Exploring positive and normative beliefs about recruitment at University: A quali-quantitative analysis on early career researchers

Highlights • It is interesting to explore the beliefs of junior researchers about how entry into academia works and should work, because beliefs shape individual behaviors, organizational cultures, and inequalities. But empirical and methodological studies on this issue are rare. • Combining GEA and MindtheGEP quali-quantitative data, this paper shows that positive and normative beliefs can be properly captured by the use of a mix of quantitative and qualitative methodologies – a mix able to determine how they are formed and framed across cohorts, genders, research fields, and academic positions. • We identified the following five main advantages of using a mixed methods exploratory sequential research design to gain better understanding of the situation of young people working at universities, and in particular to investigate the beliefs of junior researchers about recruitment in academia: 1) integrating the findings of previous quantitative and qualitative studies; 2) using the results of the qualitative empirical exploration to define the quantitative questionnaires; 3) testing the generalization of qualitative results with quantitative data; 4) improving transparency (intersubjectivity), replicability (explaining the assumptions and discussing the sampling method and the interview guide) and validity (triangulation); 5) improving interpretation. • Empirical evidence on what counts and should count in obtaining a permanent post within precarious Italian academia shows that a mix of ‘old’ and ‘new’ criteria and rhetorics coexist. In young researchers’ views, without gender differences, ‘meritocracy’ (i.e. internalization and publications) counts a great deal, and it is perceived as fair. Yet also ‘bureaucracy’ and ‘loyalty’ (namely internal and external networking, relationships, the role of the supervisor), in contrast with senior researchers’ views, also count a great deal – indeed too much. This suggests that young researchers feel entrapped by the logic of ‘publish or perish’, of being unconditional workers (the ‘new’) and at the same time by the logic of having a strong internal sponsor (‘the old’). Internationalization and soft skills should count more, amid less precarious paths and prospects.