Search

Excellence has become a 'hoorah' word which is widely used in higher education institutions to legitimate practices related to the recruitment/progression of staff. It can be seen as reflecting an institutionalised belief that such evaluative processes are unaffected by the social characteristics of those who work in them or their relationships with each other. Such views have been challenged by gender theorists and by those researching informal power in state structures. The purpose of this article is to raise the possibility that excellence is an 'idealised cultural construct' and a 'rationalising myth'. Drawing on data from qualitative interviews with 67 men and women, who were candidates or evaluators in recruitment/progression processes in five higher educational institutions (in Ireland, Turkey, Bulgaria, Germany and Italy), it conceptualises and illustrates masculinist, relational and 'local fit' micro-political practices that are seen to affect such recruitment/progression. Variation exists by gender and by contextual positioning in the process (i.e. as evaluator/candidate). These practices illustrate the perceived importance of the enactment of informal power. The article suggests that the construct of excellence is used to obscure these practices and to maintain organisational legitimacy in the context of multiple stakeholders with conflicting expectations.

Universities present themselves as meritocratic organizations; however, there is evidence that such claims are 'rationalised myths'. This article is concerned with the perceived effect of micropolitics on academic careers in two case study universities: a collegial Spanish and a managerial Irish one. The data are drawn from 86 semi-structured interviews with academics (43 from each context). The focus is on two aspects of micropolitics: those related to career experiences, particularly networks; and those related to the evaluation of candidates, particularly double standards. Research results show that informal social networks are perceived to facilitate career progression; and these are referred to in particular by the Spanish male respondents. Double standards in evaluation are used to favour specific candidates: local ones in the Spanish case, men in the Irish case. Men in the Spanish context refer more openly than their Irish counterparts to these double standards, arguably reflecting the strength of discourses other than merit in that context. The results suggest that the informal structure influences the formal structure regardless of the governance model, raising fundamental questions about the nature of universities and the limitations of structural changes.

The objective of this research is to explore the experiences of the first generations of Spanish academics that carried out research stays in foreign institutions. The analysis of 30 semi-structured interviews shows the interviewees' evaluation of their stay abroad, the impact that this had on their academic career and how the return to the home institution was a complex process of adaptation. It is an exploratory research which attempts to contribute to current debates about international mobility of academic staff. While it confirms that generally speaking mobility is perceived as positive there are negative aspects related to academics' (re)integration related to cultural specificities and of the maturity of the scientific system.