Content uploaded by Aslı Vatansever
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Aslı Vatansever on Mar 12, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170211069830
Work, Employment and Society
1 –20
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/09500170211069830
journals.sagepub.com/home/wes
The Making of the Academic
Precariat: Labour Activism and
Collective Identity-Formation
among Precarious Researchers
in Germany
Aslı Vatansever
Bard College Berlin, Germany
Abstract
This article investigates the political potency of ‘precarity’ as an organising axiom in contingent
workers’ grassroots organisations. It studies a nationwide network of precarious researchers
in Germany and deploys Frame Analysis to illuminate how the Network articulates diverse
criticisms as parts of a coherent struggle against precarious academic work. Empirically,
the article substantiates the postulate of ‘precarity as a mobilising source’ by depicting the
construction of precarity on strategic, organisational and individual levels, drawing on protest
campaigns, coordinative work and in-depth interviews, respectively. On a theoretical level, it
contributes to the literature by proposing a refinement of the concept of ‘master frame’. Arguing
that ‘precarity’ creates a broader class actor with branches in different sectors, to which the
contingent academics link their struggle by derivatively describing themselves as the ‘academic
precariat’, the article proposes the novel category of ‘class-formative frame’ in difference to
operational (diagnostic/prognostic) or relational (supportive/oppositional) frames.
Keywords
academic precariat, collective action, Frame Analysis, labour activism, precarity
Introduction
Precarity and its impact on workers’ organisational capacities continue to be discussed
widely in the literature (Gallas, 2018; Patrick-Thomson and Kranert, 2020; Royle and
Rueckert, 2020; Tassinari and Maccarrone, 2020; Ullrich, 2019b). Despite recent
advancements in theorising grassroots organising in precarious sectors, current research
Corresponding author:
Aslı Vatansever, Bard College Berlin, Platanenstraße 24, 13156 Berlin, Germany.
Email: a.vatansever@berlin.bard.edu
1069830WES0010.1177/09500170211069830Work, Employment and SocietyVatansever
research-article2022
Article
2 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
is marked by two shortcomings this article aims to overcome: first, anti-precarity mobi-
lisations in academia are underrepresented in the field of labour studies. Few exceptions
focus on the impact of the ‘managerial turn’ on academic subjectivities (Baldry and
Barnes, 2012; Kallio et al., 2016; Lempiäinen, 2015; Mather and Seifert, 2014). Case
studies on adjuncts’ mobilisations in the US, the UK, Canada, and Europe remain mostly
at the descriptive level (Birdsell-Bauer, 2018; Bristow et al., 2017; Gallas, 2018; Hirslund
et al., 2019; Ullrich, 2019a, 2019b). Systematic studies in this field are needed, since
mechanisms of labour devaluation and resistance practices in academia might offer valu-
able insights on labour struggles in creative/intellectual sectors marked by low union
presence and entrenched illusions of exceptionality.
Second, literature on labour activism in precarious sectors basically offers two direc-
tions. Case studies present empirical insights on the conditions of mobilisation and the
role of contextual factors in workers’ organisations (Morgan and Pulignano, 2020; Rizzo
and Atzeni, 2020: 1115–1116). Yet, by focusing primarily on the impact of precarious
work conditions on the workers’ capacity to organise, they overlook the potential of
‘precarity as an organising and mobilising device’ in forming a broader class actor that
transcends the reach of individual movement organisations.
Political theories of precarisation provide a theoretical framework for grasping the
political implications of precarity as a shared vulnerability (Gasiukova and Shkaratan,
2019; Joronen and Rose, 2020; Lorey, 2015). However, generic assumptions on an elu-
sive potential offer little empirical evidence of how precarity is interpreted by those who
actively identify as the ‘precariat’ in various movements. Works discussing the ‘framing
of precarity’ often refer to its conceptualisation within the social scientific discourse
(Alberti et al., 2018; Choonara, 2020). Those thematising the framing of precarity within
collective action, on the other hand, lack a clear description of specific framing activities
(Mattoni, 2015). The ways in which the concept of ‘precarity’ influences the processes
of subjectivation in the instances where it is adopted as a mobilising source in practice
thus remain largely underexamined.
This article aims at closing this gap by presenting a theoretically informed study of an
academic labour movement and an empirically founded analysis of precarity as an axiom
of collective action. On the theoretical level, the article utilises Frame Analysis and defines
‘precarity’ as a ‘master frame’ (i.e. as a generic notion, around which actors organise and
mobilise). The main argument here is that, while ‘precarity’ represents a master frame,
analysing its concrete political salience requires a refinement of the concept of master
frame. For this purpose, the article proposes a distinction between operational (diagnos-
tic/prognostic), relational (supportive/oppositional) and radical-transformative frames
(class-formative). The former two sets contain frame categories, which have been defined
previously by several frame theorists and refer to case-specific interpretive schemata
geared towards instant mobilisation outcomes. The latter is a specific contribution made
by this article and refers to the type of master frames that do not only express a certain
grievance or demand, but inductively lead to the formation of a distinct class actor that
stretches beyond individual movement organisations.
On an empirical level, the article probes the practical salience of the processual con-
ception of ‘precarity as a source of collective action’, which has been adopted in several
recent WES contributions (Beck and Brook, 2020; Potter, 2020; Smith and Ngai, 2018).
Vatansever 3
To illustrate the class-formative potential of ‘precarity’ as a master frame, the article draws
on a precarious researchers’ advocacy movement in Germany, the Network for Decent
Work in Academia (henceforth NGAWiss or the Network). NGAWiss is a nationwide
grassroots network of precarious researchers that comprises 31 local Mittelbau-initiatives,1
as well as several disciplinary associations, federal-level interest groups and two unions.
It emerged in early 2017 as a response to the increasing precarisation of academic labour
in Germany. Its main target has been the Fixed-Term Academic Employment Law (hence-
forth WissZVG), due to which 92% of the academic workforce is currently employed on
temporary contracts, whereas statistically only 5% of the PhD holders have a prospect of
tenure (BMBF BuWiN, 2021: 111). Within a relatively short time, the Network estab-
lished itself as the representative of the academic precariat in Germany and propelled the
issue of academic precarity up to the political agenda and even to a plenary session of the
German parliament in June 2021 (Deutscher Bundestag, 2021).
In view of the framing activities of NGAWiss, the article investigates how precarious
employment and bleak career prospects are transformed from personal grievances into
matters of collective action and how the academic precariat is being constructed at vari-
ous levels of collectivity-formation. Generally associated with a heterogeneous mass of
contingent workers in the extant literature, ‘academic precariat’ is understood here as a
potential political actor embedded in the precarised mass of surplus academic workforce
(cf. Armano and Murgia, 2013; Murray, 2019). By unfolding how precarity is articulated
as the basis of a distinct class position at the levels of mobilisation, organisation and
individual subjectivation, the article demonstrates how this prospective actor crystallises
as the general precariat’s derivative agent in the academic sector.
