Page 120 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg
P. 120

118 CHAPTER 5
the actual evaluation of management potential in men, and downplay strengths but inflate weaknesses when evaluating such potential in women (Van den Brink et al.,
2016).
Practicing gender is actions learned through repetition and has become almost
automatic (Martin, 2003) and therefore people become skilled in such practicing. As such, practices at work are rarely discussed because organizational members tend to have a shared understanding of such practices (Martin, 2003). Consequently, gender is often practiced non-reflexively and with liminal awareness. More rarely gender is practiced intentionally and reflexively, yet, we have limited understanding of the conditions at work where people are more reflexive about their practicing of gender (Martin, 2003). This study shows a number of instances in which gender is practiced in a non-liminal way, yet, also when non-liminal this tends to confirm structural gender inequalities.
5.4 Practicing gender in academic hiring
Earlier research has studied gender practices in academic hiring, which resulted in important knowledge on gender practices at multiple stages of the hiring process and for both junior and senior academic positions. Gender practices are already found before the actual assessment of candidates takes place. Nielsen (2016) found that the high number of closed vacancies for associate- and full professorships found in a Danish university disadvantage women, as they are less often nominated candidates for such closed positions. One of the reasons why women are less often nominated for (both open and closed) academic positions has to do with academic gatekeeping; a powerful tool used for actively recruiting candidates (Husu, 2004; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2014). The majority of gatekeepers in academia are men (Thoraldsdottir, 2004; Van den Brink, 2010) and they use their formal and informal networks for scouting and nominating eligible applicants (Van den Brink & Benschop, 2014). The networks of men mostly consist of other men and moreover men gatekeepers “are more inclined to invite and nominate men candidates” due to “their perceived similarity and identification with men” (Van den Brink and Benschop, 2014, p. 475). As a result, the playing field is unequal for potential women candidates. Also, curriculum vitae (CV) assessment can result in gendered outcomes. For example, evaluators are more likely to recommend hiring a man applicant for a tenure-track position in their department than a woman applicant (Steinpreis et al., 1999) or a man student for a laboratory manager position than a woman student (Moss-Racusin




























































































   118   119   120   121   122