Images,ideals and constraints in times of neoliberal transformations: Reproduction and profession as conflicting or complementary spheres in academia?

Abstract

The article deals with structural, cultural and habitual concepts, principles and ideals of parenthood in the German academic working context. It focuses on social processes of transformation and reconfiguration of reproduction and profession, which means within work and family spheres and especially within academia in times of neoliberalism, economisation and globalisation. Discursive and biographical research results of two German research projects will be linked to trace current developments of gender relations concerning the compatibility of scientific work and family. Using an analytical governmental perspective, we reveal findings concerning the subject and identity formations of scientists and parents. The insights and conclusions obtained will be discussed and evaluated in terms of the interdependencies between the spheres of production and reproduction in neoliberalism.

Introduction

Based on processes of reconfiguration within work and family spheres, this paper deals with concepts, ideals and principles of parenthood and academia in Germany. Specifically, it asks how the neoliberalisation of universities rearranges family work and parenthood, and how ‘academic parents’ handle the neoliberalisation of academic and family work. The article focuses on the demands that neoliberalisation places on dual-career parents engaged in science, because the mixture of neoliberal economic interests in academia and family interests becomes important when scientists decide to have children. There is a recognition of work and family issues in academia in Germany (especially at the institutional level), and couples and parents working in academia face this issue at the individual level.

In recent years, productive and reproductive work, such as parental employment and care responsibilities, have become subject to demographic and social changes that are embedded in neoliberal policies and framings. Following Foucault, demands, standards and expectations in times of neoliberalism – due to new forms of political government and to a revaluation of societal values (Lemke, 2006) – can be described as ‘practices of “self-governance”’ (Lemke, 2006: 470). In neoliberalism, the new course of market-oriented reform and liberalisation sets the standards for self-optimisation and privatisation within an increasingly technological, globalised world of control and surveillance systems. The principles of economisation guide an individual to become an entrepreneur and act independently and self-sufficiently in both the private and work spheres (Sauer, 2008). These demands, or subjectifications, can be seen and understood as practices and discursive effects of a social field.

This article aims to offer new methodological tools by linking together discursive and biographical research in order to reveal the subject and identity formations of parents in academia. Theoretically, the paper is grounded in a (gender-sensitive) Foucauldian approach, referring in particular to Foucault’s governmentality concept. So far in the field of governmentality studies, empirical contributions are rather rare; furthermore, biographical studies usually do not focus much on discourses, and vice versa. Using an analytical governmental perspective (Tuider, 2007), here we link and assess the discursive and biographical research results of two German projects to trace the interdependencies between the spheres of production and reproduction and current developments of gender relations concerning the compatibility of scientific work and family. More specifically, we will intertwine the empirical data from a discursive analysis and from an interview analysis, leading to findings that concern the gendered subject and identity formations (of scientists and parents) and address the question of how gendered subjects locate themselves within their specific subject positioning (Tuider, 2007). Gender-specific aspects within neoliberal discourses and processes of restructuring link freedom, economy and masculinity on the one hand, and dependency, welfare and femininity (Sauer, 2008) on the other. Therefore neoliberal invocations and requirements carry a subtext of restoring traditional gender relations. The double-blurring of gainful employment and family can be viewed as a result of the transformation process from the Fordist to the post-Fordist model of society. Both in public and in private life, this change leads to a reorientation of gender relations – as a result of, amongst other things, the increasing female labour force participation. Post-Fordist models of society are characterised by a progressing ‘economization of the political and the social’ (Sauer, 2008: 26) – intersecting with new neoliberal structures in the higher education sector.

Concerning the structure of the following paper: first, the article describes the methodological fundamentals and the underlying research design. As an introduction, the governmental perspective of Foucault is described, which makes it possible to analyse novel patterns of subjectification and theoretically link the discursive level of knowledge and the subjective level of acting. Both levels are captured by the triangulation of discursive and biographical analysis. The section ‘Triangulation of discursive and biographical analysis’ explores, on the one hand, methodological terms of a discourse analysis about balancing academic careers and family. The analysis is based on information brochures of family services and on articles of preselected scientific magazines and leading media. On the other hand, this section outlines the conceptual background of the second analysis of problem-centred, biographical interviews with career-oriented couples (respectively, parents). The results of this intertwinement are then discussed in a section which pays special attention to the academic career track in times of neoliberalism. This section discusses the following subjects: the simultaneous occurrence of traditional and neoliberal ideals within the German discourse of parenthood and academia, mobility requirements in academia and commuting arrangements, demands of the work–life balance conflict in private and professional life and the performance of dual-career parents in academia. After discussing the insights and findings against the background of taking a closer look at neoliberal reconfigurations against the background of gender (specific) subtexts generally, the paper concludes with a methodological résumé.

