Gendered strategies of mobility and academic career

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cgee20 Gender and Education ISSN: 0954-0253 (Print) 1360-0516 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgee20 Gendered strategies of mobility and academic career Minna Nikunen & Kirsti Lempiäinen To cite this article: Minna Nikunen & Kirsti Lempiäinen (2018): Gendered strategies of mobility and academic career, Gender and Education, DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2018.1533917 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1533917 © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group Published online: 24 Oct 2018. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 576 View related articles View Crossmark data Gendered strategies of mobility and academic career Minna Nikunen a *and Kirsti Lempiäinen b a Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland; b Faculty of Adult Education Sociology, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland ABSTRACT In universities, being mobile and international has become ever more important for academics’career prospects. This article explores junior and other insecurely employed researchers’ experiences of geographical mobility in relation to their personal life, career, employability and value as scholars. The aim is to discover the gendered strategies researchers use to combine mobility with intimate relations and personal life. Furthermore, what gendered ideas of mobility, employability and career success do researchers themselves construct? These aspects of mobility, particularly focused on gender, are analysed in three cases: Finland, Italy and the United Kingdom. These states are all (currently) members of the European Union and have implemented its internationalisation policies. The data consists of qualitative interviews gathered in 2009 and 2010. We suggest that the value and capital of academic labour are evaluated differently in the three different locations. Additionally, gender, age, academic age and life situation motivate different mobility strategies. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 1 September 2016 Accepted 17 September 2018 KEYWORDS Higher education; employment; globalisation; qualitative interviews; sociology Introduction When we did our doctorates in Finland, it was self-evident that we would visit a university abroad at some point. One of us stayed in the US and another in the UK for one semester. We thought of this not in terms of mobility but as opportunities for academic exchange and study, although we noticed that ‘being mobile’–meaning geographically mobile and thus international –had become a buzzword in academia. We felt that it was quite easy to be mobile as women without children. Our experiences motivated us to ask how young scholars’mobility is conceived in academia today. The ‘entrepreneurial university’demands that its researchers be mobile and have international careers. Although this policy only started officially in the 1990s, to some degree it has always existed (Hakala 2009; Teichler 2009). In the ‘traditional university’, it coexisted with the idea of universal science and the globality of disciplines (Clark 1986,28–32). Now mobility forms part of the policies for national competitiveness implemented by European © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. CONTACT Minna Nikunen minna.nikunen@uta.fi; minna.m.nikunen@jyu.fiFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere 33014, Finland *Current affiliation 40014 University of Jyväskylä, Finland. GENDER AND EDUCATION https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1533917 governments (Costas, Camus, and Michalczyk 2013; Fernandez-Zubieta, Geuna, and Lawson 2015). Whereas traditional academia emphasised disciplines and global connections, the new policies emphasise the geographical mobility of individual academics. Internationalisation is a global concern, although it is applied in diverse ways in different parts of the world. 1 Successful competition in the global market is one of the main concerns in the formulation of higher education policies in the European Union (EU) and its member states (e.g. Kreissl et al. 2015; Stein et al. 2016). As Joanna Latimer and Beverley Skeggs (2011, 400–401) suggest, the ‘progressive modernisation of the academy’is materialising in the monetary value of research. Internationalisation and mobility are part of the strategy for winning the economic competition in global markets. Future academics –as well as other highly skilled workers –should be mobile, international and entrepreneurial in order to boost competitiveness and global economic progress. Although the EU’s higher education policies on mobility and internationalisation also have other goals, such as to develop the quality of education and research, and to support cultural openness and tolerance among students and scholars (Nikunen 2017; Zgaga 2017), these are often less emphasised than financial goals. Different European countries domesticate the idea of internationalism and mobility in different ways. This can result from their