As PhD scholars reach the end of their doctorate and consider postdoctoral opportunities, one major challenge emerges: the opaque and unpredictable nature of application timelines.
I write this article from personal experience, having encountered the frustration of unclear and knotty postdoctoral application processes here in the UK. I believe the need for transparent, reliable timelines is a universal issue across academia.
When Deadlines Disappear: Double Standards
I’ve frequently encountered situations where institutions set specific deadlines for announcing selection outcomes, only to remain silent when those dates arrive. I remember one situation where an institution provided deadlines on two separate occasions, only to miss them both. This raises an important question: why set a deadline if it can’t be honoured? It’s especially perplexing since these deadlines are set by the institutions themselves (not by the applicants!), meaning the responsibility for sticking to them should lie with those who created them in the first place.
There is a need to reconsider whether setting such outcome deadlines is even necessary at all. The irony in this situation is striking, as institutions often require applicants to follow strict deadlines throughout the application process, from submitting materials to responding to requests, yet the same standard doesn’t seem to apply on the institutions’ end.
Haunting Impact on Applicants
This inconsistency doesn’t just feel unfair – it creates unnecessary stress and disappointment for applicants. When institutions fail to honour their own deadlines, it leaves applicants in a state of uncertainty, which can be frustrating and even demoralising. It highlights a fundamental issue within the institutional framework of deadlines: if these timelines are so crucial for applicants to follow, then why are they treated as optional when it comes to notifying applicants? It’s a question that deserves attention, as it affects the overall fairness and transparency of the application process.
I draw here on the concept of hauntology, introduced by philosopher Jacques Derrida (1994), which explores how the past lingers and shapes our present. In academic transitions, hauntology helps us see how unmet expectations and unclear timelines create ongoing anxieties. When deadlines are vague or missed, it’s not just frustrating in the moment; it leaves a lasting impact on applicants, reminding us of missed chances and creating a lingering sense of unease. This damaging impact should not be understated.
Missing Dates, Lost Futures
The damage is further illustrated by Karen Barad’s concept of ‘undoing the futures’ (2017). It reimagines time as something fluid and interconnected, rather than the straightforward ‘past-present-future’ timeline we typically think of. Within this view, deadlines set by institutions carry more weight than just marking a date — they shape expectations (and even the imagined outcomes) people are waiting for. When institutions don’t keep to their own deadlines, it’s like they’re unravelling the future that applicants have envisaged, causing disruption beyond just a missed date. And this disruption doesn’t just bring practical setbacks; it brings a kind of existential uncertainty that shakes the trust that applicants place in institutions.
When an institution sets a date for announcing results, it’s setting up a certain future — one where people receive decisions within the timeframe promised. But missing that deadline effectively undoes that expected future, leaving applicants in limbo. This inconsistency damages institutional credibility and heightens applicants’ frustration and disappointment, making the process feel unpredictable and unfair.
Fairer Academic Ecosystem
I want to stress my support for academic institutions to stick to the outcome announcement dates they set — or, if that’s not feasible, to consider not setting specific dates at all. By doing away with these deadlines, or what I like to call ‘spectral schedules’, we could lessen the potential damage caused by unfulfilled expectations.
While it might seem like a small change, avoiding rigid outcome dates could have a significant impact on the academic community, and it allows institutions to create a more flexible and accommodating selection process, helping ease the pressure on applicants. Without the stress of waiting for self-imposed deadlines, applicants would likely feel less disappointed when institutions miss these targets.
Sooner or later, this shift could lead to a more harmonious and fairer academic ecosystem for everyone involved. Imagine a scenario where the focus shifts from rigid timelines to a more human-centred approach, one that values transparency and understanding over bureaucracy. This could cultivate an environment where applicants feel empowered, knowing that they are not just numbers on a timeline but valued individuals in a community that respects their experiences and aspirations.
Final Thoughts
I am fully cognisant of the challenges institutions face, including uncertainties surrounding funding, the selection process, and external factors. Nevertheless, I am struck by the inconsistency observed in the treatment of applicants. Institutions often fail to provide applicants with the opportunity to explain tardy application submissions, yet they expect empathy when delivering late announcements.
Academic institutions can embrace a more compassionate approach by recognising the complexities of the application process. By rethinking outcome announcements, we can dispel uncertainty and create a more inclusive environment where collaboration, trust and genuine connections flourish, revitalising the academic ecosystem. This shift encourages the contributions of all voices, and nurtures a supportive space for growth and hope.
References
Barad, K. (2017). ‘Troubling Time/s and Ecologies of Nothingness: Re-turning, Re-membering, and Facing the Incalculable’. New Formations, 92(92), 56–86. https://doi.org/10.3898/NEWF:92.05.2017
Derrida, J. (1994). Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning and the New International. Routledge.
