Page 149 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg
P. 149

Jessie argues that Laura is stronger than Kevin, however, the scores do not indicate this. Laura received a lower evaluation than Kevin on the criterion of fit in the department and similar scores on the remaining three criteria. The other committee members agreed that Laura should be in the “top 3” but did not reflect on the misattribution of scores. This occurrence shows that also when committee members structure their evaluation, gender can be practiced5. A woman candidate was attributed lower scores or a man candidate received higher scores than they actually deserved, according to the committee members. Yet, this is in accordance with research that shows that committee members do not “habitually” ascribe the same qualities to women as they do to men candidates (Van den Brink & Benschop, 2014, p. 19).
In the STEM3 case, the women committee members uncovered practicing gender, but not men committee members. In the two examples where practicing gender was made visible, committee members Anna and Jessie touched a raw nerve about the evaluation of a woman candidate. Even though they made their fellow committee members aware of unfair practices in their evaluation of candidates, they did not achieve much response from them. Possible change from making practicing gender visible in interaction and on the spot could not be observed in my study.
Practicing gender in the aftermath
In the e-mails exchanges between committee members I found that gender was also practiced after the committee had parted. Also, at this stage, committee members played a political game regarding the ranking of candidates.
In the STEM3 case, committee members practiced gender by changing the ranking of the candidates without consulting the external women committee members and because this re-ranking harmed the position of the woman candidate. This became visible in a draft of the appointment report written by the chair of the committee, Stephen, which was supposed to capture the evaluation process and the hiring recommendations. This report was sent to all committee members by e-mail, asking for their input. In the original final ranking, Nicholas was ranked first and Laura was ranked second. The committee wanted to build a case for hiring both Nicholas and Laura as the department had a “strong desire” “to appoint a female staff member” (appointment report). But soon after the committee had parted, some men committee members started arguing by email for a different ranking of the candidates.
What had preceded the request and decision of the men committee members to change the ranking were a couple of things, as shown from e-mail conversations
5 In the section ‘Practicing gender in the aftermath’ I will elaborate on the outcome of the STEM3 procedure.
COLLECTIVITY AND POWER 147
  5


























































































   147   148   149   150   151