Research design and methodological approach

The governmental perspective of Foucault

In the second half of the 1970s, Foucault attempted to extend his theoretical analysis of the ‘genealogy of power’ to the concept of governmentality (Lemke, 2006: 469–470). His ‘genealogy of power’ focused on the realm of power regarding struggle, war and confrontation (Lemke, 2001), but it brought the political level of the state and the subject increasingly into focus by adopting a governmental view (Gertenbach, 2007: 19). In concrete terms, his analysis implies and concludes ‘the relation between subjectification forms and forms of power’ (Lemke, 2001). The term ‘governmentality’ was selected because of its ‘pivotal function’: it describes the mediating that occurs between the power and the subject. It enables us to explore ‘how governmental technologies [are] connected with “technologies of the self” and how forms of political governance revert to practices of self-governing’ (Lemke, 2006: 470). Within neoliberalism, the state pursues new tasks, in addition to its traditional functions, such as developing indirect techniques: Foucault conceives governmental technologies not only as a disciplinary power that influences the subject from outside, but also as ‘technologies of the self’ which empower subjects to perform self-guidance and self-care (Radzioch, 2015: 47). These techniques lead and guide individuals without being responsible for them directly (Lemke, 2011: 254); they target a ‘change of government’ which acts on the subject through the discursive production of trueness (Michalitsch, 2008: 63). Following Foucault, discourses have social power that, by their constructed reality, is used by the subjects to orient their thinking and acting. To put it briefly, discourse shapes the consciousness and it creates the subject. Foucault considers power as omnipresent both in social relationships and in the subject’s dealing with oneself/itself (Michalitsch, 2008: 79 et seq.).

In the beginning, the subject in Foucault’s work had no space to actively participate in its own process of subjectification; however, later writings have accentuated the ‘simultaneity of submission and self-management’ (Tuider, 2007: fn. 11) and therefore the constitutive role of the subject within its own formation. According to Foucault, power can only exert a significant influence on ‘free subjects’, meaning ‘individual and collective subjects with a variety of different opinions: several leaderships, several reactions and different behaviours’ (Foucault, 1987: 255). The subject is conquered by ‘the regime of the specific discourse’s meaning’, but it is also ‘able to act accordingly’ (Weedon, 1990: 51, quoted in Jäckle, 2011: 32 et seq.).

Although the concept of governmentality does not conceptualise a completely autonomous subject, it originates an actor which is able to act for themselves and others. The concept therefore forms the link between the discursive level of knowledge and the subjective level of acting (Radzioch, 2015: 47).

Triangulation of discursive and biographical analysis

Based on the foregoing statements, by triangulating discursive and biographical research (examining discursive level of knowledge and subjective level of acting) one can analyse novel modes of subjectivations considering transformation processes in work and family spheres, and in academia in particular. This allows one to explore the biographical effectiveness of discourses (Spies, 2009: sect. 4) – a frequently raised methodical question in social research. Therefore the present article will use Tuider’s suggested, exemplarily conducted triangulation of discourse and biographical research methods (2007) with a governmental perspective.

So far, comparatively few studies have applied such triangulation that goes beyond a mere discourse analytical evaluation of the biographical material (cf. for instance Gutiérrez Rodríguez 1999) and aims to achieve an ‘interpretative confrontation’ (Teupen, 2015: 41) of discourse analysis and reconstructive analysis (cf. for instance Freitag, 2005). This coupling of discourse analysis and biographical research also appears to allow ‘getting to grips with the deficits of both traditions of research’ (Göymen-Steck, 2011: 266). For example, biographical research is often criticised for giving insufficient priority to the discourse surrounding the subject and the influence of subject positions. And discourses, while they do take into account aspects such as their ‘reality-making (type of) power’ (Bührmann and Schneider, 2007: sect. 11), when they are used to construct novel modes of subjectification (Ludwig, 2006), they do not very precisely analyse these aspects. Thus, against that backdrop, our coupling approach may be methodologically fruitful for the further development of both research traditions.

The first part of our triangulation step consists of interpreting a discourse analysis about the reconciliation of scientific career and family. The data material is composed of three discursive levels (Jäger, 2004: 338) comprising 32 family services information brochures for academic staff at German universities ¹ , articles from six preselected scientific magazines ² and articles from three leading media sources ³ .

After mapping the discourse concerning parenthood in academia, selected parts of biographical interviews with heterosexual, career-oriented couples/parents (mainly employed in academia) will be analysed. The empirical data have been collected through semi-structured, problem-centred interviews (Witzel, 1982) with dual-career-couples aged 35 to 55 who have been asked about their professional and personal biography. The main criteria for sampling the interview partners were the following: both partners have a strong occupational orientation, both follow independent career tracks, at least one partner follows an academic career path at the professorship level and they live together with children aged 0 to 12 years old. The sample contains couples in academia as well as mixed couples working in academia and in economic areas: couples consisting of professors, professors with a partner employed in research management or at research institutes and professors with a partner working in the economy or in their own business. The interviewed families have mostly been recruited with the help of so-called dual-career services at German universities. After the United States started to implement dual-career services at universities in the 1990s, ‘entrepreneurial universities’ in Germany followed suit. All interviews have been analysed within a case-by-case analysis and a qualitative content analysis (Mayring, 2010).

