Page 116 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

114 CHAPTER 5
This chapter contributes to the literature on gender inequality in (academic) hiring by examining through observations how hiring committee members practice gender in hiring procedures for assistant professor positions in a STEM and SSH department of a Dutch university. I uncover seven patterns of practicing gender that illustrate how hiring committee members practice gender collectively before, during and after committee deliberations. I contribute to the literature with a nuanced understanding of how committee members collectively disqualify and even discredit qualified women candidates as well as how gender practicing and power are intertwined. My data show how aspiring early-career women academics are negatively affected by gendered judgements in hiring committees. Knowledge on how the complexities of practicing gender and power are played out might help to create awareness and reflexivity among hiring committee members and hopefully contribute to more fair hiring practices.
5.1 Introduction
The importance of academic recruitment for academic labour markets and the development of scientific knowledge has been well-documented (Fumasoli & Goastellec, 2015; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2012b). Increasingly so, studies in the field of academic evaluation have focused on gender and inequality practices in academic hiring (Nielsen 2016; O’Connor & O’Haganm 2015; Van den Brink & Benschop, 2012b, 2014; Herschberg et al., 2018b), as scholars – as well as policy makers and practitioners – argue that gendered outcomes threaten equality in career opportunities as well as the quality of science as a whole. These studies have provided many valuable insights into gendered organisational practices and exclusion mechanisms in academic hiring. Yet, little is still known about the ‘sayings and doings’ of gender in real time situations in organisations, or the actual ‘practicing’ of gender (Martin, 2003). Looking into the practicing of gender in hiring decisions allows for an understanding of the complexities and subtleties of gendering dynamics on the spot and the micro-interactional practicing dynamics (Martin, 2003; Van den Brink et al., 2016) that contribute to the perpetuation and change of inequalities in the workplace.
I argue that such insight is important because hiring decisions at the early stages of the academic career determine who are included or excluded from academic careers and thus who will be the future researchers that shape the direction of research and represent their discipline. As such, hiring committees are the gatekeepers to the academy at large (Rivera, 2017). The majority of studies that look at the recruitment