IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v43y2016i3p386-399..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Limits to meritocracy? Gender in academic recruitment and promotion processes

Author

Listed:
  • Mathias W. Nielsen

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Mathias W. Nielsen, 2016. "Limits to meritocracy? Gender in academic recruitment and promotion processes," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(3), pages 386-399.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:43:y:2016:i:3:p:386-399.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scv052
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hajibabaei, Anahita & Schiffauerova, Andrea & Ebadi, Ashkan, 2022. "Gender-specific patterns in the artificial intelligence scientific ecosystem," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    2. Sergio A Silverio & Catherine Wilkinson & Samantha Wilkinson, 2021. "The Powerful Student Consumer and the Commodified Academic: A Depiction of the Marketised UK Higher Education System through a Textual Analysis of the ITV Drama Cheat," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 26(1), pages 147-165, March.
    3. Michelle Gander, 2019. "Let the right one in: A Bourdieusian analysis of gender inequality in universities’ senior management," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(2), pages 107-123, March.
    4. Ethel L. Mickey & Joya Misra & Dessie Clark, 2023. "The persistence of neoliberal logics in faculty evaluations amidst Covid‐19: Recalibrating toward equity," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 638-656, March.
    5. Margaret Hodgins & Pat O’Connor & Lucy-Ann Buckley, 2022. "Institutional Change and Organisational Resistance to Gender Equality in Higher Education: An Irish Case Study," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, May.
    6. Marina Pilkina & Andrey Lovakov, 2022. "Gender disparities in Russian academia: a bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3577-3591, June.
    7. Michael Färber & Melissa Coutinho & Shuzhou Yuan, 2023. "Biases in scholarly recommender systems: impact, prevalence, and mitigation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2703-2736, May.
    8. Pat O’Connor & Gemma Irvine, 2020. "Multi-Level State Interventions and Gender Equality in Higher Education Institutions: The Irish Case," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, December.
    9. Richard Harris, 2023. "Impact of COVID-19 on Research in Durham University Business School," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(2), pages 21582440231, June.
    10. Marja Vehviläinen & Liekki Valaskivi, 2022. "Situated gender equality in regional research and innovation: Collaborative knowledge production [Policies as Gendering Practices: Re-Viewing Categorical Distinctions]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 561-572.
    11. Letki, Natalia & Biały, Grzegorz & Sankowski, Piotr & Walentek, Dawid, 2022. "Streamlining for excellence discriminates against women: A study of research productivity of 2.7 mln scientists in 45 countries," OSF Preprints yr8me, Center for Open Science.
    12. Sofia Moratti, 2020. "Do Low-Openness, Low-Transparency Procedures in Academic Hiring Disadvantage Women?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-13, May.
    13. Pat O’Connor & Margaret Hodgins & Dorian R. Woods & Elisa Wallwaey & Rachel Palmen & Marieke Van Den Brink & Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt, 2021. "Organisational Characteristics That Facilitate Gender-Based Violence and Harassment in Higher Education?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-13, November.
    14. Abramo, Giovanni & Aksnes, Dag W. & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea, 2021. "Gender differences in research performance within and between countries: Italy vs Norway," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    15. Jai Mohan Pandit & Bino Paul, 2023. "Gender Diversity, Sustainable Development Goals and Human Resource Management Practices in Higher Education," Indian Journal of Human Development, , vol. 17(1), pages 111-130, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:43:y:2016:i:3:p:386-399.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.