The article is divided into five main sections. In the first one following the introduc-
tion, the analytical framework, based on Snow and Benford’s (1988) Frame Analysis and
its further elaboration by Gahan and Pekarek (2013), is explicated and the concept of
‘class-formative frame’ outlined. The second section clarifies the rationale behind the
case selection and the methods of data gathering and handling. In the third section, in
dialogue with Frame Analysis and drawing on empirical data, the article illustrates the
development of a shared repository of meanings and interpretations attributed to precar-
ity by the Network’s actors. The last two sections summarise the findings and discuss
their implications for both the theory and practice of labour activism among precarious
workers.
Analytical framework: Precarity as a class-formative frame
Frame Analysis continues to play a significant role in illuminating the processes of inter-
est-collectivisation and identity-building within and between social movement organisa-
tions (SMO). Extending Goffman’s (1974) notion of framing to social movement studies,
Snow and Benford have developed the concept of ‘collective action frame’ (CAF) to
refer to specific readings of a situation that are ‘intended to mobilise adherents and con-
stituents, to garner bystander support, and to demobilise antagonists’ (1988: 198). The
‘core framing tasks’ in an organisation, as identified by Benford and Snow, involve the
identification of the source of grievance (diagnostic framing), the proposing of a poten-
tial solution thereof (prognostic framing) and the mobilisation of constituents around it
4 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
(motivational framing) (2000: 615–617). Their analysis also recognised the conflictual
and processual nature of framing and identified the processes of ‘bridging’, ‘transforma-
tion’ and ‘extension’ of specific agendas between different organisations and actors
(Snow and Benford, 1988: 198–199). Organisations usually seek to expand their bases
and gain wider legitimacy by linking their specific CAFs to more flexible and universal
themes that Snow and Benford describe as ‘master frames’. Master frames ‘provide the
same function as movement-specific collective action frames, but they do so on a larger
scale’ and are ‘generic’, while ‘specific action frames are derivative’ (Snow and Benford,
1992: 138).
Collectivity-formation is not a one-dimensional process carried out in a top-down
fashion by the leading cadres of a SMO. Therefore, grasping the processes of framing
requires attention to different venues of subjectivation and action. This becomes par-
ticularly important in horizontal grassroots organisations, where, unlike unions, there
exists no distinction between the organising staff, intermediary worker-leaders and the
worker-activists. In such configurations, individual subjectivation and collective organ-
ising inevitably run in tandem, and mobilisation can only result organically from collec-
tivity-formation. Gahan and Pekarek have therefore drawn attention to ‘the need to
distinguish between different framing processes that occur at various levels within a
social system’ and outlined a threefold conceptual map for this purpose, featuring ‘stra-
tegic action field (SAF)’, ‘social movement’ and ‘individual’ as the main venues of
framing (2013: 758, emphasis in original). According to that, SAF represents the locus
of oppositional frames, SMO that of core framing tasks, and the individual level the
locus of personal experience and cognition (p. 759).
Building upon Benford and Snow’s initial concepts, Mooney and Hunt have expanded
the Frame Analysis’ conceptual envelope to include larger sets of contextually specific
CAFs, which they described as ‘repertoire of interpretations’ (1996). Their contribution
offered a more differentiated typology of master frames, as it proposed the concept of
‘constitutive master frame’ to define the type of frames that constitute ‘the foundation of
movement actors’ interpretations’ (1996: 179).
Following Mooney and Hunt, precarity is described here as a ‘constitutive master
frame’, from which the Network derives its repertoire of interpretations containing
various generic or context-specific CAFs, such as ‘contractual time-limitation
(Befristung)’ and ‘devaluation of academic qualifications’. However, while the concept
of ‘constitutive frame’ explains what constitutes the discursive ammunition of a particu-
lar SMO, it fails to cover other types of master frames with a wider class-political
scope, or other qualities of a master frame, such as the capacity to precipitate a poten-
tially transformative collective subject. Thus, when it comes to analysing precarity as a
core interpretive schema, ‘constitutive frame’ is accurate but not sufficient. ‘Precarity’
as a master frame does not only constitute the source of a given movement’s repertoire
of interpretations, but dialectically suggests its own countervailing class actor (i.e. the
precariat). In view of this, this article proposes the category of radical-transformative
frames and classifies ‘precarity’ as a type of radical-transformative frame, more specifi-
cally a class-formative frame.
A distinction between class-formative frames and other categories of Frame Analysis,
summarised here as operational (diagnostic/prognostic) and relational (oppositional/
Vatansever 5
supportive) frames, is necessary. Operational frames correspond to specified problems
(diagnostic frames) and their proposed solutions (prognostic frames). They involve
generic propositions that are extendable through frame bridging. Master frames of the
radical-transformative sort, on the other hand, do not simply provide themes that cut
across different movements but give rise to an actor that transcends protest cycles and
single SMOs.
Class-formative frames also differ from relational frames that contain oppositional or
supportive readings of a given situation. While class-formation is a relational process
shaped by an antithetical positioning of contending actors, class-formative framing is not
limited to a self-definition in opposition to what is, but suggests a transformative force
that might work towards what ought to be. In the case of NGAWiss, the juxtaposition of
non-tenured faculty’s precarity with the professorial advantages of the privileged few
certainly plays a significant role in collective identity-formation. However, the emphasis
on this dichotomy does not indicate a plain oppositional self-positioning; it aims at
underlining the structural erosion of the valued aspects of the academic profession. In the
meantime, it allows NGAWiss to derivatively refashion the actor group as a transforma-
tive force that has the potential to overturn this very dichotomy that brought them into
existence.
It is also important to distinguish between ‘frame extension’ and ‘derivative class-
formative framing’. Here, precarity is viewed not as a case-specific grievance, but as an
overarching structural tendency that comes to affect wider segments of contemporary
societies. Consequently, ‘the precariat’ does not represent a movement-specific collec-
tive identity that extends to different SMOs through frame bridging. Various movements,
including labour movements in the academic sector, adopt precarity as a master frame
and precariat as a collective identity. However, they do so not as a frame extension of
another movement, but to connect their struggle to a trans-sectoral ‘class-in-the-making’
whose common denominator is downward mobility (or the constant threat of it) on a
global scale.
This article builds upon Gahan and Pekarek’s three-dimensional chart and applies it
as an analytical framework to investigate the framing activities in practice. Accordingly,
the construction of academic precariat is depicted on three interrelated levels: (1) the
level of SAFs, which refers to the intersubjective space between contending social actors
(Fligstein and McAdam, 2011: 3ff.); (2) the level of social movement organisation as the
locus of group coherence; and (3) the individual level of subjectivation where actors
recognise the congruence between their personal experiences and the organisation’s
agenda (Gahan and Pekarek, 2013: 761ff.).