On the academic career track in times of neoliberalism

In times of neoliberalism, it is a major challenge to pursue an academic career track. Resulting from European and national university reforms at the end of the 1990s and the beginning of the 2000s, profound changes within the higher education landscape can been identified. They attribute ‘an increasing importance in competitive oriented institutional structures’ at universities (Klammer and Ganseuer, 2013: 17). The introduction of New Public Management strategies at universities in the form of ‘new mechanisms of result- and production-oriented controlling and an allocation of funds based on ex post controls (final controls of results)’ (Zimmer et al., 2007: 44) is intended to enhance the transfer of autonomy and autonomous efficiency. At the same time, these principles of economisation are (mostly indirectly and unconsciously) instructing the subject as a neoliberal self in the private and work context (e.g. as a parent or scientist).

Within the framework of competitive ‘entrepreneurial universities’ (Riegraf and Weber, 2013: 67) gender equality policy measures gain a new importance within the credo of excellence in science and research. With the help of activities such as the Excellence Initiative or the Programs for Women Professors at the German federal and state levels, competition for external funding is politically initiated. Thus, universities depend on the success of this competition to contribute to their (financial) endowment and reputation. The result is that competitive structures and financial incentives are combined with gender equality policies (Riegraf and Weber, 2013: 68) and that universities promote gender equality policies like Gender Mainstreaming and Diversity Management, even if their effectiveness, particularly regarding employment relationships, is still unclear. However, what can be shown is that such programmes have an impact on the orientation of universities (Müller, 2010) and that the entrepreneurial university leads to a reorganisation of research and teaching within the German context, as illustrated by academic employment relationships which are being increasingly influenced by uncertainty and the precarisation of contemporary labour. Since the European and national university reforms new conceptualised jobs have been introduced for teachers where they are asked to perform special tasks with heavy teaching loads (up to 18 semester periods per week) and take on the additional task of supporting young academics; many fixed-term and part-time work contracts have been introduced for mid-level faculty; and performance bonuses have been established for professors’ salaries. These (and other) aspects of the German Higher Education system are considered in this article, although we are aware that similar problems and circumstances apply in other European and non-European countries and academic systems. Labour markets and working conditions in science have deteriorated significantly in Germany but also, for example, in the French university landscape (Costas et al., 2014: 2). However, in France, 65% of university faculty staff have predictable contracts (e.g. tenure track positions); in Germany, only 25% of faculty staff have such contracts (Costas et al., 2014: 8). One crucial consequence of the small number of faculty staff with predictable contracts is the rising mobility of academics, along with commuting arrangements in couples and families who are employed in academia. By focusing on the work/family conflict, this aspect will be part of the interview analysis.

In summary, labour markets and working conditions in science and in industry have considerably changed since the shift towards neoliberalism. As a result of the structural and organisational parameters of neoliberalism, precarious employment conditions along the academic career track are increasing. One of the professors interviewed in the qualitative study describes his own career path and that of colleagues in academia as ‘financially precarious’ and even ‘existentially precarious’. The main reason for these shortcomings is the lack of human resource development strategies at the structural and organisational level of universities that takes little account of the academic staff below the professorship level. But, an open question remains: what are the implications and consequences of the current transformations of the academic career track and, specifically, how does this affect the compatibility of scientific work and family? The described governmental policies in higher education result in an unsatisfactory situation for departments and teams at universities because they are not able to plan and manage personnel requirements and project contents. Facing uncertain working conditions himself, the above-mentioned interviewed professor concludes that ‘generations of young researchers are currently being scrapped’ (interview statement). The German research system is a system that not only ‘accepts the destruction of academic personnel and personalities’ but also accepts ‘the loss of scientific knowledge’ (interview statements) at universities. Beyond the larger groups of universities and research teams, individuals employed in academia are also unable to act and plan the course of their professional and private lives in a forward-looking manner – climbing an unsteady, uncertain and discontinuous ladder up to professorship. And this ladder is even more uncertain for women: on the one hand, women face the convergence of a rising number of women in academia and, on the other hand, a male-dominated work culture at universities (compare with the following discourse analysis) and the lack of any fundamental change of reproductive labour (the public–private division). All dimensions of this conflict can be seen as crucial dynamics of neoliberalism, and they converge in the work/family conflict when balancing the daily family life and the demands of the academic career track, academic competitiveness and academic performance.

Analysing the German discourse of parenthood and academia: Convergence of traditional and neoliberal ideals

In the light of the call for more equal opportunities and family equality in the higher education system, universities consider the reconciliation of study, work and family as a significant challenge to employees with care obligations for children or relatives. Parents ‘must be helped with a specific work organisation’ (Arbeiten & Familie, Universität Erfurt). An increasing number of universities are performing this task with their specifically established service centres for families, employees with care obligations and dual-career couples. These family service centres see their family-oriented commitment as a ‘progressive obligation’ (Familienbewusstes Arbeiten und Lernen, Hochschule Bremen) and as a necessity to react to demographic developments. First, the data show that the structures a university offers for parents to reconcile work and family life (structures of reconciliation) are linked with the discourse of skills shortage against the background of the demographic change (below with regard to the medical field):

The lack of structures of reconciliation is leading to problems in finding new recruits and it coincidentally strengthens the so called ‘glass ceiling’ which keeps women with children away from excellent career positions. The lack of above-average committed young medical experts who have decided to take on more elaborate career paths is more and more being bewailed (CEWS – 4).

