I am super critical of the careerist subjectivity with which early career academics, by definition, are meant to inhabit. Not only because of the way everyone I know, at least, struggles with the set of expectations that define careerism. You highlight the different sets of expectations faced by ‘new’ ECRs compared to other cultural contexts. Rather than bloggers commenting on advice given by others (ie affable persona episode), as if this advice was the only advice, perhaps they can been seen as creating a space organised around the contingencies of ‘opportunity’, but without the neo-liberal infrastructure of ‘entrepreneurship’.

For example John Howard has talked about producing a ‘nation of opportunity’, and I think this is awesome, and if he was accurate then I would actually support him. What he fails to mention is that the ‘contingencies’ which define ‘opportunity’, such as the challenge of education, exist as a ’struggle’ for others. Entrepreneurs of the self capitalise on opportunity (positive), but those who struggle continually find the contingencies of ‘opportuity’ to be problems (negative).

The affective social network dimension of blogging seems to me to help cultivate opportunities that evade the expectations that produce entrepreneurs of the self because they rely on mostly horizontal social networking. The scholarly capacity has its best chance of being recognised as such, rather than being recognised only by fulfilling the expectations of the ECR framework. So the inverse of what Barry suggests above. I think this is what you are getting at with the notion of mentoring, but your focus is more on the institutional expectations, rather than the actual capacity to carry out scholarly work. In other words, I don’t think we should let the institutional expectations govern the way we work. How’s that for subcultural refusal!?!?!?!! lol

Hmmm. This RQF question seems to come up whenever blogging and career progress are considered together, as we saw with Greg’s question at MACS. I’m not sure this paper is the forum for that conversation. It seems too parochial - the RQF itself still too inchoate to engage with yet (Saturday’s result could affect the RQF going ahead, too). But I can see how it relates to the conscientiousness and self-monitoring I highlight at the start.

I guess the notion that someone would blog for RQF recognition kind of appalls me still, so you’ve noticed that blockage in my thinking. I feel the same way about people who publish for DEST figures. Maybe that’s because I’m one of the workaholic junior faculty generation described in the essay, who still believes in the vocation more than efficiency!