Page 134 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

132 CHAPTER 5
criteria in the job description. The excerpt also shows that Bernard and Jacob relied on an “emotional component” (Rivera, 2017, p. 1118) in the evaluation of Ralph, as they expressed positive emotional reactions to Ralph’s performance in the job talk. Bernard also explicitly expressed his excitement about Ralph’s ideas. This emotional component played a part in the decision of recommending Ralph for the position and shows that Bernard and Jacob based a formal decision on interpersonal sentiments regarding the man candidate.
In the STEM3 case, the discussions about the various candidates who were considered for the position were much more extensive, but throughout the discussions one of the man candidates, Nicholas, was championed.
Stephen: So, [Nicholas’] talk was, was excellent and, and-
Jessie: Everything is excellent ....
Stephen: I mean, he has not had eh, the experience to give a lot of courses, but, but as, as informally we said yesterday, he’s basically a promise on the future but eh, his talk was, so I would like to put a plus [on the whiteboard].
All members were impressed by Nicholas’ resume, research, and fit in the department, and “excellent” was the first word that Stephen and Jessie said when they started discussing Nicholas. The excerpt also reveals that Nicholas’ candidacy and potential had been discussed informally among committee members. Committee members were somewhat negative about some answers Nicholas gave during the interview with regard to teaching, for example, because he did not give ideas for bachelor and master projects. Committee members attributed this to his young academic age and lack of experience with teaching. Due to his academic age and career achievements so far, they give Nicholas some leeway and focused on his potential instead. This is an example of how young age is used to address the temporality of a man’s weakness(es) and the belief that he will mature, learn and develop (Van den Brink et al., 2016).
When Nicholas was criticised, particularly one of the members, Martin, defended him throughout the deliberations. He countered critique regarding Nicholas’ teaching by emphasizing what Nicholas had done well.
Martin: But eh, I- There, there’s one other thing, for instance, when, when he was asked about the courses. I think he was very, one of the very few candidates who actually had a very reasonable proposal. He, he proposed for instance to, to teach a course on [content matter]. I think that’s an excellent proposal for the end of the bachelors. And it’s very interesting.