Case selection and methodology
The construction of the academic precariat at different levels is depicted through various
materials. The level of action, or SAF, comprises the physical and virtual spaces of action
and contention, including on-campus and internet campaigns, as well as debates with the
opposing social actors. To illustrate the utilisation of ‘precarity’ as an axiom of resistance
in the strategic action field, the article draws on one nationwide campaign and two public
polemics at the local and national level. The rationale behind this choice of material is
6 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
twofold: first, the action campaigns and polemics represent the attempt on the part of
NGAWiss to publicise the issue and launch new SAFs for the academic precariat to
materialise as a collective actor. As such, these confrontations rather serve the purpose of
collectivity-formation than yielding immediate outcomes. Second, by positioning them-
selves in direct opposition to university administrations in these action campaigns,
NGAWiss utilises oppositional frames to delineate further the characteristics of the aca-
demic precariat. Thus, the analysis of the said campaigns and controversies helps gain a
better understanding of the construction of the academic precariat through conflict.
The coordinative circle (Ko-Kreis) constitutes the core of the movement organisation.
To examine the construction of collective action frames and how they are linked to the
master frame of precarity at the organisational level, the article draws on the protocols
from bimonthly Ko-Kreis meetings (N = 5). The regularly updated demand catalogue
and the Network’s recent proposal for alternative academic personnel models serve to
illuminate the prognostic framing activities. As a recent frame bridging attempt, the arti-
cle draws on the formation of a new branch named the Precarious International that
extends the Network’s reach to migrant/refugee scholars in Germany. The analysis of
this material demonstrates how the framing activities at the organisational level aim to
outline the actor group as a derivative of an overarching class agent (i.e. the precariat)
and how its demands and prognoses for the improvement of working conditions in aca-
demia are formulated out of that distinct class position, and new alliances are built on the
basis of belonging to the precariat.
To elucidate the processes of subjectivation at the individual level, the article draws
on semi-structured in-depth interviews with eight members of the coordinative circle
(refer to Figure 3). Participants were recruited through purposive sampling, prioritising
active participation in academic labour activism. Contacts were facilitated through the
author’s own connections in precarious researchers’ networks. Since the article does not
examine mass mobilisations but the framing activities, the empirical part focuses on the
‘organisational core’ that serves as the main nodal point and translates impulses and
ideas into actual agendas. The Ko-Kreis coordinates collective demands and mobilisa-
tions and strives to expand the base of activity (i.e. administers the ‘deep organising’ of
the academic precariat) (Han, 2014: 95–96). It also sustains cohesion by maintaining the
Network’s internet presence, proliferating identity-symbols like logos, stickers and post-
ers, and organising the annual nationwide Network meeting (Ullrich, 2019a). Participation
in Ko-Kreis is continuous and not limited to local campaigns or single protest actions. Its
members often function as spokespersons on behalf of the entire Network in the media
and towards external interest groups. Thus, the Ko-Kreis members’ subjective percep-
tions reflect the shared meanings attributed to precarity within the Network to a great
extent.
The interview script consisted of 20 open-ended questions structured around five
themes: (1) academic background / initial career expectations; (2) breaking point / disil-
lusionment; (3) institutional and external hazards to labour activism and career advance-
ment; (4) dilemmas of balancing career concerns with labour activism; and (5) evaluation
of the past record and expectations for the future of the Network. Respondents received
a Participant Consent Form prior to the interviews. All interviews have been manually
transcribed and translated from the German original by the author herself, which allowed
Vatansever 7
a thorough engagement with the narratives. Based on qualitative concept-driven coding,
the data were initially approached with a coding scheme to discern the concepts/ideas
pertaining to the politicisation of employment precarity (Gibbs, 2007). Preliminary the-
matic points involving ‘discontinuity of employment’, ‘lack of stable career prospects’
and ‘turning point/decision to participate in collective action’ were prioritised.
Additionally, during transcription, emerging concepts like ‘subjection to the quasi-feudal
authority of full professors’ and ‘infantilisation as early-career’ appeared to play a crucial
role in the interviewees’ construction of precarious subjectivity.
The author’s affinity with the anti-precarity initiatives and her personal employment
status as non-tenured researcher may invoke concerns about potential confirmation and
selection biases. Nevertheless, it should be noted that this is an analysis of processes
and not a cause-effect or correlation study. For the purposes of investigating identity-
formation processes, having first-hand insights and direct access to anti-precarity initia-
tives is an epistemological and methodological advantage. The ‘insider perspective’
allows the researcher to employ ‘sociological imagination’ and shift freely between the
individual and structural aspects of precarisation (cf. Isler and Corbie-Smith, 2012;
Mills, 2000[1959]).
On a practical level, being an ‘insider’ allowed access to data that might otherwise
have been unobtainable. The data used for the analysis of collective action frames consist
mostly of online sources that are shared with the wider public on the Network’s and local
initiatives’ social media outlets. The data documenting the organisational and individual
levels of framing, on the other hand, are collected through the researcher’s personal
access to the Ko-Kreis. Her insider status later served to ease access to internal protocols
and individual stories, but the researcher initially contacted the Network members for
research purposes, informed the participants about her main motives and received their
consent to conduct research. As a token of trust, she was offered the option to pursue her
research without becoming an active member. Hence, even the research itinerary implied
the existence of an embryonal class solidarity emerging from a common state of
precariousness.
As to data selection, the sample choice is naturally biased towards the Network’s
active participants and excludes non-participants. The research focuses on precarity as a
class-formative frame within the academic anti-precarity movements. Hence, a control
group of non-participants would add no analytical value in terms of capturing the
Network’s internal framing activities. Regarding the representative limitations of the
quantitatively restricted interview sample, the processual and qualitative orientation of
the study and the variety of the sources the insights are drawn from shall effectively
circumvent potential exploratory shortcomings.
The making of the academic precariat in practice
The composition of precarity as a class-formative frame and the specific collective action
frames that highlight its various facets are now introduced at the levels of conflict, col-
lective identity-construction and individual agency. Figure 1 summarises the main levels
and instruments whereby precarity is articulated as a source of collective identity. The
findings are discussed in the following.
8 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
Strategic action field (SAF)
Fligstein and McAdam define SAFs as ‘meso-level social orders’, in which collective
actors ‘vie for strategic advantage in and through interaction with other groups’ (2011:
2). Being a collective actor, NGAWiss is itself a SAF that emerged from a conflict over
neoliberal higher education reforms. At the strategic action level, NGAWiss presents
itself as ‘the voice of the academic precariat and an advocate of their interests’ (www.
mittelbau.net) and works to commence new ‘conflict arenas’ around the issues pertaining
to precarious academic work (Fligstein and McAdam, 2011: 3). Those conflict arenas
include campaigns, press releases and public polemics with single university administra-
tions or members of the Association of German University Rectors. Space constraints
preclude a full rendering of the existing conflict platforms. In the following, one nation-
wide campaign, one public statement against the provosts’ Bayreuth Declaration from
Strategic acon
field
the sphere of public
debates and mobilisaons
Materialsused in the analysis:
campaigns, polemics with
counterparts, public
statements and discussions
Emerging themes:
•Dysfunconality of
adjuncficaon for research
andhighereducaon
•Lack of stable future
opons for early-and mid-
career researchers
•Distoron of facts through
instuonal terminology
Movement
organisaon
the sphere of collecvity-
formaon and organising
Materialsused in the
analysis:
bimonthly coordinave
circle meengs, demand
catalogue, personnelmodels,
self-descripveonline
sources, frame extension
through Precarious
Internaonal
Emerging themes:
the replacement of the
tradionalacademic
identywitha collecve
identybased on the
absenceof professorial
privilegesand
instuonal backing
Individual level
the sphere of individual
subjecvaon
Materials used in the
analysis:
occupaonal biographies,
cognive processes
Emerging themes:
•Disconnuous
employment → anxiety
•Lack of career
prospects → perceived
injustice
•Persisng rank
hierarchiesdespite the
factual inaccessabilityof
tenure → senseof
devaluation &
infantilisation
Figure 1. Three levels of framing precarity.
