Digital Visibilities in Professorial Appointment Procedures: Heterogenous and Controversial Involvement in Decision-Making

Developments of digitalization have become an integral part of the institutional environment of universities (Gilch et al., 2019). As professorial appointment procedures are structurally relevant for universities (Kleimann & Klawitter, 2017), this contribution focuses on the impact of digitalization – in particular of digital visibilities – on decision making in appointment procedures. Digital developments as datafication (van Dijck, 2014) and platformization (Poell et al., 2019) have induced new infrastructures for evaluation as well as data for decision-making (Heintz, 2021; Mennicken & Kornberger, 2021). Since professorships are limited, digital platforms function as vehicles for advancing reputation and chances of being selected (Kapidzic, 2018; Kjellberg & Haider, 2019; Nicholas et al., 2018; Paruschke & Philipps, 2022; Thiele & Luethje, 2022) by creating digital visibilities through infrastructures for scholarly communication. In detail, digital visibilities comprise (alternative) metrics which are calculated by online services as GoogleScholar, Web of Science or Altmetric.com as well as profiles and activities on (academic) social networking sites as ResearchGate or LinkedIn. Scientific literature focuses on different types of selection criteria but disregards digital visibilities (Kleimann & Klawitter, 2017; Levander et al., 2022; Mallich et al., 2012; Reymert, 2022; Zimmermann, 2000). This contribution aims at answering the research question of how digital visibilities (as a social phenomenon) affect the decision-making in appointment procedures (as organizational communication) at German universities. Empirically, expert interviews with professors who are experienced decision-making members of appointment procedures were analyzed (Gläser & Laudel, 2010). Additionally, a document analysis of job advertisements for professors, appointment regulations of German universities and position papers of relevant actors in the science field (BMBF, DFG, EU, etc.) was conducted. Drawing on a neo-institutional (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Meyer & Rowan, 1977) and organizational communication perspective (Schoeneborn, 2011), the analytical framework depicts digital visibilities as part of the plural institutional environment of universities and universities as organizations which are constituted by communication of decision-making. Within the analysis, the institutional isomorphic change through digitalization has been traced. Firstly, coercive isomorphism is expressed by the consideration of digital visibilities as evaluation criteria in position papers and recommendations. The analysis of the expert interviews shows in this regard that the inclusion of metrics at the beginning of the procedure is widely formalized while the consideration of scholarly profiles on social media platforms is rather executed in an unstructured and inconsistent way. Secondly, mimetic isomorphism is reflected within the analyzed appointment regulations and interviews describing nearly identical formal procedures. In this regard, especially the integration of metrics for the pre-selection of candidates seems to be prevalent. Nevertheless, due to personal, disciplinary, and university differences, the consideration of digital visibilities varies. Thirdly, normative isomorphism is articulated by the interviewed professors within professional expectations and subjective attitudes towards the integration of digital visibilities. Most interviewees regard digital visibilities as useful source of information, yet criticize various aspects as the notion of self-presentation and quantification as well as missing reliability and objectivity. Therefore, taking into account digital visibilities in appointment procedures can be summarized as heterogenous and controversial.