Second, the discourse about parenthood in the academic working context is primarily attributed to women, which means that female scientists are discursively made into subjects of reconciliation. Third, structural measures (such as childcare facilities) receive special significance in the analysed discourse. Structural measures are being seen as a central aspect of family orientation. And, fourth, in addition to the structural level, the discourse also thematises the convergence of traditional and neoliberal ideals as well as the interrelation of these influencing dimensions. The ideal image of the ‘academic personality’ and the ‘traditional picture of a scientists’ both stem from a male-dominated work culture. This culture, oriented towards the male standard biography, ascribes less motivation and performance in the science working context to mothers (and fathers as well), while at the same time reproduces the breadwinner-model ideals of parents who are sceptical about motherhood in science and ignores the changes that have occurred within the academic working system in Germany.

Different norms and ideals which can be regarded as traditional seem to link with neoliberal reconfigurations within the university working context. These contradictory developments (and lines of argumentation) are particularly visible in the discursive and biographical analysis conducted here. The discourse about parenthood in the academic working context is unmistakably still a topic attributed to women: 19 of the 21 analysed leading German media articles focused predominantly on the low share of employment and the support measures for young female scientists and female professors. In science, the challenge of balancing work and family is almost exclusively addressed to women. In this manner, women are ‘directly being made into (potential) mothers’ (Paulitz et al., 2015: 137), as concluded by a qualitative study of gender construction in academia. In the context of this traditional allocation of responsibility, structural measures receive special significance, as conceiving childcare provisions are a ‘central aspect of family orientation’ (HM-3, 2011). Furthermore, following neoliberal principles, family orientation at universities is considered to be a competitive advantage and a necessary step to combat demographic developments and skill shortages, without considering possible different interests of all target groups involved in the academic area. As a result, for universities family orientation is deemed to be a ‘double opportunity’; they must perform their ‘social responsibility for more family orientation’ as well as ‘foster excellence in research [via women’s promotion programs]’ (FuL-1, 2012).

The convergence of traditional and neoliberal ideals is particularly clear if we consider the established ideal of scientific employees within current transformations at universities. On the one hand, the ideal image of the ‘academic personality’ (Kreissl et al., 2013: 26) (which contains a time-efficiency, usability and marketability orientation) is a dominant object in the discourse that is responsible for the low number of female scientists, structural working conditions, childcare provision, the missing financial protection and the lack of planning security for life. This ‘traditional picture of scientists’ (DUZ-2, 2011) affects also family planning backgrounds/structures (particularly with regard to the dream of having a child and childlessness); for example, junior researchers and female professors are being ascribed with a desire to have children and this wish will be fulfilled – according to this view – ‘if there are no academic or social requirements or other conditions based on partnerships’ (Kahlert, 2013a: 142). This aspect highlights explicit family-centred, hetero-normative values while also reproducing an understanding of childlessness that is understood as a ‘price for the academic career, but no wanted result of individual life planning’ (Kahlert, 2013b: 46). That leads to the converse argument that the specific difficulties involved in reconciling family and academic work are the reason for the low number of women in leading positions in academia: ‘Women are even missing in academia. (…)The reason for this is the bad compatibility of career and children’ (SdZ-1, 2012).

On the other hand, this ‘male dominated culture of work’ (SdZ-7, 2010) that coincides with the ‘traditional picture of scientists’ is not really affected by the changing circumstances and processes of economisation in science. As the biographical interviews show, scientists are expected to optimise their working procedures, research and teaching activities within ‘entrepreneurial universities’ until total exhaustion. Against the background of the ‘adult worker model’ (Lewis, 2000) these economic demands also include women. The discourse clearly illustrates, when women are addressed, that mothers have to ‘perceive themselves as human capital’ and that universities ‘are entitled to the resource of females’ (Thon, 2015: 135). In contrast to the traditional gender role models in academia, the analysed discourse addresses the neoliberal-motivated fear of losing excellence in science due to the deficient structures for the compatibility of family and working life.

Both lines of argumentation and the prevailing ideals reveal a conflict: the ‘subject construction of the “rational female manager of her own human resources” is acting contrary to a caring/thoughtful and emotional femininity’ (Ludwig, 2006: 56) and to a traditional role of motherhood as addressed in the discourse. Therefore, contradictions in female invocations are emerging, which, within neoliberalism, must be resolved autonomously. While offering childcare provision represents a central measure of addressing the female subject’s problem of balancing career and family in academia, no new (gender-equitable) academic working culture has emerged despite the changes and increased demands in science.

Interviewing dual-career parents in academia

After mapping the current discourse concerning the compatibility of science and parenthood through evaluating information material relevant to the subject matter (brochures and scientific media), the aim is now to focus on the subjects of reconciliation, their modes of subjectification and ways of reconciliation in practice. Professors and their partners (as academic identities) report how they balance their daily lives in the world of work and family and in terms of neoliberal invocations that aim at self-optimisation – often purely economically oriented. In the following, two aspects or crucial dynamics in times of neoliberalism will be focused on: mobility requirements in academia and commuting arrangements on the one hand, and demands of the work–life balance conflict in private and professional life and the performance of dual-career parents in academia on the other hand. The interview study draws attention to dual-career couples in academia because the careers of men and women in science continue not to be realised equally, although dual-career couples are often portrayed as – and expected to be – pioneers in balancing work (more precisely two careers) and family. The authors translated the interview statements and the German quotes from German articles from German into English, and tried to keep them as close to the originals as possible.

