Page 137 - Through the gate of the neoliberal academy • Herschberg

discussion. I discuss this case more extensively, as I can show in much detail how committee members practice gender in interaction. The committee had agreed that Laura was one of the top candidates because of her very strong research record, including publications in top journals. One of the selection criteria for the position, as mentioned in the job posting, was the ability “to attract external project funding”. In the following excerpt, two committee members talk about Laura’s chances regarding project funding opportunities:
Chris: I think eh, Laura’s chances on eh, fulfilling the tenure track conditions on grant money, which are serious in [name of city where the university is located], are less promising. Her chances.
Jessie: In [name of other city in the Netherlands] various people have been tenured even though they did not fulfil the requirements in terms of grant money.
[half a minute later]
Chris: But I, it’s a, I think it’s a relevant argument eh, for Laura to- It’s, it’s, like it’s a downside to her that her chances in the grant system are, are less than for the other two and eh, I don’t think it’s unfair to, to mention.
In the excerpt, committee member Chris argues that candidate Laura has little chance of obtaining grant money, which is one of the “tenure track conditions” in the department. Here, Chris makes a prediction for the future. Jessie tries to counter the argument by illustrating that people in another Dutch university did not fulfil the criterion of obtaining “grant money” and still got tenure. The data show that this did not convince the other committee members, as the money “argument” was reiterated multiple times in the discussion as a reason not to rank Laura the top candidate. Chris even emphasized his argument by calling this a “downside” and by stating that the other two candidates who were still considered would have higher “chances” in the “grant system”. Even though some committee members argued during the discussion that Laura might have a chance in some national and international funding schemes, the majority of the committee members did not overcome their doubts. These doubts were based on committee members’ expectations of Laura’s chances and not on real outcomes. For the two men candidates who were still being considered, Chris argued that they would have higher chances in the grant system. Other committee members followed this line of reasoning. For candidate Brian they based this, just as in Laura’s case, on expectations, which they rated higher than Laura’s. For candidate Nicholas they based this on the fact that he had already obtained a research grant. The committee spent hardly any time discussing Brian and Nicholas’ future funding
COLLECTIVITY AND POWER 135
5