relationships with academic centres, for example. Furthermore, resources vary and are allocated in various ways (e.g. Callan 2000; MoranoFoadi 2005,2006; Stein et al. 2016). These policies are implemented differently in specific cultural contexts, often relating to the existing gender order (Blackmore, Sánchez-Morano, and Sawers 2015). Among the countries we focus on in our analysis, Finland is on the academic periphery, due to its location and language; the UK is a centre; and Italy is somewhere in-between. The three countries have different gender regimes: the numbers of women participating in paid work, and the way relations between work and family/intimate life and care are ordered, differ in each case (see Walby 2004). An important factor for young academics with children is the public provision of childcare. Finland has high public spending on childcare compared with Italy and the UK, but UK spending on early childhood education is higher than in Finland or Italy. However, early childhood education is not a solution for the care of young children (OECD Social Policy Division 2014). One important aspect of spatial mobility is networking as a way of living. Anthony Elliott and John Urry (2010) suggest that in the globalised world, who you know is more important than what you do or can do. Indeed, many higher education researchers have argued that academics are increasingly becoming akin to business elites and networking professionals (e.g. Tienari 2012; Lund 2015, 145; Jöns 2011). In addition to networking, longer stays are seen as beneficial. Researchers are expected to gain valuable experience and knowledge in different research environments (Fernandez-Zubieta, Geuna, and Lawson 2015). In universities today, positions of power frame academics’ways of being mobile and international. While academic elites form their own networks, mobility is also expected of those whose positions in the academy are fragile if they wish to succeed in the competition –the race –for more permanent positions. It has been claimed (Müller 2014)that postdoctoral scholars, especially in competitive disciplines, live their present working lives concentrating on activities to benefit their future success and neglecting other 2M. NIKUNEN AND K. LEMPIÄINEN activities. Policies seeking to increase academic mobility are often directed at junior researchers, using both incentives and deterrents. In this article, we analyse junior and other insecurely employed researchers’experiences of geographical mobility in relation to their personal life, career, employability and value as scholars. By junior researchers, we mean both PhD candidates with employee status and postdoctoral researchers. Insecurely employed researchers, by our definition, are those on short fixed-term contracts; they may be senior researchers in junior positions. We ask what gendered strategies researchers use to combine mobility with the demands and attachments of personal life and career plans. We are interested in the gendered strategies of mobility in three cases: Finland, Italy and the UK. The data consists of qualitative interviews gathered in 2009 and 2010. First, we will briefly discuss our theoretical background, then present our data and analysis, and proceed to our findings. In our conclusion, we suggest that the value and capital one might bring to the academic labour market are evaluated differently in the three different locations. This evaluation is made in accordance with gendered strategies in which gender, age, academic age and life situation motivate one’s social relations with mobility. Justification and value as a scholar Lisa Adkins (2008) suggests that in the new economy, one’s value as a worker, or the value of one’s work, does not simply stem from the capacities one has acquired. The futurity or future potential of what one can do is more important than what one is already able to do. The value of one’s work depends on expected gains, and so does the value of the worker. In the academic context, this is most visible in the case of junior researchers (e.g. Lund 2015). The recruitment of young researchers usually involves senior staffcontemplating who has potential (e.g. Pietilä 2013, 308). At the next stage, the potential is proven by productivity: it is of utmost importance to publish internationally. Potential is also proven by being international spatially: networking and visiting esteemed universities (located in academic centres) is important. Futurity aligns differently with different bodies that have different habitus (Bourdieu 1990; Skeggs 2004). Performing oneself as ‘world class’ has been described as a masculine act which suits men better than women (Blackmore, Sánchez-Morano, and Sawers 2015; Lund 2015; see also Clegg 2008). For instance, Rebecca Lund (2015) states that men conceive of the language of excellence –that is, boasting –as a legitimate resource for presenting oneself as an ideal academic, and that men also feel more comfortable utilising such language than women. Talk of capacities and futurities corresponds with ideas of employment, employability and academic careers. Employment