Source: author’s own elaboration drawing on Gahan and Pekarek (2013).
Vatansever 9
September 2019, and one ongoing dispute between a local initiative and their university
administration are summarised.
The hitherto largest nationwide campaign ‘Fixed-Term is Frustration’ (Frist ist
Frust – FiF) offers a vantage point for illustrating the framing of academic precarity as
a combative axiom. Carried out jointly by the Education and Science Union (GEW),
United Service Union (Ver.di) and NGAWiss from March 2019 onwards, the campaign
used a variety of specific collective action frames, mostly targeting the WissZVG.
Dysfunctionality of adjunctification, unsustainability of maintaining rising student
enrolments through precarious adjunct labour and early-career researchers’ future-
lessness constituted the main CAFs, while allegations about the mismanagement of
additional federal funds made the university administrations the object of blame attri-
bution (cf. FiF, 2019; Holgate et al., 2018: 607).
The call for action centred on the keyword/hashtag ‘Future contract’ (Zukunftsvertrag)
as an allusion to the ‘Future Contract to Strengthen Education and Teaching’ launched
jointly by the Federal Government and the heads of the states, and as a juxtaposition to
the early-career researchers’ lack of future prospects. In addition to an online petition and
a protest action in front of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research on 2 May
2019, local actors were invited to organise protest actions. The shared basis for antago-
nism was demonstrated by a common emphasis on ‘time-limitation’ (Befristung) as a
CAF in various slogans and across local protests in nine cities (FiF, 2019).
The debate on time-limitation also figures importantly in public polemics between the
Network and the upper echelons of the academic establishment. A critical SAF in this
regard involved the university provosts’ Bayreuth Declaration from 19 September 2019
that defended temporary contracts as a ‘necessity of the universities’ main function as
qualification systems’ (Uni-Kanzler, 2019). In its response, the NGAWiss positioned
itself as the ‘representative of the Mittelbau’ directly in polemic against the provosts and
called on the local initiatives to urge their respective universities to distance themselves
from the Bayreuth Declaration. Hinting at a moral bankruptcy on the part of the aca-
demic establishment, NGAWiss re-framed the provosts’ document as the ‘Bayreuth
Declaration of Bankruptcy’ in a public statement and refuted the justification of tempo-
rary positions as ‘necessary tools of vocational training’ by pointing to the overstretching
of the qualification period. NGAWiss’ counterstatement also amplified the ancillary
master frame a ‘necessity of reasonable employment for good work in academia’ that is
frequently utilised to buttress the master frame of precarity (NGAWiss, 2019).
Another lively conflict arena based on time-limitation occurs between contingent fac-
ulty and university administrations in local contexts. A major example in this regard is
the ongoing dispute between the local Mittelbau-initiative and the university administra-
tion in Kassel. The local initiative in Kassel has been following the university’s tempo-
rary employment policies closely and intervening with protest actions and discussion
papers since the university council’s declaration of time-limitation guidelines in 2019.
At the SAF level, Kassel-activists systematically falsified the administration’s coun-
terframes that drew on ‘legal obstacles’, ‘budgetary deficits’ and ‘the fundamentally tem-
porary nature of third-party-funded positions’. At the same time, they expanded the
conflict arena by effectively contesting the terms that dominate the discourse on aca-
demic work, such as ‘qualification positions’, ‘permanent tasks’, ‘teaching staff for
10 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
special tasks’ and most importantly ‘early-career researcher’ (Nachwuchswissenschaftler)
– a term that signifies a common source of grievance and whose demeaning connotations
are problematised extensively by NGAWiss. The Kassel-debate thus contested the rhe-
torical devices of the establishment and claimed that those terms mainly serve to mystify
precarity (Kassel-Unbefristet, 2019).
At a further level, the class-formative master frame ‘precarity’ got linked to the ancil-
lary master frame ‘the future of knowledge production’, as the Kassel-actors drew on the
waste of expertise through project-based temporary employment policies. The more
generic reference to the detrimental impacts of temporary employment on the future of
higher education served to support the case-specific prognostic demand to increase per-
manent positions at the University of Kassel by 70% in the next three to five years
(Kassel-Unbefristet, 2019).
Organisational level
Absence of a work-based ‘shared sense of “we-ness”’ (Snow, 2001), or ‘lack of a secure
work-based identity’ (Standing, 2011: 11), is viewed here as a core characteristic of aca-
demic precariat. Casualisation has been steadily undermining the traditional parameters
of academic identity, which was hitherto based on the historical image of university as a
place of collegiality and autonomy (Billot, 2010: 712). Consequently, such a work-based
identity has become practically unattainable for the contingent staff who continuously
shift between institutions and positions (Bosanquet et al., 2017: 897). Thus, the Network’s
meaning of work at the organisational level mostly requires a collective re-positioning of
this highly fragmented workforce as the ‘academic precariat’, in response to the split
between the imagined ideal academic identity and the precarious majority’s actual expe-
rience (cf. Murray, 2019: 236).
Maintaining a sense of belonging in a horizontal, non-membership-based organisa-
tion, requires the creation of a repertoire of interpretations, from which the diverse com-
ponents of the Network can derive their CAFs. Thus, the general diagnostic and
prognostic framing activities are carried out mainly by the organisational core (i.e. the
coordinative circle). Among those activities were the creation of a formal association
(JF22/11-JF24/01),2 the organisation of the annual nationwide meeting (JF13/12,
JF24/01, JF14/02) and the formation of a virtual repository of critical arguments against
the WissZVG (JF13/12).
The frame alignment activities covered during the regular Ko-Kreis meetings involved
the organisation of joint events and meetings with political parties (JF22/11) and unions
(JF13/12; JF24/01), but also the establishing of ties with other researchers’ initiatives and
mobilisations in the international arena. The decisions of the Ko-Kreis to support the
Petition of Global Academics against Police Brutality in Hong Kong (JF22/11) and to
virtually participate at the International Strike Day in solidarity with the Dead University
Day in France (JF14/02) were part of the frame alignment attempts.
