Page 164 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

162 CHAPTER 6
This lack of definition creates conditions in which detrimental inequalities can occur that can affect the evaluation of candidates. In the accounts of committee members, I noticed that in their translation of university policies, selection criteria are applied in various ways. This can result in multiple inequalities in the hiring of assistant professors. These inequalities are (re)produced through a lack of definition, and personal interpretations and preferences. First, I found inequalities regarding the discourse of internationalisation and the importance committee members attribute to international research experience. The translation of the criterion of international experience creates inequalities between candidates who have international postdoc experience that is valued by committee members and candidates who acquired postdoc experience in countries or institutions that are non-valued. Second, inequalities are created based on the (committee members’ perception of) language proficiency of candidates (both in English and in Dutch), which is partly based on a candidate’s nationality. Third, inequality is created between ECRs who have mobility opportunities and those who have not. Such opportunities can be influenced by, for example, physical, psychological, social or financial factors. Fourth, in the evaluation of candidate’s excellence, committee members draw on their subjective interpretation of the potential of prospective candidates, which can create inequalities between, for example, men and women candidates.
A third way this dissertation shows inequalities are (re)produced is through the enactment of gender practices in the evaluation of assistant professors. More specifically, I show how, in STEM and SSH departments of six European higher education institutions, inequalities are (re)produced through the stereotypical perceptions, expectations and ascriptions committee members have of and attribute to women (and men) candidates. Due to the limited track record of candidates for early-career positions, committee members make an assessment of potential, and by doing so they rely heavily on tacit criteria. I observed in chapter 4, for example, that committee members perceive a lack of confidence and commitment as well as limited mobility opportunities for women ECRs and this way they construct women as less suitable for assistant professor positions. They construct confidence, commitment and international mobility as necessary aspects for surviving in what they refer to as the competitive academic world. Committee members reproduce stereotypical images of women as modest, non-competitive, collaborative, and as less devoted to academia because of care responsibilities. I observed that one tacit criterion that is considered important for assistant professor positions might be to the advantage of women candidates: the criterion of academic citizenship. Most committee members confirm the stereotypical belief that women have better relational skills and are more prone