Page 92 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

90 CHAPTER 4
makes a very general statement about the added value of women, without explaining why more women will strengthen the department and what will be strengthened. However, it implicates that women have a special contribution to make.
A Slovenian respondent illustrates his preference for a mix of men and women researchers in his group: “I have a very balanced working group. [...] The best solution is - and that can be seen from the communication itself - that in a big group both genders are represented” (SO, STEM, M). This committee member argues that in a “balanced working group” the “communication” is better than in a non-balanced working group. Therefore, balance is “the best solution” to him. Multiple committee members see a benefit in having more women in a group because they think this facilitates the communication and collaboration in a group. A Swiss respondent stated: “It’s very important that there should be more women, a lot more, and that they should be completely at ease there in the way that I am at ease in science” (CH, STEM, M). The explanation he gave for his position in favour of “more women” is that women are more collaborative, something he values highly.
Welcoming women based on a generic ideal of women is what Glick and Fiske (1996) call ‘benevolent sexism’. They define this as “a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling tone (for the perceiver)” (p. 491). Thus, the rhetoric of the committee members in our study, promoting higher numbers of women in academia, can be interpreted as well-intentioned, yet it is conflated with stereotypical perceptions of women (and men) researchers. Such stereotyping can be damaging to the receiver of benevolent sexist remarks because it can threaten the feelings of being taken seriously (Glick & Fiske, 1996). It could also be damaging to women who do not fit the stereotype that is projected on them.
The second reason for wanting a more gender-balanced group is the role model argument (cf. Van den Brink & Stobbe, 2014). A Dutch STEM committee member explains his positive stance towards increasing the number of women in his department:
Respondent: And of course I have a plan. But well, if that will succeed, I don’t know! Time will tell. But one of the arguments in that plan is that I think we should hire another two women here in the department. To get a bit more of a balance. A bit! [...] I would also like fifty-fifty, yes, great! Why not?
Interviewer: Why would you like that?
Respondent: Well, because I think that is a good reflection of the balance overall in the world. It is [at this moment] a very bad reflection of the number of students that