The main frame alignment activity involved establishing contacts with refugee/migrant
scholars in Germany (JF24/01; JF28/02). Here, again, ‘precarity’ served to expand the
Network’s reach, as the name of the new alliance, Precarious International (PI), indicates
(NGAWiss, 2020a). The call for participation in the PI-workshop that took place in
Vatansever 11
Summer 2020 also signified an attempt for a frame extension, as NGAWiss addressed the
migrant scholars in Germany as part of ‘the large class of underprivileged and precarious
scholars’ and proffered an extended agenda to handle ‘intersectional discrimination’ as ‘a
central issue of the network’s activism’ (NGAWiss, 2020a).
The prognostic framing activities of the Ko-Kreis involved the updating of the
Network’s demands and a proposal for alternative employment models. The latter con-
tains a comprehensive discussion paper that suggests three alternative schemes (tenure-
track, permanent lectureships, professorship for all or none) to replace the current
employment pattern that limits job security with full professors only (Reitz et al., 2020).
The demand catalogue, on the other hand, targets both the feudal hierarchies within the
German academic system and the neoliberal policies of the last decades as the main
source of the academic precariat’s grievances. Consequently, the elimination of the
WissZVG and the traditional habilitation (professorial qualification) stands at the core.
Contextual CAFs in the demand catalogue include ‘decent payment’ for assistants and
adjuncts as well as an ‘increase in public funding’. More importantly, the catalogue com-
bines the class-formative frame of precarity with the prognostic master frame of ‘democ-
racy’ to demand the replacement of Chairs with ‘democratically organized department
structures’ (NGAWiss, 2020b).
While absolute consensus is fundamentally not possible in any collectivity, the
demand catalogue embodies the NGAWiss-elements’ shared stance on academic employ-
ment relations to a large extent. However, in the absence of mass mobilisations, the
Network does not have sufficient leverage to practically assert these demands. Therefore,
the demand catalogue rather serves the purposes of maintaining organisational coherence
and collective identity-formation. Figure 2 provides a list of Ko-Kreis meetings.
Individual subjectivation
The analysis of the individual level of subjectivation demonstrates how class conscious-
ness as a member of the precariat emerges and what its main constituents are. At the
individual level, three main ancillary frames are identified as constitutive of precarian
class consciousness among academics: discontinuous employment and the ensuing angst,
lack of career prospects and the resulting sense of injustice, and the steep rank hierarchy
accompanied by a sense of devaluation/infantilisation.
In line with the preliminary assumptions, discontinuous employment was at the core
of the individual subjectivation processes, even for interviewees at initial career stages
(INT7). The lack of permanent opportunities significantly undermined the traditional
sources of academic identity and constituted a vital element for individual perceptions of
precarity:
After my PhD [. . .] I had many, many, many short-term positions in the most diverse projects
thinkable as research fellow, as postdoc, as unemployed, as freelancer. [. . .] For the last 3 years
I have been describing myself as a sequential third-party-funded pseudo-freelancer [. . .].
(INT2)
The fear and disappointment that accompany employment insecurity were also deter-
minant in the subjective construction of precarity as a source of grievance:
12 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
Date Topics
22.11.2019 Association (legal and financial aspects)
Response formulation to the Bayreuth Declaration
Report on the SPD event (attended by some Ko-Kreis members)
Revaluation of FiF
Decision to support the Hong Kong Petition
Logo and website design
Decision to contact the exiled Peace Academics
13.12.2019 Publicity work
PI Call for Participation
Planning of the annual Network meeting
Preparing a repository of critical arguments for the local initiatives
24.01.2020 Launching of the association
Report on FiF and local mobilisations
Discussion on frame bridging with the Unteilbar Network based on
precarity
Preparation for the annual Network meeting and PI-workshop
Event invitation from Ver.di union
14.02.2020 Time schedule for the annual meeting
Report on local mobilisations
Decision to support the International Day of Strike on 5 March
28.02.2020 Preparation of the solidarity statement for 5 March
PI-organisation
Figure 2. List of Ko-Kreis meetings.
Notes: FiF: Fixed-Term is Frustration (Frist ist Frust); PI: Precarious International; SPD: Sozialdemokratische
Partei Deutschlands (Social Democratic Party of Germany)
There were phases when you got yourself together and phases that were hard – especially when
you had those contracts for two to three years and became unemployed afterwards. And it
doesn’t get easier at later stages in life, it gets psychologically harder. (INT5)
On my 40th birthday celebration, it still wasn’t clear what was going to happen, but it was clear
that my position was going to expire in 9 months. [. . .] In that moment I felt extremely
uncomfortable. (INT1)
As soon as it became clear that you must either strive towards a professorship or permanently
work on this treadmill and write one research proposal after another, the pressure and the
insecurity increased. [. . .] Over the years, the pressure gets higher [. . .]. The funding quotas
of the research granting institutions decrease drastically, the positions fall off successively.
(INT2)
Every time when a position came to a close, I got nervous and lost sleep; whenever there was a
new start, I was less nervous. [. . .] The problem is the feeling of a potential dependency
Vatansever 13
NAME AGE CURRENT POSITION DATE OF
INTERVIEW
INTERVIEW
DURATION
1. Interviewee 1 45 Full professor 24.10.2019 01:01:07
2. Interviewee 2 43 Independent researcher 28.10.2019 01:01:09
3. Interviewee 3 51 Unemployed 31.10.2019 01:02:28
4. Interviewee 4 46 Research associate 08.11.2019 00:48:29
5. Interviewee 5 50 PI in a third-party funded
project
14.11.2019 01:02:05
6. Interviewee 6 37 DAAD prime fellow 27.11.2019 01:22:30
7. Interviewee 7 30 PhD candidate 03.02.2020 00:57:35
8. Interviewee 8 41 Research fellow in a third-
party funded project
14.02.2020 1:23:53
Figure 3. List of interviewees.
henceforth, which means, when all the resources are exhausted someday, I might be dependent
on my partner or other people. (INT8)
As the narratives indicate, ‘the illusion of individual security is maintained specifi-
cally through the anxiety over being exposed to existential vulnerability’ (Lorey, 2015:
90). This rather fragile illusion, however, eventually dissolves in the face of another
central element of precarity highlighted by the interviewees (i.e. the declining career
prospects). Often, personal factors such as political stance or family/class background
were thought to play into it as well (INT1), but overall, drifting from one temporary posi-
tion to another generally resulted in a sense of detachment and belatedness:
It became clear to me that they would never let me do a habilitation. [. . .] I think my personal
path, which was based on scholarships and not positions, played a role. I would have never fit
into a certain faculty. (INT3)
I know that I didn’t have the typical academic career path. Yet, I still have hopes for a permanent
position. But of course, my market value is decreasing. (INT4)
The precariousness of career chances despite one’s qualifications was often perceived
as injustice. Some interviewees framed their own cases or the cases that they observed
throughout their careers as an ‘unfair’ situation. The injustice frame eventually led to a
wider questioning of to what extent the academic reward mechanisms can be considered
meritocratic:
14 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
At one point, the bottleneck gets so tight, that you can’t advance without knowing someone
who knows someone. [. . .] One can’t assume to apply for a position and get evaluated only
based on their work [. . .]. (INT4)
I witnessed how highly qualified people never got tenure, and people who weren’t qualified at
all landed those positions in their stead [. . .]. I witnessed all these cruelties of the system.
