Navigating Uncertainty: Early Career Academics and Practices of Appraisal Devices.

IF 3.2 2区 哲学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Minerva Pub Date : 2021-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-12-14 DOI:10.1007/s11024-020-09425-2
Jonatan Nästesjö
{"title":"Navigating Uncertainty: Early Career Academics and Practices of Appraisal Devices.","authors":"Jonatan Nästesjö","doi":"10.1007/s11024-020-09425-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 <i>practices of appraisal devices</i>, 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47427,"journal":{"name":"Minerva","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11024-020-09425-2","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09425-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/12/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

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.

导航不确定性:评估工具的早期职业学术和实践。
学术工作缺乏客观的评价标准。虽然这一点在关于看门人如何评判他人作品的研究中得到了承认,但对于学者如何应对看门人如何评估自己作品的不确定性,人们知之甚少。基于对35位政治科学和历史领域的早期职业学者的采访,本文探讨了年轻学者如何使用评估手段来应对这种不确定性。评估工具提供可信的、知识渊博的评估,通过这些评估,学者们知道他们的工作和他们自己是否足够优秀,可以在学术界取得成功。调查早期职业学者如何依赖评估者(即“学术导师”)的评估,该研究通过关注学者的预期实践是如何通过信任他人的判断来告知的,从而增加了关于学术生活中不确定性和价值的现有文献。实证分析表明,早期职业学者面临着多种相互矛盾的评价,他们必须对这些评价进行解释和区分。然而,在政治科学和历史科学中,处理不确定性的制度条件是不一样的,这些不确定性包括未来评估的重要性,以及通常由哪些人来担任评估者。这对估价做法和社会化结构都有影响。这篇论文聚焦于我所说的评估手段的实践,对学者如何应对未来的不确定性提供了一个概念性的理解。此外,它通过展示学者的自我概念和期望身份如何在行动过程中使用评估工具的反射方式中发挥关键作用,扩展了现有理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva
Minerva Multiple-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Minerva is devoted to the study of ideas, traditions, cultures and institutions in science, higher education and research. It is concerned no less with history than with present practice, and with the local as well as the global. It speaks to the scholar, the teacher, the policy-maker and the administrator. It features articles, essay reviews and ''special'' issues on themes of topical importance. It represents no single school of thought, but welcomes diversity, within the rules of rational discourse. Its contributions are peer-reviewed. Its audience is world-wide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信