requires that an employee with the right skills and qualifications find a job; employability means being able to show one’s potential for success in the job (Morley 2001). In the course of an academic career, there are many phases during which one’s potential is appraised. It is common to conceive mobility as one key to being academically employable (e.g. Müller 2014). Being mobile as a person, and being capable of reflective action in order to gain value as a worker, is one current demand in working life (Skeggs 2004). Skeggs (2004) highlights that diversely intersecting differences are inscribed in bodies so that some actors can use certain categorisations such as race, class and gender as resources for their aims and actions, while others cannot. We pose this question of difference in relation to mobility: GENDER AND EDUCATION 3 which categorisations and properties are named in strategies of spatial mobility? Mobility as a person is more easily recognised for middle-class white men: they are regarded as the most skilful at obtaining qualities of ‘the other’–at displaying feminine qualities or using feminine strategies in academic leadership (Søndergaard 2005)–and they are rewarded for doing so (Adkins and Lury 2000). Spatial mobility is often presented as a central way to gain employability –to be socially upwardly mobile (Nikunen 2017). It is a sign of not being too locally bound, stuck in some marginal or dead-end region; a sign of personal mobility and potential. However, if you are already in the academically valued centre, you are not required to prove your potential to move (Hakala 2009). Not every kind of mobility is good for employability, and not every mobile person can turn their mobility into employability and person value. Following Skeggs (2011), our interpretation emphasises the importance of accumulated value, which builds on dispositions that are preloaded with value. This embodied value grants researchers differential access to different capitals, which may get converted into ‘further value […] where people move into imaginary (possible and plausible) futures’(Latimer and Skeggs 2011, 402). Privilege and agency also affect hierarchies of mobility. Not all geographical mobility is conceived as valuable. Those who are forced to move are at the bottom. Those who have the best opportunities to move wherever they want are at the top (Elliott and Urry 2010; Nikunen 2017). There are hierarchies of mobility, and academic mobility is no exception. The division between centres and peripheries –and one’s place within that division –is one example of this stratification. The value of the receiving country should be higher than that of the sending country (Fernandez-Zubieta, Geuna, and Lawson 2015). This dimension is also revealed in other academic practices. For example, publishing often reflects the position of English as the academic lingua franca. Valuations that turn into practices are often unconscious –as, for instance, when a referee asks an author to contextualise Finland as a deviation from ‘the norm’, the latter being the UK or USA (Meriläinen et al. 2008). Furthermore, the resources allocated to academic workers differ from one country to another and from one discipline to another. Therefore we must take into account that although academic mobility is often about employability, it may also be about livelihood. So how is being mobile linked to context and gender? This will be discussed next. Mobile academic actors and gendered strategies Today’s internationality is the combination of an old academic ideal and the ideal of ‘globals’–an emphasis on networking and spatial movement (Elliott and Urry 2010). There is a ‘game’one is required to play in order to achieve the goal. Playing it requires that one has a sense of the game, that one is recognised as a competent player, and that one’s achievements are recognised as such. It requires that one’s body should fit into the game (Bourdieu 1990; McNay 2000). Dorte Marie Søndergaard (2005) claims that recognition, i.e. visibility as an academic, is an intersectional process relating specifically to academic positioning, age and power, and to the ways one ‘does’these differences. In our feminist understanding, gender is connected to the structures of power. We have approached gender as a concept that grasps social structures and individual actions, 4M. NIKUNEN AND K. LEMPIÄINEN creates (academic) cultures, and constructs identities and subjectivities (Nikunen 2014; Lempiäinen 2015). In this analysis, we also discuss gender on the basis of interviewees’ ideas about it, although we maintain a critical distance from belittlements of gender (‘gender doesn’t matter’;‘we are all equal’), thus compelling a feminist interpretation. Gendered strategies of mobility refer to the choices that actors make from specific gender positions that they themselves define, e.g. the position of a working mother, single woman, man with a partner, etc. Gendered strategies also include resistance. Actors might not want to perform as expected by academia: they might choose to forego mobility as a way to increase capital, and