IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/gender/v27y2020i6p1361-1377.html

What professors do in peer review: Interrogating assessment practices in the recruitment of professors in Sweden

Author

Listed:
  • Paula Mählck
  • Hanna Li Kusterer
  • Henry Montgomery

Abstract

Sweden is known for its political will to gender equality. Sweden is also a country with a strong tradition of transparency in university recruitments. In this article, the assessment practices in the appointment of full professors in one Swedish university are investigated from an intersectional and postcolonial perspective on gender and place/space. Using a multimethod approach to investigate written evaluations of applicants, recruitment group meeting minutes and interviews with reviewers, the results show that there is great variation in how evaluation criteria are applied and filled with meaning. Moreover, in more than half of the appointment decisions the reviewers disagreed. The interview results show a structural bias operating towards researchers applying from non‐Western university contexts. At an aggregated level, national applicants have 3.88 times greater chance to be proposed for a position and national women applicants are the most likely to be proposed for the position.

Suggested Citation

  • Paula Mählck & Hanna Li Kusterer & Henry Montgomery, 2020. "What professors do in peer review: Interrogating assessment practices in the recruitment of professors in Sweden," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(6), pages 1361-1377, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:gender:v:27:y:2020:i:6:p:1361-1377
    DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12500
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/gwao.12500?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karin Svedberg Helgesson & Ebba Sjögren, 2019. "No finish line: How formalization of academic assessment can undermine clarity and increase secrecy," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 558-581, May.
    2. Christine Wennerås & Agnes Wold, 1997. "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6631), pages 341-343, May.
    3. Jenny Rodriguez & Evangelina Holvino & Joyce K. Fletcher & Stella M. Nkomo & Jenny K. Rodriguez & Evangelina Holvino & Joyce K. Fletcher & Stella M. Nkomo, 2016. "The Theory and Praxis of Intersectionality in Work and Organisations: Where Do We Go From Here?," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 201-222, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthews, Michael J. & Anglin, Aaron H. & Drover, Will & Wolfe, Marcus T., 2024. "Just a number? Using artificial intelligence to explore perceived founder age in entrepreneurial fundraising," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 39(1).
    2. Neelam Kumar, 2001. "Gender and Stratification in Science," Indian Journal of Gender Studies, Centre for Women's Development Studies, vol. 8(1), pages 51-67, March.
    3. Lokman Tutuncu & Recep Yucedogru & Idris Sarisoy, 2022. "Academic favoritism at work: insider bias in Turkish national journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2547-2576, May.
    4. Pawel Sobkowicz, 2015. "Innovation Suppression and Clique Evolution in Peer-Review-Based, Competitive Research Funding Systems: An Agent-Based Model," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 18(2), pages 1-13.
    5. Lokman Tutuncu & Rahman Dag, 2024. "A gender gap in the manuscript review time of Turkish national journals?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(12), pages 7783-7803, December.
    6. Melin, Göran, 2007. "Reviewing applications by women - critical use of additive and reasoning evaluation methods," Working Paper Series in Economics and Institutions of Innovation 97, Royal Institute of Technology, CESIS - Centre of Excellence for Science and Innovation Studies.
    7. Lokman Tutuncu, 2023. "All-pervading insider bias alters review time in Turkish university journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3743-3791, June.
    8. Zaharie, Monica Aniela & Osoian, Codruţa Luminiţa, 2016. "Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-79.
    9. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2021. "Gender Gaps in the Evaluation of Research: Evidence from Submissions to Economics Conferences," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(3), pages 590-618, June.
    10. Albert Banal-Estañol & Qianshuo Liu & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    11. Angel Ellul Fenech & Shireen Kanji & Zsuzsanna Vargha, 2022. "Gender‐based exclusionary practices in performance appraisal," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 427-442, March.
    12. Mooney, Shelagh, 2018. "Illuminating intersectionality for tourism researchers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 175-176.
    13. Stephen A Gallo & Joanne H Sullivan & Scott R Glisson, 2016. "The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Jane W. Loeb, 2006. "The Status of Female Faculty in the U.S.: Thirty-five Years with Equal Opportunity Legislation," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 17(2), pages 157-180.
    15. Amit Kumar & Nisheeth K. Vishnoi, 2025. "Matchings Under Biased and Correlated Evaluations," Papers 2510.23628, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2025.
    16. Nicole Ferry, 2025. "Where is the patriarchy?: A review and research agenda for the concept of patriarchy in management and organization studies," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 302-329, January.
    17. Crevani, Lucia, 2019. "Privilege in place: How organisational practices contribute to meshing privilege in place," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2).
    18. Clément Bosquet & Pierre‐Philippe Combes & Cecilia García‐Peñalosa, 2019. "Gender and Promotions: Evidence from Academic Economists in France," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1020-1053, July.
    19. Bradford Demarest & Guo Freeman & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2014. "The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 717-735, October.
    20. Tal Seidel Malkinson & Devin B Terhune & Mathew Kollamkulam & Maria J Guerreiro & Dani S Bassett & Tamar R Makin, 2023. "Gender imbalances in the editorial activities of a selective journal run by academic editors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(12), pages 1-23, December.

    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:bla:gender:v:27:y:2020:i:6:p:1361-1377. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0968-6673 .

    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.