Page 135 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

When Martin spoke about Nicholas throughout the deliberations, as illustrated by this excerpt, he often spoke in superlatives, which further strengthened his enthusiasm about the candidate. In this hiring procedure, other men and women candidates were still being discussed, but more in order to make a top three ranking, than as a candidate for the number one position.
In only one case a woman candidate was championed. In the SSH1 case, Leo championed candidate Dora because of her fit in the department regarding research and teaching and her international network. He also argued twice that Dora is a woman candidate and that they should take that into account, as it is “a real problem that there are only men in the academy”. One of the other members of the committee, Steven, was hesitant because he questioned the sincerity of Dora and wondered why her own university did not give her a permanent contract (see also the section ‘Questioning truthfulness’). The championing of the woman candidate by Leo did not sufficiently convince the other (men) committee members, and Steven in particular. Therefore, candidate Ed was also still considered as the top candidate. Due to Steven’s hesitance, the committee decided to check Dora’s credentials by asking references from her colleagues. Because they requested Dora’s references, they also did so for Ed. This was the only time in all cases where references were requested after the job interviews had taken place. So when this woman candidate was championed and got close to being recommended for hiring, a committee member wanted extra reassurance that they would make the right choice. After having received the references, the committee agreed on recommending Dora as the top candidate.
In most cases I found that one candidate was championed and recommended for hiring. The practicing gender in which the championing of women candidates happens much less often might be due to the selection of cases or the candidate pool, but, I found that in the one case a woman candidate was championed, committee members requested references about the candidate, as they were not convinced. Men candidates, on the other hand, who were championed, were mostly ascribed star potential. As a result, their position as top candidate was not contested in a way that required additional effort from the committee members who championed them.
(Not) overcoming doubts
Gender was also practiced in the final evaluation discussions when it comes to expressing doubts and whether or not these doubts were perceived as surmountable. Committee members expressed doubts to a certain degree about all first ranked candidates. Yet, for most men who were considered as the top candidate, these doubts were seen as surmountable, whereas for women who were considered as the top
COLLECTIVITY AND POWER 133
5