Transnationalisation, mobility and commuting arrangements

Current transformations at universities in the EU are characterised by the interrelation and intertwinement of processes of transnationalisation and economisation (Münch, 2009: 1). Processes of globalisation and transnationalisation are reflected implicitly in increased mobility requirements and demands for flexibility along the academic career track. Besides that, precarious and uncertain working conditions in academia – that, for example, go along with fixed-term work contracts and the lack of commitment to academic staff below professorship level in Germany – increase and intensify mobility and flexibility demands for those on the academic career track. Facing mobility and flexibility paired with high performance requirements and temporary, marginal employment conditions, dual-career couples in academia have to doubly cope with these challenges on their way to reaching the professorship level – or drop out of the leaky pipeline beforehand. And as we already know, women are (even nowadays) still mainly responsible for managing work–life balance challenges; it is mostly women who drop out of the academic pipeline.

Career-oriented couples often realise their mobility needs by establishing commuting arrangements between home and work. In academia in Germany this is a significant issue, considering that professors are frequently contractually bound to have (or move) their primary residence in(to) the region of the university. Without exception, all of the interviewed couples in the study have moved several times and have gone at least once through periods of commuting with their families. Both women and men experience these arrangements as burdensome, stressful and difficult to reconcile with daily family life (interview statement): ‘That was exhausting. […] Commuting costs a lot of time and energy. […] In the end, I was tired of it.’ The interviewee stresses the benefits of not having to commute, and explains that he enjoys spending time with his family and arranging daily time schedules and routines together. The interviewed families made every effort to terminate commuting situations as quickly as possible, even though they were aware that mobility and flexibility requirements represent key factors in their career tracks. ‘We noticed: to stop commuting was important for the whole family and our daily life’ reports another interviewee, who gave up a leading position in a company after his wife accepted the call to a full professorship at another university and in a new city. A third (female) interviewee also emphasises the shared experience of daily life routines and the close daily contact with her children – not on the phone, but in person: ‘I’m way more satisfied and well-balanced than during the year when I was commuting. I see the kids every day and I know everything is all right’. The rules of mobility in academia are not compatible with family needs in terms of routines, reliability and calculability in everyday life and in social networks.

Commuting (like the birth of a child ⁴ (compare for example Abele, 2010; Rüling, 2007)) can turn into a traditionalisation trap or inequality trap. Results of the interview analysis verify that commuting arrangements possibly raise gender inequalities in relationships: in one of the interviewed families, the woman was commuting from Tuesday to Thursday. Her partner was responsible for the house and care duties while she was gone, and she was mainly responsible for these duties from Friday to Monday. Besides and further to this, she took care of work and things that were forgotten during the week. In another family that had been interviewed, the man was the one that commuted. In this couple, she was responsible for housework and family when he was not at home but also (at least mainly) when he was home. Obviously, this means that female scientists are discursively made into subjects of reconciliation, no matter if they are at home or if they follow their own career tracks. Therefore the interview study confirms the results of other German studies (for example Behnke and Meuser, 2005), which examine highly qualified dual-career couples.

Career decisions made by dual-career couples represent turning points and milestones in (family) life that can change gender relations. One of the careers can be given priority and working arrangements can, for example, change in favour of the male career track at an early stage. Nevertheless, the interviewed couples stress that they try to realise gender-equal structures in their relationship and family. One of the interviewed couples reflects that they always tried to keep both careers in mind while deciding the next career steps in their partnership, and that they switched between whose career took precedent (interview statement): ‘We came to the agreement that I put back first in favour of his job. And in case I will be offered a permanent position in academia, he would put back and follow me.’ And she was offered a professorship.

Facing transnationalisation and brain-drain/brain-gain effects, German universities started to implement so-called dual-career services. Assistance support programmes at numerous universities were set up to help dual-career couples in academia with the reciprocal coordination of two careers and while settling in a new location (compare Melzer, 2010), given the requirements of geographically mobility and temporary flexibility in systems of academia. The United States started to implement dual-career services at universities in the 1990s (fighting to keep the best researchers in their country); nowadays, the ‘entrepreneurial universities’ in Germany, as increasingly highly competitive institutions and workplaces, have followed this idea. But, German universities often do not understand dual-career support as an ‘instrument of family support in their organization’ with the aim of ‘overcoming previous barriers in careers’ (Woelki and Väth, 2010). They do not use the dual-career topic to push forward gender equality within their institutions. Instead, they mainly follow neoliberal interests when implementing New Public Management strategies, when addressing women (as subjects of reconciliation) to activate female ‘human resources’ and when implementing so-called dual-career services. As argued earlier, the motivation of universities for support measures such as childcare, family orientation and dual career is mainly a neoliberal one that focuses on recruiting excellent researchers – instead of focusing on gender equality at an institutional level and in society as a whole. Therefore, measurements that carry the subtext of ‘Gender’ often correspond with economically oriented, neoliberal New Public Management strategies. The fact that the dual career is primarily taken as a competitive advantage within the academic competition for excellence is also reflected in the target group of dual-career measurements. German universities (often exclusively) offer their dual-career service features to professors and their partners, excluding mid-level faculty and junior researchers.