(INT1)
I still stubbornly hold on to the idea that this is the right job for me and that I am actually good
at it. [. . .] But the main emotion is of course fear – fear over and over again – but also rage over
unfairness. (INT3)
The system is structured in a way that the powerholders take benefits and support only those
they want to have around. Structurally, power is concentrated in the hands of a few [. . .]. Even
the way university boards and councils are occupied – it is utterly undemocratic [. . .]. (INT6)
The sense of injustice was aggravated by the hierarchical nature of the German aca-
demic system. The immense authority of tenured professors was often at the receiving
end of blame attribution and viewed as the flipside of the contingent faculty’s precarity
and dependency (INT1; INT5; INT6). Interviewee 4’s experience patently illustrated the
centrality of the rank hierarchy for subjective framings of precarity. When her former
director decided to transfer, the university administration prematurely terminated his
assistants’ contracts as well, including Interviewee 4’s position as chair assistant:
Assistants are the serfs of their bosses. The moment the boss decides to severe ties with the
institution, they don’t mean anything. [. . .] My colleagues tried to convince [an administrative
person] to grant me another year with the argument that teaching requires continuity. And this
person replied unabashedly: ‘Don’t come to me with teaching; it could be solved much more
cheaply through adjunct lectureships’.
The elevated status of professorship was accompanied by an infantilisation of the
non-tenured faculty, which has also been highlighted as a CAF in various Network cam-
paigns. Based on the traditional model of an ‘unbroken career path of the ideal aca-
demic’, ‘early-career researcher’ normally refers to those who completed their PhDs
within the last five years (Bosanquet et al., 2017: 890; McKay and Monk, 2017: 1251).
However, in an era of systematic casualisation, where tenure is practically unachievable
for the majority, the continuing emphasis on tenure as the pinnacle of academic qualifi-
cation is perceived as a deliberate devaluation. Some interviewees thus tended to con-
sciously distance themselves from the idealisation of professorship:
[T]he whole system is based on [. . .] devaluation, incapacitation, infantilisation, dependency.
[. . .] The fact that it can be imposed upon [critical, intellectual] people to aspire towards one
particular goal [. . .] is a testimony of academic servility! [. . .] This is the ‘university of
ordinaries’, the big ‘academic gown frenzy’ [. . .] [I]t is detrimental to subjectivity and, in a
way, detrimental to work. [. . .] In a land where 93% of my colleagues are precarious, I’d find
it unethical to pursue professorship. (INT3)
Vatansever 15
I always said that I don’t necessarily have to have a professorship but never saw a serious
alternative. (INT1)
I would have loved to have the public authority of a professor but preferred a permanent
research fellow job [. . .]. Just solid scientific work, including everything that it requires, but
not in the current setting where extreme competition and self-imposed unpaid labour prevail.
(INT2)
The undemocratic essence of professorial privileges, the opaque selection criteria and
the scarcity of vacant positions shatter ‘the illusion of attainability of a professorial post
as a career goal’ (Ullrich, 2019b). In the case of the cited interviewees, the demise of
professorship as the ultimate goal represented a major break with the traditional aca-
demic identity and motivated the formation of an ‘oppositional consciousness’
(Mansbridge, 2001). As the narratives indicate, the self-identification as academic pre-
cariat was supported by complementary frames associated with discontinuous employ-
ment and institutional detachment – as opposed to permanent job security and stable
institutional affiliation that used to characterise professorship as the quintessential form
of academic work.
Discussion
The example of NGAWiss presents outcomes in two key areas. The empirical findings
reveal the main elements of precarity as class-formative frame and the subsequent con-
struction of the academic precariat around those elements. The link between working
conditions of researchers and the quality of higher education appears as a core theme at
the strategic action level, whereas the absence of a secure occupational identity rooted in
traditional tenured officialdom emerges as the main component in the construction of
‘academic precariat’ at the organisational level. Interview data demonstrate how these
themes are linked to (and reinterpreted through) personal experiences of the actors at the
individual level. Evidently, fluctuations in the employment situation and the lack of
career prospects, combined with the persisting hierarchies in German academia, generate
feelings of anxiety, injustice and devaluation, and result in the search for an alternative
mode of academic identity based on collective resistance.
On a theoretical level, the case of NGAWiss highlights the analytical utility of the
concept of ‘class-formative framing’ in two ways. First, the category of ‘radical-trans-
formative frame’ refines the repertoire of master frames. It proves particularly useful in
grasping the difference between resonant master frames around which ‘a number of
movements cluster together during a period’, as Benford describes (2013), and those
that, in addition to being generic and extendable, suggest an overarching collective iden-
tity. When applied to the analysis of precarity as master frame, the notion helps elaborate
a particular category that has been described here as ‘class-formative frame’, since pre-
carity entails an actor with a pronounced class character. This class character involves
both the in-itself and for-itself dimensions, as it simultaneously connotes the segments of
the working population in passive downward social mobility and those who actively
politicise their socio-economic retrogression as a ‘class-in-the-making’ (Han, 2018;
Shukaitis, 2013: 643; Standing, 2015).
16 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
Second, the notion of class-formative frame improves and deepens our understanding
of the self-positioning and organisational dynamics of contemporary collectives in vari-
ous sectors that directly or derivatively identify as the precariat. By doing so, it also
offers a holistic view of the convergences between various movements and of an incipi-
ent cross-movement agent with branches in an increasing number of occupational groups.
The example of NGAWiss particularly concretises the process of derivative class-form-
ative framing and highlights its difference from other relational/oppositional frames. In
a sector marked by a relatively weak record of labour activism and dis-identification with
wage-labour, the fact that the emphasis on precarity gives rise to a self-designation as
‘precariat’ demonstrates the distinct class-political and transformative potency of precar-
ity as master frame, which oppositional frames typically do not possess.
Conclusion
The underrepresentation of academic work in labour studies and the lack of in-depth
analyses of precarity as an organising frame were the main shortcomings in current lit-
erature that this article departed from. Regarding the former, the article extends the ana-
lytical scope of Frame Analysis to an empirically underexamined segment of the labour
force. By providing a theoretically informed approach to anti-precarity struggles in aca-
demia, it contributes to the burgeoning literature on academic labour activism.
