Page 213 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

policies at the meso-level influence recruitment and selection as they regulate what selection criteria should be applied. Furthermore, this dissertation sheds light on how committee members, both as individuals and in groups, (re)produce inequalities on the micro-level through their practices. The practices of committee members are found to be particularly important as they make the actual selection decisions on who are included and excluded from early academic careers.
In the discussion, I elaborate on two overarching contributions to the literature that I make in my dissertation, combining the insights and contributions of all chapters. The first contribution pertains to the focus on early-career researchers in the study on inequalities in hiring. The recruitment and selection of academics in the early stages of their academic career differ on two main aspects from more senior positions. Firstly, the increasing reliance on external research funding and the resulting growing number of temporary postdoc positions instigates recruitment and selection practices that are focused on the short-term. I observed that principal investigators tend to opt for low(er) risk candidates who can meet project objectives, in which availability can be more important than other (quality) criteria. Furthermore, I question the alignment of a postdoc position with a next career step, such as an assistant professor, because in the hiring of postdocs there is limited attention for their longer-term career perspectives. Secondly, early-career researchers do not have long track records of performance and therefore committee members have to assess their potential. I observed that hiring based on potential tends to be a subjective endeavour that gives room for selection based on tacit (unwritten) criteria, that are conflated with inequality practices, as they give room for personal preference and assumptions.
The second contribution to the literature I make in my dissertation relates to studying the (re)production of inequalities in recruitment and selection by examining both practices (i.e., what has been said and done routinely) and practicing (i.e., saying and doing in real time and space). I show that gender practices tend to be quite abstract and often refer to the stereotypical perceptions of an entire group of women or men. I studied practicing by observing committee members in action when they collectively evaluated a single candidate. I observed that men candidates are generally ascribed (star) potential more immediate and more unconditionally than women candidates. Men are more often championed, whereas for women doubts are raised that are presented as insurmountable. Also, women candidates tend to be evaluated on additional criteria that are not applied in the evaluation of men candidates. As a result, women and men candidates do not play on a level playing field. Furthermore, my observations could uncover the subtleties and complexities
ENGLISH SUMMARY 211
S