prepare themselves to adapt to the consequences. On the other hand, as our own experience shows, actors might comply and go abroad with a sense of following ‘the rules of the game’. The possibilities and restrictions of gendered agency are at the core of this study (McNay 2000; Madhok, Phillips, and Wilson 2013). It is claimed that resistance to geographical mobility is easier for men, since they can rely on networks and mentors (for instance, during recruitment) and are not expected to prove their international potential (e.g. Costas, Camus, and Michalczyk 2013). While women are often stereotyped as less mobile than men (Costas, Camus, and Michalczyk 2013; Nikunen 2014), there are real obstacles to combining work and family that affect women more than men. According to Louise Ackers (2004), women are especially mobile during the junior phase of their career because they have fewer family responsibilities than in the later phases. Vabø et al. (2013) found that women academics with full-time working partners and children were less likely to take part in international research collaborations than male academics in similar circumstances. Dual-career relationships –which are more common among academic women than men –complicate participation in academic mobility much more than single-career relationships (Ackers 2004; Jöns 2011; Zippel 2011; Vabø et al. 2013). Zippel (2011) even claims that family supplement policies (for instance in Finland, Germany and Switzerland) can unintentionally support the male breadwinner model, since the policies are not designed for dual-career needs. From a global perspective, there are several aspects that affect geographical mobility: (1) how pronounced internationalisation through geographical mobility is, on the policy level and in practices of academic employment and career advancement; (2) whether permanent positions in the academy are plentiful or scarce; (3) the fact that intellectual centres attract people from peripheries (in terms of reputation and rankings); (4) the status of the English language as the current lingua franca of the academy, which attracts people to countries where it is spoken (see e.g. Meriläinen et al. 2008; Hakala 2009; Kim 2010; Zippel 2011; Costas, Camus, and Michalczyk 2013). It has even been argued that these factors –especially the language issue and the question of centres, which are usually situated in the global North, Western Europe and North America –are a form of post-colonialism (Connell 2012). Many researchers throughout Europe have written about the division of researchers into two categories of power: those who are ‘leaders’, and those who ‘do the dirty work’(Lempiäinen 2012; Nikunen 2012; Kreissl et al. 2015). In this article, we suggest that this division also reflects the ways mobility is conceived and affects individual careers and the mobilisation of gendered strategies. Resistance to and compliance with the geographical mobility agenda depends not only on whether you are willing to ‘do GENDER AND EDUCATION 5 the trick’, but also on how your actions are interpreted as a gendered subject. Next, we will present our data and method of analysis. Data and analysis Our informants are primarily junior researchers and those in insecure university positions. They are for the most part finding their feet in academia. As secondary data, we use expert interviews in which mobility issues and postdoctoral students’situation are discussed. Nikunen’s data consists of interviews conducted in Finland in 2009 (with 15 women and 16 men; 10 from humanities subjects, 11 from natural sciences and 10 from technological science disciplines/units). This data was gathered as part of a research project on the effects of temporary employment on the combination of work, family and well-being. Lempiäinen’s observation material and interviews were obtained in the UK in 2009 (with five women and five men) and Italy in 2010 (with four women and six men), with expert discussions in both places. Each project had separate national funding. When bringing the two data sets together, we concentrated on mobility, a common theme discussed in all interviews. The data was also constructed with an awareness of the higher education reforms in each country, the UK setting the stage for changes in Finland and Italy. There are both differences and similarities in the three countries’ research policies, and our data allows us to compare and contrast the ways research policy recommendations are reflected in practice. The restructuring of universities has meant at an everyday level not only cuts in faculties and disciplines but also a more forceful grip of academic capitalism and the so-called new management model in the UK. During the time frame of the data, both Finland and Italy were on the verge of change, Finland giving universities independent legal status as public corporations or foundations at the beginning of 2010, and Italy phasing in ‘riforma Gelmini’(a university reform programme named after the Minister of Education, Mariastella Gelmini), which was obscure to most academics (Lempiäinen 2015). In what follows we ask