Navigating Uncertainty: Early Career Academics and Practices of Appraisal Devices

Abstract

There is a lack of objective evaluative standards for academic work. While this has been recognized in studies of how gatekeepers pass judgment on the works of others, little is known about how scholars deal with the uncertainty about how their work will be evaluated by gatekeepers. Building upon 35 interviews with early career academics in political science and history, this paper explores how junior scholars use appraisal devices to navigate this kind of uncertainty. Appraisal devices offer trusted and knowledgeable appraisals through which scholars are informed whether their work and they themselves are good enough to succeed in academia. Investigating how early career academics rely upon appraisals from assessors (i.e., ‘academic mentors’), the study adds to existing literature on uncertainty and worth in academic life by drawing attention to how scholars’ anticipatory practices are informed by trusting the judgment of others. The empirical analysis demonstrates that early career academics are confronted with multiple and conflicting appraisals that they must interpret and differentiate between. However, the institutional conditions for dealing with uncertainty about what counts in future evaluations, as well as which individuals generally come to function as assessors, differ between political science and history. This has an impact on both valuation practices and socialization structures. Focusing on what I call practices of appraisal devices, the paper provides a conceptual understanding of how scholars cope with uncertainties about their future. Furthermore, it expands existing theory by demonstrating how scholars’ self-concept and desired identities are key to the reflexive ways appraisal devices are used in the course of action.

« Les refus font partie du metier. » Processus d’apprentissage dans les biographies scientifiques de financement externe

“…auch Camic et al 2011). Neuere Untersuchungen fokussieren wiederum die Bedeutung der Mentorinnen und Mentoren für die Prägung wissenschaftlicher Karrieren (Kirchmeyer 2005;Torka 2018;Nästesjö 2021) oder aber den Einfluss von Organisationskultur und Prestige auf individuelle Selbstzuschreibungen (Gardner 2008). Interessanterweise werden in der Literatur zwar vielfältige Wissensinhalte genannt, die im Sozialisationsprozess vermittelt werden, wie etwa das Wissen über fachspezifische Praktiken und Relevanzsysteme, angemessene Forschungsfragen oder Kommunikations-und Sichtbarkeitsstrategien (Laudel und Gläser 2008;Burt 2017).…”

Editorial Work and the Peer Review Economy of STS Journals

“…Aside from this, the challenges for editors in constituting a peer review gift economy significantly differ across journals; prestigious journals generally find it easier to recruit reviewers because of their visibility, while newer and less well-known journals cannot count on the journal’s prominence to attract referees. Statements by our informants, as well as recent research on publishing practices in other fields ( Nästesjö 2021 ), suggest that this split is intensifying. For example, both employing institutions and senior colleagues actively encourage junior scholars to review only for journals they wish to publish in themselves (author and reviewer #14).…”

Review Writing as Part of the Doctoral Qualification Process in Theses-By-Publication. Results of an Interview Study With Ph.D. Students in German Sports Science

“…Affective dimension: Reviews in theses-by-publications are first and foremost situated at the beginning of the doctoral phase. At this stage, several specific uncertainties accumulate, e.g., transition to professional life, a new social environment, and a research process characterized by unpredictability and ambivalence (Weidman et al, 2001;Sigl, 2016;Nästesjö, 2021). In this risky life constellation, reviews seem to enable the interviewees to act in a strongly oriented and subjectively secure manner.…”