Highest demands balancing work and family and the academic performance record

We do have a weekly schedule, the way we are organised during the week, that changes on a daily basis. […] We distinguish between the lecture period and lecture-free time. Monday is precisely worked out. Sometimes I’m teaching from 2 until 4 p.m. on Monday and sometimes I’m completely taking care of family responsibilities on Monday. On Tuesday, it is my turn and I’m on my own with our daughter, Wednesday the same. […] Thursday is father’s day and Friday as well. […] On Saturday and Sunday, all three of us try [to undertake; S.L.] something together. (interview statement)

The already given ‘double socialization’ (Becker-Schmidt, 2003 ⁵ ) is increasing within the dual-career family model and in the neoliberal academic working context. The interviewees were invited to talk about their daily lives in detail in the interview sessions. In the above-mentioned interview statement, one of the interviewed professors (with one daughter and a partner who commutes to another university) talks about daily life routines, taking into account schedules, working times and care responsibilities. The couples try to relieve their daily schedules with the help of thought-out timetables and routine processes (interview statement): ‘We plan our daily life well ahead!’ But managing work and family demands gets even more difficult when structured systems and routines become brittle and fragile when an unpredictable event has to be dealt with, such as when a child gets sick (for example a ‘fever emergency’) or when a parent cannot perform for health reasons (interview statement):

It is getting critical when we are not functioning. We had that before. […]: You returned [from a conference; S.L.] and then suffered from a migraine attack because you came home exhausted. And I had to take care of the supervision of our daughter for another few days but had totally different (working) plans on my mind. Disastrous! We have to be able to perform!

The couples are confronted with highest demands and requirements balancing work, two career tracks and family. In academia, they have to teach, restructure and develop new degree programmes, as well as handle increasing numbers of students, committee work, meetings and bureaucratic burdens. At the same time, they face academia-specific challenges on their dual-career tracks, such as the previously mentioned precarious and borderless working conditions or a male-dominated work culture. Several interviewees reported that they often experience exclusion as a parent in academia, and also do not feel that their supervisors and colleagues understand the difficulties they face regarding care responsibilities. It is in this context that we have to keep in mind the high rate of childlessness in academia in Germany ⁶ – especially among female scientists on their way to the top (interview statement):

None of my colleagues had children. […] I was the only one. And meetings were scheduled on the weekend or after 6 p.m. and open-end, of course. And I said: That doesn’t work for me! […] In the following, you are cut off information, discussions and decisions.

In social contexts, scientific scholarship came to be understood as a lifestyle that takes for granted a complementary and unequally shared division of labour; this idea of scientific scholarship still focuses on the entire subjectification of the (entrepreneurial) self. As such, this idea of scholarship encourages women to decide against having children or leave the academic career track. Most of the interviewed couples refer to situations where they had to justify and defend their way of life. In such conversations, they also sensitise and alert their conversation partners to work–life balance topics and changing gender relations, while demonstrating a kind of ‘missionary awareness’ as subjects of the work–life balance conflict. As expected, the interviewed females showed greater ‘missionary awareness’. A female professor described such a conversation with one of her colleagues (interview statement):

One of my colleagues holds a professorship and his wife works part-time. He once told me regarding our work–life balance to take a step back at work and decide for a part-time position. I told him that he can talk. But would he as well take a part-time position? He had never even thought about it. For him, it was a matter of course that women can reduce their working hours. It was no option for himself. But at least, my question caused confusion.

Colleagues as well as family members and others addressed the interviewed female researchers directly as subjects of reconciliation and made them (feel) responsible for care duties and managing the work–life balance conflict on their own. If necessary, it is expected that the women will give up their career aspirations. As most of the interviewed couples emphasise, it is not research itself but mostly family-unfriendly scholars (‘the persons acting in the academic system’ (interview statement)), a male-dominated work culture and the organisation of university that makes academia incompatible with family life. It is not surprising that exhaustion turns out to be a predominant symptom among the interviewed dual-career couples – especially among the females. Some of them feel overwhelmed, burned out and physically as well as mentally exhausted. The interview analysis indicates that neoliberal transformations in academic working systems can produce exhausted and uncreative human capital among young researchers (interview statement):

At one point I thought: It is no longer possible! I can’t stand it any longer! […] Even physically! […] I always had the strong feeling of lagging behind and having no resources for things I love to do at work: […] dealing with contents, reading or even writing an article. […] I felt extremely frustrated. […] An unsatisfactory situation. […] A high dissatisfaction concerning my professional situation.

The interviewed professors mentioned that they had been encouraged to optimise the management of their work–life balance, their family structures and their working procedures to effectively exploit time frames and work outputs until exhaustion. An interview from a couple who work in research mentions that the ‘main logic of this job is to constantly move on’; there is a logic of performance orientation and of an ‘increasing imperative’ (Leinfellner, 2014: 88). The interviewees notice an ‘extreme acceleration’ in the academic field in times of neoliberalism that makes it even more difficult to reconcile family and science. But, as architects of their own fortune, the academic identities themselves and also the (female) subjects of reconciliation follow neoliberal principles when assessing their market-oriented potential and their competitiveness in the global scientific competition. A professor remembers the intense period after giving birth to her daughter:

When I decided to do research it was obvious to me that my work is my life. […] I had internalised that concept and idea of work totally when I decided to become a researcher. I pushed myself to the limits. […] And I remember that I always took something with me, to work on, when I went on a walk with my daughter when she was very little. As soon as she fell asleep I started working immediately. Each and every minute. A high level of efficiency […] but a lot of pressure as well.