The article’s concrete contribution to research on academic labour is threefold. First,
the findings identify two main characteristics of the ‘academic precariat’ as an opposi-
tional political subject, which involve (1) a pronounced lack of institutional ties as
opposed to the traditional academic identity based on institutional affiliation, and (2) a
deliberate critical distance towards the innate hierarchies of the academic profession
rather than compliance to them. Second, in view of the class-formative master frame of
precarity gets complemented and concretized with the ancillary frames of institutional
democracy, justice and the future of higher education, the analysis sheds light on how
academic precarisation gets embedded in the wider socio-historical context. Finally, by
depicting the fault lines in today’s academia through conflict and in action, the article
provides an empirical reflection of what has been widely referred to as the dichotomy
between a ‘tenured aristocracy’ and the ‘adjunct underclass’ in the literature (Childress,
2019). Thus, the article illuminates both the contemporary lines of conflict and the
micro-politics of organising contention in the academic sector.
As to the lack of systematic studies on precarity as master frame that this article aimed
to overcome, the findings confirm the efficiency of precarity in articulating a class posi-
tion. The case of NGAWiss depicts how ‘precarity’ as master frame manages to create
group coherence even among a highly fragmented labour force that does not necessarily
share a common workplace and is marked by a ‘profoundly polarised temporal experi-
ence’ due to the ubiquity of temporary contracts and funding schemes (Peacock, 2016:
96). The emphasis on precarity evidently transcends spatial boundaries and logistic limi-
tations to workers’ organising, as it virtually collectivises work-related grievances among
a spatially, institutionally and contractually diversified workforce. Hence, the article
does not only extend the discussion to an underexamined sector, but also complements
Vatansever 17
the existing literature on workplace resistance with strategies of broader collectivity-
formation beyond the workplace.
The distinction between different forms of master frames and the articulation of pre-
carity as class-formative frame as well as the systematic analysis of academic labour
struggles will hopefully inform future research and allow for a better understanding of
the political potential of precarity, which has been identified by scholars and activists
alike as one of the main challenges of our times.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to express her heartfelt gratitude to the interviewees for their trust and collabo-
ration. She is also grateful to the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments and helpful
suggestions.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article: The project ‘Precarious Trajectories: Early-Career and Mid-Level
Researchers between Resistance and Compliance’ (September 2019 – August 2020), from which
the data in this article are extracted, has been funded by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation.
Notes
1. Mid-career academics off the tenure-line constitute the core of the academic precariat and are
referred to as the Mittelbau in the public and academic discourse in Germany. Since neither
the local initiatives nor the overarching Network are membership-based, the exact number
of participants/supporters cannot be reliably estimated. The list of constituents is regularly
updated on the Network’s website: https://mittelbau.net/#aktuelles.
2. The bimonthly Ko-Kreis meetings are internally called Jour Fixe. The meetings cited here are
categorised according to their respective dates in day/month format. JF22/11, for example,
corresponds to the Jour Fixe on 22 November 2019.
References
Alberti G, Bessa I, Hardy K, et al. (2018) In, against and beyond precarity: work in insecure times.
Work, Employment and Society 32(3): 447–457.
Armano E and Murgia A (2013) The precariousnesses of young knowledge workers: a subject-
oriented approach. Global Discourse 3(3–4): 486–501.
Baldry C and Barnes A (2012) The open-plan academy: space, control and the undermining of
professional identity. Work, Employment and Society 26(2): 228–245.
Beck V and Brook P (2020) Solidarities in and through work in an age of extremes. Work,
Employment and Solidarity 34(1): 3–17.
Benford RD (2013) Master frame. In: Snow DA, Della Porta D, Klandermans B, et al. (eds) The
Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements. New York: Blackwell
Publishing. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/9780470674871.
wbespm126 (accessed 24 November 2020).
Benford RD and Snow D (2000) Framing processes and social movements: an overview and
assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.
Billot J (2010) The imagined and the real: identifying the tensions for academic identity. Higher
Education Research and Development 29(6): 709–721.
18 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
Birdsell-Bauer L (2018) Precarious professionals: non-tenure-track faculty in Southern Ontario
universities. PhD Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON,
Canada.
Bosanquet A, Mailey A, Matthews KE, et al. (2017) Redefining ‘early career’ in academia: a col-
lective narrative approach. Higher Education, Research and Development 36(5): 890–902.
Bristow A, Robinson S and Ratle O (2017) Being an early-career CMS academic in the context of
insecurity and ‘excellence’: the dialectics of resistance and compliance. Organization Studies
38(9): 1185–1207.
Bundesministerium für Bildungund Forschung (BMBF) (2021) Bundesbericht wissenschaftlicher
Nachwuchs (BuWiN) 2021: Statistische Daten und Forschungsbefunde zu Promovierenden
und Promovierten in Deutschland. Available at: https://www.buwin.de/dateien/buwin-2021.
pdf (accessed 8 April 2021).
Childress H (2019) The Adjunct Underclass. How America’s Colleges Betrayed Their Faculty,
Their Students, and Their Mission. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Choonara J (2020) The precarious concept of precarity. Review of Radical Political Economics
52(3): 427–446.
Deutscher Bundestag (2021) Plenarprotokoll 19/236 – 30598/C, 24 June. Available at: https://
dserver.bundestag.de/btp/19/19236.pdf (accessed 16 August 2021).
FiF (2019) Aufruf: Entfristungspakt 2019. Available at: http://frististfrust.net/aufruf/ (accessed 6
March 2020).
Fligstein N and McAdam D (2011) Toward a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological
Theory 29(1): 1–26.
Gahan P and Pekarek A (2013) Social movement theory, collective action frames and union the-
ory: a critique and extension. British Journal of Industrial Relations 51(4): 754–776.
Gallas A (2018) Precarious academic labour in Germany: termed contracts and a new Berufsverbot.
Global Labour Journal 9(1): 92–102.
Gasiukova E and Shkaratan O (2019) Precarity: the significance of a controversial concept.
Filosofija. Sociologija 30(2): 116–125.
Gibbs GH (2007) Analyzing Qualitative Data. London: SAGE.
Goffman E (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Boston, MA:
Northeastern University Press.
Han C (2018) Precarity, precariousness, and vulnerability. Annual Review of Anthropology 47:
331–343.
Han H (2014) How Organisations Develop Activists: Civic Associations and Leadership in the
21st Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hirslund DV, Davies SR, Monka M (eds.) (2019) Report on National Meeting for Temporarily
Employed Researchers: Copenhagen September 2018. København: Temporarily Employed
Researchers Forum, Dansk Magisterforening. Available at: dm.dk/media/12351/report_national_
meeting.pdf (accessed 8 September 2019).
Holgate J, Simms M and Tapia M (2018) The limitations of the theory and practice of mobilisation
in trade union organising. Economic and Industrial Democracy 39(4): 599–616.
Isler MR and Corbie-Smith G (2012) Practical steps to community engaged research: from inputs
to outcomes. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 40(4): 904–914.
Joronen M and Rose M (2020) Vulnerability and its politics: precarity and the woundedness of
power. Progress in Human Geography 45: 1402–1418.
Kallio KM, Kallio TJ, Tienari J, et al. (2016) Ethos at stake: performance management and aca-
demic work in universities. Work, Employment and Society 69(3): 685–709.
