Abstract:

Fierce competition for permanent and secure academic positions is a common reality at higher education and research institutions. There has been a sharp increase in the number of doctoral and postdoctoral positions, but only a moderate increase in faculty positions. A growing number of studies have focused on the experiences of the group of academics in temporary positions (see for example Ylijoki 2010; Leathwood and Read 2013; Cortois and O'Keefe, 2015; Acker and Haque 2017; Bataille and Le Feuvre, 2017; Read and Leathwood 2018; Murgia and Poggio, 2018; Ivancheva et al., 2019). The working conditions of graduates in temporary positions and the possibility of finding secure long-term employment are affected by academic career structures and research policy at national and international level, but also by the broader societal contexts. Sümer, O’Connor and Le Feuvre (2020) have developed a framework for analyzing processes for inclusion / exclusion and participation patterns in higher education and research institutions. They identify four ideal types of academic citizenship: full citizenship, restricted citizenship, transitional citizenship and non-citizenship.

Inspired by their research, we have conducted a study based on interviews on academic citizenship in a university (STEM) Sweden. We recruited 12 colleagues in different faculty positions at the School of Architecture and Built Environment for interviews about the experience of their own work situation and future career opportunities as well as ideas on their teaching. The scholars were interviewed by the authors and each interview took about 60 minutes. The interviews were recorded transcribed. Among topics covered in the interviews are: Motivation, current situation, ambitions; features of the academic discipline; features of the faulty and the university; View on gender and gender equality and of diversity; perceived barriers and limitations; and possibilities and ideas on improvements. The material was structured using thematic analysis to structure the material for a further analysis of the statements.

The analytical lenses used to understand the interview material is critical sensemaking, a concept sprung out of earlier work by Karl Weick, who defined sensemaking as a process where we build plausible (not always accurate) understanding of different events. This is done through discussion and enactment (Weick, 1995, 2001; Weick et al, 2005). Weick developed seven sensemaking properties often used in analyses in organizational studies. The concept of sensemaking have been widely used but also criticized for not conceptualizing the role of power and context of the individual and the event. Critical sensemaking builds on Weicks’ seven properties of sensemaking and focuses more specifically on power, discourse and structure in the analysis of meaning (Helms Mills et al, 2010, Thurlow, 2007).

Our study is part of the project European Universities – Critical Futures, led by professor Susan Wright from Aarhus University, and funded by The Independent Research Fund Denmark.

Keywords:

Academic Citizenship, teaching abilities, critical sensemaking.