And the following final interview statement also shows that the interviewees unconsciously internalised neoliberal invocations like that of self-governance (Lemke, 2006: 470):

You can take into account that there is a huge flexibility in the academic working context. You do things for yourself when doing research. That is comparable with being self-employed. […] You will be left stranded in case you do not watch your performance record!

Neoliberal reconfigurations against the background of gender-specific subtexts

Foucault’s concept of governmentality presents a microscopic view of governmental technologies of power. It offers a way of looking at the power and mentality structures of the state in relation to the leadership of the population (Gutiérrez Rodríguez, 2003: 164) – shedding light on the relationship between day-to-day micro-technologies and abstract political rationalities. This makes it possible to analyse the patterns of subjectification that are produced by these political rationalities and governmental technologies, such as via concrete institutional practices and technologies of power as well as discourses (Thompson, 2013: 201).

In this paper institutional practices and technologies in academia and the prevailing neoliberal discourse about parenthood in this context have been the primary focus. According to Foucault, discourses correlate closely with social institutions and with ways of living (compare Tuider, 2007: sec. 8). This connection of the discursive level of knowledge and the subjective level of acting (Radzioch, 2015: 47) could be demonstrated by linking together discursive and biographical research. It became clear that institutional discourses and individual experiences reproduce neoliberal requirements that are shaping the subject as an entrepreneurial self, having to act independently and be self-sufficient both in private and in professional spheres.

For explanation: the analysed discourse that is primarily attributed to women as well as individual experiences (one of the questioned female professors, for example, reported on the obvious assumption of colleagues of stepping back at work as a woman and deciding on a part-time position) clearly show that primarily female subjects are the ones who concomitantly reconcile. But, as already mentioned above, the traditional role of motherhood is acting contrary to the ‘rational female manager of her own human resources’ (Ludwig, 2006: 56) or, better still, to the ongoing traditional picture of scientists (compare for instance DUZ-2, 2011). This coexistence of opposing principles (compare Fusulier 2016: 300) can be defined as a new aspect of gendered subject constructions of and in neoliberalism leading to the fact that the asynchronicity is shifted ‘into’ the female subject where it becomes a circumstance of self-responsibility. ‘Female subject constructions oscillate between the flexible female “Entrepreneur of the Self” and the caring femininity’ (Ludwig, 2006: 57). From a feministic perspective, the theory of governmentality opens up a concept that allows us to describe and criticise neoliberal policies and their mechanism of shifting self-regulation and self-responsibility. These mechanisms are, however, not regarded as gender neutral; they have to be understood as androcentric (Ludwig, 2010: 47) and as gendered forms of subjectification (Kerchner and Schneider, 2010: 17). Only this understanding enables one to realise specific or rather contrary invocations to the subjects, and it inevitably considers the gendering of governmentality.

But the invocations and attributions do not take place in a space free of preconditions. Working in the scientific context is characterised by precarious employment situations, mobility requirements and flexibility demands towards the scientist (compare the section ‘Transnationalisation, mobility and commuting arrangements’) as well as a double-blurring of gainful work and family (compare Fusulier 2016: 301). Besides that, gender assignments conform to contradictory demands of productive and reproductive spheres following different principles and needs – especially in terms of time. As pointed out in the couple interview analyses, interviewees responded to neoliberal demands with tightly scheduled and well-organised timetables and flexible work hours. They reproduce neoliberal requirements and invocations as supposedly liberally acting subjects of reconciliation. And because the images, ideals, principles and discourses of academia and of parenthood continue to be male dominated, they reproduce the power and effectiveness of gender norms and hegemonic structures of society, and therefore the incompatibility of scientific work and family life. ‘Real power relations and traditional social images have always been maintained with the help of ideologies’ (Nave-Herz, 2014: 732). A male-dominated academic ethos on the one hand and neoliberal invocations and ideals of parenthood on the other affect guiding-principle discussions and discourses in public/professional and private sectors. The popularity of the reconciliation topic and work–life balance in practice illustrates the power of discourses and its interdependencies.

Besides, precarity in the academic working context and in everyday life can be understood and taken (as) governmental. In our perspective, precarity can not only be seen in a repressive form, it is also an ambivalent and productive moment as it arises in techniques of self-government (Lorey 2011). The way that this study’s interviewees keep in mind how to enhance their efficiency or how they split care obligations (for example delineated in the section ‘Highest demands balancing work and family and the academic performance record’) shows that the individual is always an active subject, a subject with agency. ‘The active participation of everyone within the reproduction of governmental techniques does not serve submission solely. (…) Within the ambivalence between submission and empowerment self-government can enable to fight for the manner of leadership’ (Lorey, 2011). According to Foucault the room for manoeuvre is, however, discursively structured, thus allowing the subject to act accordingly. It is therefore particularly essential that institutional discourses and individual experiences are subject of any critical analysis.

