Page 133 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg
P. 133

Championing candidates
The first way gender was practiced in the final decision-making process was through the different ways in which committee members responded to the championing of men and women candidates. In each case in this study, a candidate was championed – by one or multiple committee members – and in all but one of the cases this was a man candidate (SSH1 was the exception). A committee member in a power position (e.g., the chair of the committee or a full professor) generally instigated this championing. The following example from the SSH2 case shows how candidate Ralph is championed right after his interview (the final interview of the procedure).
Bernard: I thought this [candidate Ralph] really was the best. Jacob: He really stood out!
Bernard: Really the best.
Jacob: His presentation, English was good.
Bernard: He really has ideas that appeal to me. He brings a link to [home country of Ralph]. [This is] very clear. No doubt about it.
At this particular moment, the committee consisted of only two of the initial five members, as the other three members were absent due to other obligations. The excerpt shows how the remaining two members, Bernard and Jacob, build up their enthusiasm about Ralph and his performance in the interview, using strong and convincing vocabulary. Together, the two men committee members aligned their interests and strongly supported each other in their enthusiasm about Ralph. In their first response after Ralph had left the meeting room Bernard and Jacob practiced gender by ascribing Ralph ‘star potential’ in the dynamics of the deliberation (Van den Brink et al., 2016). They praised Ralph’s presentation, English speaking skills, ideas, and network. The data show that in this very brief exchange, which includes very few arguments, Bernard and Jacob had decided to recommend Ralph as the top candidate (“no doubt about it”). By doing so they closed off the opportunities for the other candidates, as Bernard and Jacob immediately side-lined them. They did so with liminal awareness (Martin, 2001), yet it could have serious consequences for the candidates involved.
Interestingly, the committee members had not discussed before the deliberations what selection criteria would be used to evaluate the candidates or how to weigh various criteria. Therefore, they could base their evaluations on their subjective impressions and criteria that were not part of the job profile (cf. Rivera, 2017). For example, a candidate’s network was not listed as one of the formal selection
COLLECTIVITY AND POWER 131
 5

























































































   131   132   133   134   135