what gendered strategies of mobility, employability and career success researchers themselves construct. How do researchers combine work responsibilities such as mobility with intimate responsibilities and affective attachments? How do they meet the expectations of academia? Nikunen’s data framing in terms of work-family balance affected the answers regarding the ways that mobility is often connected to parenthood. Additionally, since the Finnish data arose from three different university departments in different parts of Finland, the division between applied and basic research was more accessible here than in other parts of the data. Lempiäinen used mobility as one of the interview and discussion themes. The UK and Italian interviewees were recruited from different phases and areas of academic careers, and they all had first-hand knowledge or experience of mobility. The interviewees came from various disciplinary fields, and these are indicated together with their gender at the end of each extract. We approached our interviewees as colleagues with whom we could interpret the research themes together (Odendahl and Shaw 2002). Our analysis method was thematic qualitative analysis (Coffey and Atkinson 1996). We carefully looked through our materials and sought out passages where mobility was discussed. We used keywords –‘travel’,‘visit’, ‘foreign’,‘abroad’and ‘exchange’–to find interviewees’accounts involving these themes. 6M. NIKUNEN AND K. LEMPIÄINEN Then we evaluated which ways of talking about mobility were the commonest in which context, and how gendered strategies were presented in the talk. We start the analysis with Finland –a country on the academic periphery, with a Nordic gender regime and a dual-career model –which is the most familiar context for both of us. In our study, it acts as a reference point in relation to which other ways of being mobile are considered. Next, we analyse Italian mobility, which is affected by the male breadwinner/ female caregiver model, the scarcity of resources to support mobility, and Italy’s midway position on the continuum between academic centres and peripheries. Lastly, we turn to the UK to investigate mobility from the perspective of an academic centre with a growing emphasis on dual careers. Gendered strategies of mobility and employability in ‘gender-neutral’ Finland In Finnish universities, ideas about mobility and internationalisation are not uniform. There is variation tied to the practices of different fields, over and above the perceived values of particular fields or universities. A great deal of technological research is applied and conducted in cooperation with businesses (see Ylijoki and Hakala 2006); therefore business travel is a typical type of mobility. Academic mobility involving longer visits abroad was presented as an activity for ideal researchers, however. Work in private-sector companies was an alternative career option, but several interviewees commented that their family commitments made it easier to work in universities, since international mobility and long hours were not mandatory. The arts and humanities researchers talked mainly about international academic mobility and longer visits; many talked about research mobility they had experienced, or had not been able to engage in, mainly for family reasons. For the natural science researchers, being international was a basic condition of research and a career. Postdoctoral researchers were expected to be internationally mobile. Unlike other Finns, natural science researchers could envisage leaving Finland as a good move for their academic careers, and employment markets were better elsewhere –especially outside academia. In Finland, geographical mobility forms part of the expected activities at every stage of one’s academic career. Doctoral and postdoctoral phases are the most common times to become a visiting scholar. Additionally, mobility is expected to be ‘circular’, from the ‘sending’country to the ‘receiving’country and back again (Fernandez-Zubieta, Geuna, and Lawson 2015). However, problems may arise if one is geographically mobile in other ways –for instance, if one organises one’s visit independently, without support from a powerful mentor or (often masculine) network, or if one stays too long (e.g. Morano-Foadi 2005; Leemann 2010; Costas, Camus, and Michalczyk 2013). Despite the differences between the disciplines, gendered strategies among Finnish academics focus on family and children. Although in Finland the university is generally seen as a good workplace for parents because of its spatial and temporal flexibility, trips and longer visits abroad are considered problematic for academic parents (Nikunen 2014). Finland, like many other European countries, has policies to encourage academics with children to travel abroad, such as a family supplement to funding from the Academy of Finland as well as some other funders (see Zippel 2011). Nonetheless, GENDER AND EDUCATION 7 academic parents have to be innovative when arranging their trips, negotiating with their families and minimising the time they are away. No, it [travel] hasn’t