Kassel-Unbefristet (2019) Gesammelte Einwände der Hochschulleitung und unsere Antworten, 27
May. Available at: https://unikasselunbefristet.com/2019/05/27/gesammelte-einwaende-der-
hochschulleitung-und-unsere-antworten/ (accessed 10 March 2020).
Vatansever 19
Lempiäinen K (2015) Precariousness in academia: prospects for university employment. In:
Della Porta D, Hänninen S, Siisiäinen M, et al. (eds) The New Social Division: Making and
Unmaking Precariousness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 123–138.
Lorey I (2015) State of Insecurity: Government of the Precarious. London; New York: Verso
Books.
McKay L and Monk S (2017) Early career academics learning the game in Whackademia. Higher
Education Research and Development 36(6): 1251–1263.
Mansbridge J (2001) The making of oppositional consciousness. In: Mansbridge J and Aldon
M (eds) Oppositional Consciousness: The Subjective Roots of Social Protest. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press, 238–264.
Mather K and Seifert R (2014) The close supervision of education lecturers: ‘you have been
weighed, measured and found wanting’. Work, Employment and Society 28(1): 95–111.
Mattoni A (2015) The many frames of the precarious condition: some insights from Italian mobi-
lisations against precarity. In: Della Porta D, Hänninen S, Siisiäinen M, et al. (eds) The New
Social Division: Making and Unmaking Precariousness. New York: Palgrave Macmillan,
233–248.
Mills CW (2000[1959]) The Sociological Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mooney PH and Hunt SA (1996) A repertoire of interpretations: master frames and ideological
continuity in U.S. agrarian mobilization. The Sociological Quarterly 37(1): 177–197.
Morgan G and Pulignano V (2020) Solidarity at work: concepts, levels and challenges. Work,
Employment and Solidarity 34(1): 18–34.
Murray DS (2019) The precarious new faculty majority: communication and instruction research
and contingent labour in higher education. Communication Education 68(2): 235–245.
NGAWiss (2019) Stellungnahme des Netzwerks für Gute Arbeit in der Wissenschaft zur
Bayreuther Erklärung der Uni-KanzlerInnen, 10 October. Available at: https://mittelbau.net/
bayreuther-bankrotterklaerung/ (accessed 22 May 2021).
NGAWiss (2020a) Call for participation ‘Precarious Internationale: solidarity network meeting of the
Network for Decent Labour in academia’, Berlin, 5 June. Available at: https://mittelbau.net/call-
for-participation-precarious-internationale-solidarity-network-meeting/ (accessed 6 April 2021).
NGAWiss (2020b) Für faire Beschäftigung an deutschen Hochschulen! Forderungen des Netzwerks
für Gute Arbeit in der Wissenschaft. Available at: https://ngawiss.uber.space/wp-content/
uploads/2020/11/Forderungen_NGAWiss%C3%BCberarb.pdf (accessed 10 January 2021).
Patrick-Thomson H and Kranert M (2020) Don’t work for free: online discursive resistance to
precarity in commercial photography. Work, Employment and Society 35: 1034–1052.
Peacock V (2016) Academic precarity as hierarchical dependence in the Max Planck Society.
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 6(1): 95–119.
Potter J (2020) The ghost of the stable path: stories of work-life change at the ‘end of career’.
Work, Employment and Society 34(4): 571–586.
Reitz T, Müßig P, Kuhnt M, et al. (2020) Personalmodelle für Universitäten in Deutschland.
Alternativen zur prekären Beschäftigung. Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. Available at: https://
mittelbau.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Personalmodelle_final.pdf (accessed 9 February
2021).
Rizzo M and Atzeni M (2020) Workers’ power in resisting precarity: comparing transport work-
ers in Buenos Aires and Dar es Salaam. Work, Employment and Society 34(6): 1114–1130.
Royle T and Rueckert Y (2020) McStrike! Framing, (political) opportunity and the development of
a collective identity: McDonald’s and the UK fast-food rights campaign. Work, Employment
and Society. Epub ahead of print 23 December. DOI: 10.1177/0950017020959264.
Shukaitis S (2013) Recomposing precarity: notes on the laboured politics of class composition.
Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organisation 13(3): 641–658.
20 Work, Employment and Society 00(0)
Smith C and Ngai P (2018) Class and precarity: an unhappy coupling in China’s working class
formation. Work, Employment and Society 32(3): 599–615.
Snow D (2001) Collective identity and expressive forms. CSD working papers. UC Irvine.
Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2zn1t7bj (accessed 20 November 2020).
Snow DA and Benford RD (1988) Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization.
International Social Movements Research 1: 197–217.
Snow DA and Benford RD (1992) Master frames and cycles of protest. In: Morris AD and Mueller
CM (eds) Frontiers in Social Movement Theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
133–155.
Standing G (2011) The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. London: Bloomsbury.
Standing G (2015) The precariat and class struggle. RSSC Annual Review. Available at: https://
journals.openedition.org/rccsar/585 (accessed 23 March 2018).
Tassinari A and Maccarrone V (2020) Riders on the storm: workplace solidarity among gig econ-
omy couriers in Italy and the UK. Work, Employment and Society 34(1): 35–54.
Ullrich P (2019a) Das Netzwerk für Gute Arbeit in der Wissenschaft. Geschichte, Strategie und
Organisierungsbedingungen, 18 November. Available at: https://www.mittelbau.net/ngawiss-
geschichte-strategie-und-organisierungsbedingungen/ (accessed 17 March 2020).
Ullrich P (2019b) In itself but not yet for itself: organizing the new academic precariat. Transform
– Jahrbuch. Available at: https://depositonce.tu-berlin.de/bitstream/11303/9514/3/ullrich_
peter_2019.pdf (accessed 12 January 2020).
Uni-Kanzler (2019) Bayreuther Erklärung zu befristeten Beschäftigungsverhältnissen mit wissen-
schaftlichem und künstlerischem Personal in Universitäten, 19 September. Available at: https://
www.uni-kanzler.de/fileadmin/user_upload/05_Publikationen/2017_-_2010/20190919_
Bayreuther_Erklaerung_der_Universitaetskanzler_final.pdf (accessed 12 June 2021).
Aslı Vatansever is a sociologist of work with a focus on precarious academic labour. Currently she
is a Research Fellow at Bard College Berlin. Her books include Ursprünge des Islamismus im
Osmanischen Reich. Eine weltsystemanalytische Perspektive (Sources of Islamism in the Ottoman
Empire. A World Systems Analysis Perspective; Hamburg: Verlag Dr Kovač, 2010), Ne Ders Olsa
Veririz. Akademisyenin Vasıfsız İşçiye Dönüşümü (Ready to Teach Anything. The Transformation
of the Academic into Unskilled Worker; Istanbul: İletişim, 2015 – co-authored with Meral Gezici-
Yalçın) and At the Margins of Academia. Exile, Precariousness, and Subjectivity (Leiden: Brill,
2020).
Date submitted May 2020
Date accepted November 2021
