Limits to meritocracy? Gender in academic recruitment and promotion processes

Mathias Wullum Nielsen

doi:10.1093/scipol/scv052

Limits to meritocracy? Gender in academic recruitment and promotion processes

Mathias Wullum Nielsen

Institut for Statskundskab - Dansk Center for Forskningsanalyse

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avis › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review

Abstract

According to the literature, women researchers are sometimes at a disadvantage in academic recruitment due to insufficient network ties and subtle gender biases among evaluators. But how exactly do highly formal recruitment procedures allow space for mobilizing informal, potentially gendered, network ties? Focusing on the preliminary stages of recruitment, this study covers an underexposed aspect of women’s underrepresentation in academia. By combining recruitment statistics and interviews with department heads at a Danish university, it identifies a discrepancy between the institutionalized beliefs among managers in the meritocracy and the de facto functioning of the recruitment procedures. Of the vacancies for associate- and full professorships, 40% have one applicant, and 19% are announced under closed procedures with clear implications for gender stratification. The interviews reveal a myriad of factors explaining these patterns showing how department heads sometimes exploit decoupling processes to reduce external constraints on management function and ensure organizational certainty.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Science and Public Policy
Vol/bind	43
Nummer	3
Sider (fra-til)	386-399
Antal sider	14
ISSN	0302-3427
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scv052
Status	Udgivet - 2016

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1093/scipol/scv052

Andre filer og links

http://spp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/28/scipol.scv052.abstract

Citationsformater

@article{1638a57b986b404d8822c309d3759cc7,

title = "Limits to meritocracy? Gender in academic recruitment and promotion processes",

abstract = "According to the literature, women researchers are sometimes at a disadvantage in academic recruitment due to insufficient network ties and subtle gender biases among evaluators. But how exactly do highly formal recruitment procedures allow space for mobilizing informal, potentially gendered, network ties? Focusing on the preliminary stages of recruitment, this study covers an underexposed aspect of women{\textquoteright}s underrepresentation in academia. By combining recruitment statistics and interviews with department heads at a Danish university, it identifies a discrepancy between the institutionalized beliefs among managers in the meritocracy and the de facto functioning of the recruitment procedures. Of the vacancies for associate- and full professorships, 40% have one applicant, and 19% are announced under closed procedures with clear implications for gender stratification. The interviews reveal a myriad of factors explaining these patterns showing how department heads sometimes exploit decoupling processes to reduce external constraints on management function and ensure organizational certainty.",

author = "Nielsen, {Mathias Wullum}",

note = "Accepted with revisions",

year = "2016",

doi = "10.1093/scipol/scv052",

language = "English",

volume = "43",

pages = "386--399",

journal = "Science and Public Policy",

issn = "0302-3427",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Limits to meritocracy? Gender in academic recruitment and promotion processes

AU - Nielsen, Mathias Wullum

N1 - Accepted with revisions

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - According to the literature, women researchers are sometimes at a disadvantage in academic recruitment due to insufficient network ties and subtle gender biases among evaluators. But how exactly do highly formal recruitment procedures allow space for mobilizing informal, potentially gendered, network ties? Focusing on the preliminary stages of recruitment, this study covers an underexposed aspect of women’s underrepresentation in academia. By combining recruitment statistics and interviews with department heads at a Danish university, it identifies a discrepancy between the institutionalized beliefs among managers in the meritocracy and the de facto functioning of the recruitment procedures. Of the vacancies for associate- and full professorships, 40% have one applicant, and 19% are announced under closed procedures with clear implications for gender stratification. The interviews reveal a myriad of factors explaining these patterns showing how department heads sometimes exploit decoupling processes to reduce external constraints on management function and ensure organizational certainty.

AB - According to the literature, women researchers are sometimes at a disadvantage in academic recruitment due to insufficient network ties and subtle gender biases among evaluators. But how exactly do highly formal recruitment procedures allow space for mobilizing informal, potentially gendered, network ties? Focusing on the preliminary stages of recruitment, this study covers an underexposed aspect of women’s underrepresentation in academia. By combining recruitment statistics and interviews with department heads at a Danish university, it identifies a discrepancy between the institutionalized beliefs among managers in the meritocracy and the de facto functioning of the recruitment procedures. Of the vacancies for associate- and full professorships, 40% have one applicant, and 19% are announced under closed procedures with clear implications for gender stratification. The interviews reveal a myriad of factors explaining these patterns showing how department heads sometimes exploit decoupling processes to reduce external constraints on management function and ensure organizational certainty.

UR - http://spp.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/28/scipol.scv052.abstract

U2 - 10.1093/scipol/scv052

DO - 10.1093/scipol/scv052

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0302-3427

VL - 43

SP - 386

EP - 399

JO - Science and Public Policy

JF - Science and Public Policy

IS - 3

ER -