suited me. I haven’t been to a conference or anything like that. It just doesn’t suit my life situation. So you asked about [combining] career and family and such, so maybe this is a minus and can have an effect, because you haven’t got an opportunity to go to conferences or longer training courses and so on. You just have to live an eight-tofour life here so that you’ll manage matters at home. (Woman, technological sciences) Personal ties can also restrict men: Well, if you think about work [and career], I might have thought about going abroad, for an exchange [as a visiting scholar] or suchlike, but my children are quite young, and so I have put aside these ideas, at least about longer visits. […] Still, I haven’t thought that it is a big sacrifice for the family, since in my book family comes first, and work only after that. Even though others may think that it should be the other way around. (Man, humanities) The statement above was almost echoed in another man’s account. I specifically wanted to go abroad on an exchange, but my wife’s current employment relationships have been such that it has not been possible to go with the family. And at least so far I have not become so bored with my wife’s face that I think that I have to go. (Man, technological sciences) Both of these men are actually in dual-career relationships, but for some reason, the first man focuses only on his children (Nikunen 2013). He does not conceive being mobile with the family as an option. In the second case, the wife’s precarious employment situation and her efforts to establish her career are described as affecting her academic spouse’s career choices (see also Jöns (2011) on visiting researchers and dual-career effects on academic men). Some researchers had previously worked in the private sector, and preferred university because they did not have to travel as much as in the business world. However, those who travel are seen to have better employability. An interviewee from the technological sciences commented on mobility: It is more if you like it [being mobile], it is not forced. But maybe it is, it relates to ambitions and suchlike, if you want to [be mobile] or not, so it is sort of an obligation, since it is not very likely that you can conquer the world from your homeland. […] And if you have that kind of collaborative project with businesses, then you have to visit them. But I do not know, maybe you just get used to it, and then some are weeded out and the group that enjoys it [travel, being mobile] stays the course. (Man, technological sciences) Elliott and Urry give several examples of men and women living at long distances from their families. There is a choice whether to put one’s career before family or vice versa. If family comes first, one risks being seen as too localist (Elliott and Urry 2010). In the vocabulary of the academic mobility discourse, it is a form of underperformance (Costas, Camus, and Michalczyk 2013). Our Finnish interviewees thought that being spatially mobile would benefit their careers, but some of them were still reluctant to do so. Being localist is easily connected with parenthood. It is staying in your comfort zone, not taking risks: Maybe it is more like a mental barrier for yourself if you have a child or not. For instance, if you think that you’d go on researcher exchange or something like that, I think some people would 8M. NIKUNEN AND K. LEMPIÄINEN abroad. There was not so much resistance to internationalisation policies/politics, which might be explained by the precarious positions of the respondents and the general acceptance of internationalisation policies (Hakala 2009). In Italy, a push towards mobility could be detected, but there was a little financial means to move. One of the gendered strategies was to resist the postponement of starting a family, and to rely on the internationalisation acquired by other means than long-term visits. In the UK, mobility was seen as a selfevident part of the academic competition, and postdoctoral visits could be paid to the city next door. Gendered strategies were related to the everydayness of ‘internationalism’, which in turn was linked to collaboration. Notes 1. In this paper we focus on geographical mobility as physical movement between countries. On other forms of mobility, see Zgaga (2017). 2. According to Roberto Moscati’s expert interview. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Funding This work was supported by the Kulttuurin ja Yhteiskunnan Tutkimuksen Toimikunta [grant numbers SA 11451, SA 124493]. Notes on contributors Minna Nikunen has a PhD in Social Sciences from University of Tampere. Currently she is a Senior Lecturer in Gender Studies at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Her research interests focus on gender, Higher Education and work-family balance. She has also studied young adults, their employability and mobility. Kirsti Lempiäinen has a PhD in Social Sciences from University of Tampere. Currently she is a Professor of Education at the University of Lapland. ORCID Minna Nikunen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5618-138X Kirsti Lempiäinen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4878-5949 References Ackers, Louise. 