That higher education is currently being exposed to a significant neo liberal policy change in Europe and more broadly is beyond contention (Olssen & Peters, 2005). Also, that this policy change articulates and forms discourses of performativity (Ball, 2012), marketization (Deem, 2007), and excellence (Marginson, 2011), which all have significant impact on how academic subjectivity is constructed (Davies & Petersen, 2005, Archer, 2008). These changes justify critical questions on how academics manoeuvre in academia. The study puts focus on academic’s career paths by means of analysing the experiences of 18 researchers who describe how they made an excellent career. By using an approach related to Braidotti (1994) and Colebrook (2000) these researchers are seen as in constant search for consciousness, for material recognition and for subtler, more emotional needs. They are all active in Education Sciences, which is a field considered to be particularly well suited for this kind of study. It is a new scientific field in Sweden that consists of a particular patterned set of practises, as designed for developing research of relevance to teaching and teacher education. This set of practises (and their cultural context), partly explains why the numbers of women dominate over the numbers of men, both among students and staff (see Öhrn & Lundahl, 2012). The results show that the “excellent researcher” is expected to know how to use specific spaces of transit in order to move in a profitable way. They act clear of where they are going and why, and in relation to how the system recognizes them. Some also argue that they move as they like, or where it is fun, due to their individual competences (and resources). However, the results also illustrate how women more than men experience themselves as hindered by various and complex self-images that create barriers (both mental and physical). Men, as excellent researchers, seem to think less about their conditions, where to go and how to move, than women do. Women move less distinctly, but also seem less rewarded. Many of the women appear anxious, especially in relation to the boundaries between private- and work-life, which partly unable them in using their capacity of making distinct choices.

Archer, L. (2008 a) “The New Neoliberal Subjects? Young/er Academics constructions of professional identity”. Journal of Education policy, 23 (3), 265-285. Ball, S. J. (2012). Performativity, Commodification and Commitment: An I-Spy Guide to the Neoliberal University, British Journal of Educational Studies, 60, 17-28. Braidotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects. New York: Colombia University Press.
 Colebrook, C. (2010). Gilles Deleuze: en introduktion. Göteborg: Korpen.
 Davies, B., & Petersen, B., E. (2005). Neoliberal discourse in the academy: the forestalling of collective resistance. Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences, 2, (2), 77-98. Davies, B. & Bansel, P. (2010). Governmentality and Academic Work. Shaping the Hearts and Minds of Academic Workers. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing. Vol. 26, (3), 5-20 Deem, R. Hillyard, S., Reed, M., (2007). Knowledge, Higher Education, and the New Agenda. Policy Futures in Education, Vol. 10, (2), 178-190.
 Marginson, S. (2011). The New World Order in Higher Education. Research Rankings, Outcomes Measures and Institutional Classifications. Questioning Excellence in Higher Education (Eds. Rostan, M. & Vaira, M). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers Olssen, M., & Peters, M. (2005) Neoliberalism, Higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 20, (3), 313-345. Öhrn, E. & Lundahl, L. (2012). Kön och karriär i akademin. Göteborg: Acta