Within our data we could see institutional discourses and individual experiences reproduce neoliberal requirements that shape the subject as an entrepreneurial self, having to act independently and be self-sufficient both in the private and in professional spheres. Neoliberal ideology promotes the working life/family life conciliation not as a goal but as a way to activate ‘human resources’, in particular female human resources. Contemporaneously, universities (economically oriented, competitive and entrepreneurial) and a traditionally male-dominated culture (masculine habitus) have been connected with the New Public Management framework (neoliberal ideology). In this context, the credo of excellence in science, research and teaching means that academics should be more productive, competitive, mobile and accountable in a quantitative sense. So, researchers are under considerable pressure, and often in a precariousness employment situation. As a consequence, the combination of taking care of children and working in academia causes an immense lack of time and competition for time. In fact, the neoliberal transformations in academic working systems and their demands for performance reinforce work/family conflict in academia (also compare Fusulier 2016: 300). Behind the discourse on reconciliation, and which becomes very clear in our study, we see a structural deficit combined with an institutional and cultural requirement for individuals to resolve the work–life balance conflict themselves. But, how do researchers as parents handle divergent ideals in neoliberal working and private contexts? How do they reconcile production and reproduction as borderless and resistant spheres in the academic working and family life? Our results show that they need to adapt themselves and try to meet and fulfil the requirements of both spheres – as excellent researchers and excellent parents. And this leads to the question of who sets the standards in both areas of practice? Mostly not-employed mothers set the cultural standards for ‘good’ parenthood and ‘good’ education, while childless subjects set the standards in the world of work; ‘Who nevertheless wants to do both, will be measured by the standards set by those ones that are only into one of the spheres’ (König, 2012: 193).

Discussion: A methodological résumé

We find ourselves at a stage in which we have to critically focus on the effectiveness of neoliberal transformations in our social framework. It can be observed that in some areas, neoliberal transformation processes emerge faster and more impressively than in others. One of these faster areas is the academic working system, with recognisable processes of transnationalisation and economisation. Against this background it is exciting and important to ask how the neoliberalisation of universities rearranges spheres such as family, work and parenthood, and how ‘academic parents’ handle this neoliberalisation of academic and family work. Exploring answers to these questions, the paper brought together two different approaches by triangulating discourse analysis and biographical research and by using a gender-sensitive concept of governmentality. The triangulation could be fruitfully exploited methodologically and empirically in order to investigate social images, ideals and their power-related concepts and intersections concerning parenthood and academia as a working place.

But why and how is this triangulation against the background of the used theoretical perspective of governmentality appropriate? Recent deliberations of governmentality studies determine new forms of policies and new forms of subjectivation. According to Foucault, discourses shape the consciousness of subjects and they create new forms of subjectivation. But the methodological question of how to analyse these discursive effects is still unanswered (compare Tuider, 2007). Therefore, linking the proposed methods enables a wider view on neoliberal transformations, subjective modes of action or rather on the ‘reality-making (type of) power’ (Bührmann and Schneider, 2007: sect. 11).

With our paper we have tried to make clear how both approaches complement efficiently concerning the depth of content and results: on the one hand, the analysed discourse elucidates high attributions of meaning/significance of structural measures (such as childcare facilities), although parents working in academia barely mentioned these structural measures. One could assume mobility and flexibility requirements suggest a great need. On the other hand, the interviews illustrate freely configurable elements of academic work, flexible time management (‘comparable with being self-employed’ (interview statement)), but also experiences of an ‘extreme acceleration’ in the academic field in times of neoliberalism. These developments, which make it even more difficult to reconcile family and science, were not contemplated in the discourse in its significance. However, the interviews contain detailed descriptions of the scientists’ daily practices, their problem-solving strategies and the mentioned incomprehension of colleagues along persistent traditional pictures of being a scientist. On the discursive level, these family-centred and hetero-normative values are represented within an understanding of childlessness as one of the best prerequisites for an academic career. We can note matches of discursive and biographical analysis, but the interviews especially impressively demonstrate how parents react to the high demands and standards in academia directed at them at the individual level – going beyond the discourse. Conversely, ‘the discourse analysis gives indications for the overall context of narratives, which show references and breaks of the individual positioning’ (Tuider, 2007: sec. 26) as well as limits and possibilities.

Linking these two methodical approaches the governmental concept can be seen and used as a connecting element or set as a ‘hinge’ when analysing subjective, resistant and autonomous dimensions of parenthood in science. It also provides initial answers to the question of how attributions of responsibility reproduce old and new opportunities, practices and inequalities. Last but not least, focusing on the active role of subjects/of the interviewees, it becomes obvious that the discourse and the subject are in a mutual constitutional relation.

In short, the interplay of intended and non-intended mechanisms in academia promotes inequality in gender relations when it comes to reconciling work and family life. The reason for inequality is the powerful impact of old and new models and concepts of parenthood and working in academia, combined with the still-common notion (for which/what the gender-sensitive perspective on Foucault’s concept of governmentality sensitised) that the division of labour and reproductive work is gendered and contradictory, regardless of the family arrangement.