2004.“Managing Relationships in Peripatetic Careers: Scientific Mobility in the European Union.”Women’s Studies International Forum 27 (3): 189–201. Adkins, Lisa. 2008.“From Retroactivation to Futurity: The End of Sexual Contract.”Nora 16 (3): 182–201. Adkins, Lisa, and Celia Lury. 2000.“Making Bodies, Making People, Making Work.”In Organizing Bodies: Policy, Institutions and Work, edited by McKie Linda, and Watson Nick, 151–164. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. GENDER AND EDUCATION 15 Bataille, Pierre, Nicky Le Feuvre, and Sabine Kradolfer Morales. 2017.“Should I stay or Should I go? The Effects of Precariousness on the Gendered Career Aspirations of Postdocs in Switzerland”. Blackmore, Jill, Marita Sánchez-Morano, and Naarah Sawers. 2015.“Editorial: Globalized Re/ Gendering of the Academy and Leadership.”Gender and Education 27 (3): iii–vii. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990.The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Callan, Hilary. 2000.“Higher Education Internationalization Strategies: Of Marginal Significance or AllPervasive? The International Vision in Practice: A Decade of Evolution.”Higher Education in Europe 25 (1): 15–23. Carrozza, Chiara, and Sara Minucci. 2014.“Keep on Movin’? Research Mobility’s Meanings for Italian Early-Stage Researchers.”Higher Education Policy 27 (4): 489–508. Clark, Burton R. 1986.The Higher Education System. Berkeley: University of California Press. Clegg, Sue. 2008.“Femininities/Masculinities and a Sense Self: Thinking Gendered Academic Identities and the Intellectual Self.”Gender and Education 20 (3): 209–221. Coffey, Amanda, and Paul Atkinson. 1996.Making Sense of Qualitative Data. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Connell, Raewyn. 2012.“Why Do Market “Reforms”Persistently Increase Inequality?”Discourse: Studies in Cultural Politics of Education 34 (2): 279–285. Costas, Ilse, Celine Camus, and Stephanie Michalczyk. 2013.“The Mobility Discourse as a New Public Management Strategy: Gender Impacts on Academics in Germany and France.”In Die unternehmerische Hochschule aus der Perspektive der Geschlechterforschung. Zwischen Aufbruch und Beharrung,edited by Binner Kristina, Kubicek Bettina, Rozwandowicz Anja, and Weber Lena, 137–151. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. Da Roit, Barbara, and Stefania Sabatinelli. 2013.“Nothing on the Move or Just Going Private? Understanding the Freeze on Childand Eldercare Policies and the Development of Care Markets in Italy.”Social Politics 20 (3): 430–453. Education, Ministry of. 2006.‘Tutkijanuratyöryhmän loppuraportti’[Report of the Committee on the Development of Research Careers]. Opetusministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä 13. Helsinki: Ministry of Education. Elliott, Anthony, and John Urry. 2010.Mobile Lives. London: Routledge. European Commission. 2015.She Figures. Vienna: ERA Portal Austria. https://era.gv.at/object/ document/2481/attach/she_figures_2015-final.pdf. Fernandez-Zubieta, Ana, Aldo Geuna, and Cornelia Lawson. 2015.What Do We Know of the Mobility of Research Scientists and of its Impact on Scientific Production? Department of Economics and Statistics ‘Cognetti de Martiis’: Working Paper Series. Torino: Universita Degli Studi di Torino. Hakala, Johanna. 2009.Academic Cultures in the Finnish Mass Research University: Change and Continuity. Tampere: University of Tampere. Jöns, Heike. 2011.“Transnational Academic Mobility and Gender.”Globalisation, Societies and Education 9 (2): 183–209. Kim, Terri. 2010.“Transnational Academic Mobility, Knowledge and Identity Capital.”Discourse: Studies in Cultural Politics of Education 31 (5): 577–591. Kreissl, Katrina, Angelika Striedinger, Birgit Sauer, and Johanna Hofbauer. 2015.“Will Gender Equality Ever Fit in? Contested Discursive Spaces of University Reform.”Gender and Education 27 (3): 221–238. Latimer, Joanna, and Beverley Skeggs. 2011.“The Politics of Imagination: Keeping Open and Critical.” Sociological Review 59 (3): 393–410. Leemann, Regula Julia. 2010.“Gender Inequalities in Transnational Academic Mobility and the Ideal Type of Academic Entrepreneur.”Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 31 (5): 605– 625. Lempiäinen, Kirsti. 2012.“The Interconnections Between Class, Gender and Agency in Higher Education.”In Cultural Practices and Transitions in Education, edited by Tarja Tolonen, et al., 197–210. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. Lempiäinen, Kirsti. 2015.“‘Precariousness in Academia: Prospects for University Employment.”In The New Social Division. Making and Unmaking Precariousness, edited by Donatella Della Porta, Sakari Hänninen, Martti Siisiäinen, and Tiina Silvasti, 123–138. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Lund, Rebecca. 2015.Doing the Ideal Academic: Gender, Excellence and Changing Academia. Helsinki: Aalto University. 16 M. NIKUNEN AND K. LEMPIÄINEN Madhok, Sumi, Anne Phillips, and Kalpana Wilson. 2013.