Page 147 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

the discussion, committee member Martin voiced his opinion about Laura’s quality as a researcher:
Martin: Actually, I think her reputation in, in the field is not bad at all. It’s really- She is not a top star, she would not- If you ask me, would you nominate her for the [prestigious European prize in the discipline], whatever, I would probably say no. But if you ask me, is she actually a good [researcher in the discipline]? I would say, yeah.
Anna: So, I just-
Martin: She’s not top-notch, but she, she, she’s doing good work-
Anna: I asked that-
Martin: She’s one of the candidates who does have an [A+ journal] paper and that’s actually something, about something else. [...] And eh, she, she made a big, big breakthrough there and eh- That’s, that’s quite something. But, yeah, she’s not a top star either I would say, she’s not among the best five per cent in the field, something of that order.
This excerpt shows that Laura has published in a top journal in the field and that she has made a “big, big breakthrough” in her career. Yet, Martin downplays Laura’s qualities by saying that he would not classify her as “a top star”. He argues that he would not “nominate her” for a prestigious European prize, emphasizing that she really is not a top star. Such possible nomination for a grand prize was never mentioned with regard to the men candidates. This implies that for Laura, the quality bar is set really high and another criterion is added. Interestingly, Martin championed candidate Nicholas throughout the process (see also ‘Championing candidates’), and thus seemed to have something to gain from not positioning Laura as a top star. He seemed to play a political game in which he championed one candidate extensively and (subtly) disqualified another candidate consistently. Somewhat later in the discussion Anna came back to Laura’s research qualities and exposed how gender had been practiced in the evaluation of Laura.
Jessie: I would just like to say that [Laura] is probably the best female candidate3. Anna: Yeah, and while we’re talking about that, I mean, it is not really part of the decision-making process here, but it does look like, if we’re concerned about- As an
3 In this procedure, women candidates were particularly salient and referred to as “female candidate” because the committee had made it a concern that the department did not have a woman staff member. Men candidates who applied to this position were generally not addressed by their sex.
COLLECTIVITY AND POWER 145
5