal/de- local or international Publications International mobility CV body building: peer reviewed, preference of English journals, H-index and other indicators, via International and national contacts and networks -Conferences - Institutional network - International networks and peers
- Funding possibilities via mentors and external network
- Host institutions invitations’ and interest of hosting
- List of formal criteria with emphasis on publications, peer reviewed and « high quality » journals prescribed by rectoral team. - Lack of transparency of appointment reports -Internal codes, knowledge of internal codes of organisational functioning and requirements - Funding options and framework:
competition-orientated perspective of universities and of research projects: social networks and lobbying/ Grants according to inter- university politics played out in recruitment committees (FNRS or UCL) - Few academic or research openings -Pro forma open calls -Reproducing the success model
-« Have it all » CVs -Intersectional disadvantages age and gender for publications and international mobility
-Linear research and academic career model -Delegation of care and household chores if possible, and lack thereof to rise to the challenge of a “do-it-all” and “have-it-all” success and work model - Flexibility of family members to go abroad or accommodate mobility - Hyper-productivity - Pressure to publish - Pressure to be mobile - Lack of collaboration - Lack of guidance and confidence-building (females) - Lack of mentoring: strategic advancement, advice, networking, collaboration, research development - Family support, existing or not - High precarity during postdoc and beyond - Parental ambivalence - Double edged Flexibility
121 Nomination- based: informal/ local or institutional High research profile Teaching capability Institutional engagement Social service Team work and collaboration Leadership
Inviting and nominating: Knowing “of someone” “someone known” from external networks Asking recommendations: Former supervisors/mentors/colleag ues Building reputations: Peers/supervisors and colleagues boosting and supporting Autonomy of recruitment committees Tension of teaching requirements with initial focus on research production. Lack of transparency of committee decisions and reports: legitimizing choices by overvaluing some criteria over others. Changing dynamics according to committee and president of committee Negotiating and choosing « Risky » or « trustworthy » candidates that “fit” Internally known candidates as opposed to external candidates Knowledge of internal codes organisational functioning/ requirements
Few academic posts with many “suitable” candidates “Have it all” success model orientation Omnipresence in 3 or 4 pillars of academic work Overvaluing of research obtained and produced/to be produced - Competition culture - Harrassement due to parenthood - Bid for funding - Teaching undervalued - Lack of collaboration - Institutional rootenedess, lack of or not
REFERENCES
Barbier, P., Fusulier, B. (2015). L’interférence parentalité-travail chez les chercheur-e-s en post-doctorat: le cas des chargé-e-s de recherches du Fonds Na8onal de la Recherche Scien8fique en Belgique, Sociologie et sociétés, Vol. 47, no. 1, p. 225-248.
Booth, A.L., Francesconi, M., Frank, J. (2003). “A s8cky floors model of promo8on, pay and gender”,European Economic Review, 47(2): 295-322.Collec8f, 1984, Le sexe du travail, Grenoble, PUF.
Bourdieu, P. (1987). Choses dites, Paris, Les Édi8ons de Minuit, coll. « Le sens commun ». Beaufays, S., Krais, B. (2005). « Femmes dans les carrières scien8fiques en Allemagne: les
mécanismes cachés du pouvoir », Travail, genre et sociétés, 2005/2 No 14, p. 49-68. Brink, van den M., Benschop, Y. (2012). Gender prac8ces in the construc8on of
academic excellence: Sheep with five legs. OrganizaQon, 19(4), 507-524.
Brink, van den M., Benschop, Y. (2014). Prac8cing gender in academic networking: The role of gatekeepers in professorial recruitment.Journal of Management Studies, 51(3), 460–492.
Case, S.S., Richley, B. A. (2012). Barriers to Women in Science: Examining the Interplay Between Individuals and Gendered Ins8tu8onal Research Cultures on Women Scien8sts Desired Futures, Work and Family Researchers Network Confernce, New York, June 14.
Coser, L. A. (1974). Greedy Ins8tu8ons: Pamerns of Undivided Commitment. New York: Free Press.
Del Rio Carral, M., Fusulier, B. (2013). Jeunes chercheurs face aux exigences de d i s p o n i b i l i t é t e m p o r e l l e ,T e m p o r a l i t é s ,n ° 1 8 [ O n l i n e : hmp://temporalites.revues.org/2614].
Dubois-Shaik, F. (2014). Analysing ‘Migrant’ Membership Frames through Educa8on Policy Discourse: An Example of Restric8ve ‘Integra8on’ Policy within Europe, European EducaQon Research Journal, Vol. 13, no.6, p. 715-730.
Dubois-Shaik, F., Fusulier, B. (eds.) (2015). Academic Careers and Gender Inequality: Leaky Pipeline and Interrelated Phenomena in Seven European Countries,GARCIA working papers n. 5, University of Trento (ISBN 978-88-8443-641-2).
Fassa, F., Kradolfer, S. and Paroz, S. (2012). Enquête au royaume de Ma8lda. La relève de l’Université de Lausanne, Pavie Working Paper LIVES.
Fusulier, B., Del Rio Carral, M. (2012).Chercheur-e-s sous haute tension!. Presses de l’université de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve.
Fusulier, B., Nicole-Drancourt, C. (2015). Pursuing Gender Equality in a "Mul8-Ac8ve" Society,Global Dialogue, Interna8onal Sociological Associa8on, 5(1). hmp://isa- global-dialogue.net/pursuing-gender-equality-in-a-mul8-ac8ve-society/
Jarty, J. (2009). Les usages de la flexibilité temporelle chez les enseignantes du secondaire, Temporalités, n°9. [Online: hmp://temporalites.revues.org/1057]. Kanter, R.M. (1977).Work and Family in the United States : a CriQcal Review and Agenda
Kuhn, T. (2006). A “demented work ethic” and a “lifestyle firm”: Discourse, iden8ty, and workplace 8me commitments. OrganizaQon Studies 27, p. 1339–1358.
Marry, C., Jonas, I. (2005). Chercheuses entre deux passions,Travail, genre et sociétés, vol. 14, n°2, p.69-88.
Merton, R. K. (1968). “The Mamhew Effect in Science”, Science, 159(3810), p. 56-63. Rossiter, M. W. (1995). “The Mamhew Ma8lda Effect in Science”, in Social Studies of
Science, 23.
Weick, K. (1976). Educa8onal Organiza8ons as Loosely Coupled Systems, Administra8ve Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Mar., 1976), pp. 1-19.