“Introduction.”In Gender, Agency and Coercion, edited by Madhok Sumi, Phillips Anne, and Wilson Kalpana, 1–13. London: Palgrave Macmillan. McNay, Lois. 2000.Gender and Agency: Reconfiguring the Subject in Feminist and Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. Meriläinen, Susan, Janne Tienari, Robyn Thomas, and Annette Davies. 2008.“Hegemonic Academic Practices: Experiences of Publishing from Periphery.”Organization 15 (4): 629–642. Morano-Foadi, Sonia. 2005.“Scientific Mobility, Career Progression, and Excellence in the European Research Area.”International Migration 43 (5): 133–162. Morano Foadi, Sonia. 2006.“Key Issues and Causes of the Italian Brain Drain.”Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 19 (2): 209–223. Morley, Louise. 2001.“Producing New Workers: Quality, Equality and Employability in Higher Education.”Quality in Higher Education 7 (2): 131–138. Moscati, Roberto. 2008.“La cultura accademica e le nuove funzioni dell’università.”In L’università di fronte al cambiamento: Realizzazioni, problemi, prospettive, edited by Roberto Moscati, and Massimiliano Vaira, 99–116. Bologna: Il Mulino. Müller, Ruth. 2014.“Racing for What? Anticipation and Acceleration in the Work and Career Practices of Academic Life Science Postdocs.”Forum: Qualitative Social Research 15 (3), art. 15. http://dx.doi. org/10.17169/fqs-15.3.2245. Nikunen, Minna. 2012.“Changing University Work, Freedom, Flexibility and Family.”Studies in Higher Education 37 (6): 713–730. Nikunen, Minna. 2013.“Gendered Identities at the ‘Entrepreneurial’University and Work/Family Balance.”In Die unternehmerische Hochschule aus der Perspektive der Geschlechterforschung. Zwischen Aufbruch und Beharrung, edited by Kristina Binner, Bettina Kubicek, Anja Rozwandowicz, and Lena Weber, 152–170. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot. Nikunen, Minna. 2014.“The ‘Entrepreneurial’University, Family and Gender: Changes and Demands Faced by Fixed-Term Workers.”Gender and Education 26 (2): 119–134. Nikunen, Minna. 2017.“Young People, Future Hopes and Concerns in Finland and the European Union: Classed and Gendered Expectations in Policy Documents.”Journal of Youth Studies 20 (6): 661–676. Odendahl, Teresa, and Eileen M. Shaw. 2002.“Interviewing Elites.”In Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, edited by Jaber F. Gubrium, and James E. Holstein, 299–316. London: Sage. OECD Social Policy Division. 2014.OECD Family Database. Directorate of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs. http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF3_1_Public_spending_on_childcare_and_early_ education.pdf. Pietilä, Maria. 2013.“The Many Faces of Research Profiling: Academic Leaders’Conceptions of Research Steering.”Higher Education 67: 303–316. Rapetti, Elisa, Annalisa Murgia, and Barbara Poggio. 2015.“Italy.”In Mapping Organizational Work-Life Policies and Practices, edited by Sanja Cukut Krilić, and Elisa Rapetti, 6–36. Trento: University of Trento. Skeggs, Beverley. 2004.Class, Self, Culture. London: Routledge. Skeggs, Beverley. 2011.“Imagining Personhood Differently: Person Value and Autonomist WorkingClass Value Practices.”Sociological Review 59 (3): 496–513. Søndergaard, Dorte Marie. 2005.“Making Sense of Gender, Age, Power and Disciplinary Position: Intersecting Discourses in the Academy.”Feminism & Psychology 15 (2): 189–208. Stein, Sharon, Vanessa Andreotti, Judy Bruce, and Rene Suša. 2016.“Towards Different Conversations About the Internationalization of Higher Education.”Comparative and International Education/ Éducation comparée et internationale 45 (1): article 2. art. 2. Teichler, Ulrich. 2009.“Internationalisation of Higher Education: European Experiences.”Asia Pacific Education Review 10 (1): 93–106. Tienari, Janne. 2012.“Academia as Financial Markets? Metaphoric Reflections and Possible Responses.”Scandinavian Journal of Management 28 (3): 250–256. Vabø, Agnete, Laura Elena Padilla-González, Erica Waagene, and Terje Næss. 2013.“Gender and Faculty Internationalization.”In The Internationalization of Academy. Changes, Realities and GENDER AND EDUCATION 17 Prospects, edited by Futao Huang, Martin Finkelstein, and Michele Rostan, 183–205. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Walby, Silvia. 2004.“The European Union and Gender Equality: Emergent Varieties of Gender Regime.”Social Politics 11 (1): 4–29. Ylijoki, Oili-Helena, and Johanna Hakala. 2006.“Tehokkuutta, arviointia ja markkinahenkeä’ [Effectiveness, Evaluation and Market Atmosphere].”In Tilanteen taju: Opettaminen yliopistossa, edited by Sanna Kivimäki, Merja Kinnunen, and Olli Löytty, 20–31. Tampere: Vastapaino. Zgaga, Pavel. 2017.“How Has Mobility Become Central to the EUs Idea of Doctoral Education?”In Policies and Experiences of Mobility in Doctoral Education, edited by Corina Balaban, and Susan Wright, 4–6. Aarhus: UNIKE Notes on Doctoral Education 5. http://unike.au.dk/fileadmin/www. unike.au.dk/Publications/UNIKE_Notes_on_Doctoral_Education_No._5_final.pdf. Zippel, Kathrin. 2011.“How Gender Neutral are Policies on Science and International Mobility of Academics?”Sociologica 1. doi:10.2384/34631. 18 M. NIKUNEN AND K. LEMPIÄINEN