Marieke van den Brink

Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep with five legs:

Academic excellence is allegedly a universal and gender neutral standard of merit. This article examines exactly what is constructed as academic excellence at the micro-level, how evaluators operationalize this construct in the criteria they apply in academic evaluation, and how gender inequalities are imbued in the construction and evaluation of excellence. We challenge the view that the academic world is governed by the normative principle of meritocracy in its allocation of rewards and resources. Based on an empirical study of professorial appointments in the Netherlands, we argue that academic excellence is an evasive social construct that is inherently gendered. We show how gender is practiced in the evaluation of professorial candidates, resulting in disadvantages for women and privileges for men that accumulate to produce substantial inequalities in the construction of excellence.

Transparency in Academic Recruitment: A Problematic Tool for Gender Equality?

Gender research has made a call for more transparency and accountability in academic recruitment and selection in order to overcome the inequality practices that have led to an underrepresentation of women among full professors. This paper provides insight into the multiple ways in which the notions of transparency and accountability are put into practice in academic recruitment and selection, and how this has enhanced — or hindered — gender equality. The methods employed consist of a qualitative content analysis of seven recruitment and selection protocols, interviews with 64 committee members, and an analysis of 971 appointment reports of full professors in the Netherlands. Our analysis contributes to the study of organizations in three respects. First, it shows that recruitment and selection processes are characterized by bounded transparency and limited accountability at best. Second, it explains that the protocols that should ensure transparency and accountability remain paper tigresses, because of the micropolitics and gender practices that are part and parcel of recruitment and selection. Third, it contributes to gender equality theory in organization theory by showing how a myriad of gender practices simultaneously increases and counteracts gender equality measures in academia.

Gender in Academic Networking: The Role of Gatekeepers in Professorial Recruitment

The aim of this study is to build a theoretical framework to understand how gendered networking practices produce or counter inequalities in organizations. We introduce a practice approach combined with a feminist perspective in organization network studies. The notions of gender and networking as social practices allow better insights into what people say and do in networks, and the ways that networking produces or counters gender inequalities. We draw on empirical material about professorial appointments in Dutch academia and analyse the accounts of gatekeepers illuminating their networking practices. The accounts show which networking practices gatekeepers routinely use in recruitment and how these networking practices are intertwined with gender practices. We use the notion of mobilizing masculinities to understand the self-evident identification of men gatekeepers with men in their networks, and to understand how both men and women gatekeepers prefer the male candidates that resemble the proven masculine success model. Furthermore, this study provides the first empirical insights in mobilizing femininities in which women search for and support women candidates. We show how the gender practice of mobilizing femininities is a more precarious and marked practice than mobilizing masculinities. Mobilizing femininities in networking is intended to counter gender inequalities, but is only partially successful. Through constructions of ‘who you can trust’ or ‘who is a risk’, gatekeepers exercise the power of inclusion and exclusion and contribute to the persistence of structural gender inequalities.

Scouting for talent: appointment practices of women professors in academic medicine.

This paper contributes to current literature on the under-representation of women in academic medicine by critically examining appointment practices for medical professors in the Netherlands. By opening the black box of these highly secretive appointments, it is shown how allegedly gender-neutral practices contribute to the perpetuation of gender inequalities in academic medicine. The methods employed include quantitative analysis of 286 appointment reports and qualitative interviews with 21 scouts. The analysis revealed a dominant pattern of recruitment by invitation by male scouts, leading to three gender mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion through formal/informal networking. When candidates are recruited through homogeneous male networks, the pool of potential candidates is drastically restricted. Women are not seen as obvious choices for professorships since their commitment to the job is questioned. Furthermore, women do not correspond to the image of the ideal manager since they do not appear to conform to the gendered preconceptions of leadership held by the predominantly male scouts.

Discourses of ambition, gender and part-time work

The aim of this article is to unravel the gendered practices in ambition and challenge the hegemonic masculinity within it. Our findings are based on a qualitative study using focus groups in which Dutch men and women, full-timers and part-timers, constructed different meanings of ambition. The men and women in our study used three manifest discourses of ambition in the workplace, regarding individual development, mastery of the task, and upward career mobility. A critical analysis of these three discourses indicates how cultural and organizational norms on gender and working hours affect these constructions of ambition. We argue that a fourth discourse, ‘ambition as a resource’, is a major driving force of inequality. ‘Ambition as a resource’ is the dominant hegemonic discourse in organizations, and its power effects mitigate the impact of other discourses on ambition, revealing the potential for change when different discourses of ambition are valued.

Myths about Meritocracy and Transparency: The Role of Gender in Academic Recruitment

This chapter focuses on the practices used to appoint the most influential people in the academic world – full professors – in order to contribute to our understanding of gender in the system of academic evaluation. Professorial appointments are considered to be of crucial relevance in the reproduction of gender inequality or equality in academic organizations, since they represent the point at which the standards that govern the academic field are determined, standards such as the prevailing construction of scientific excellence. The aim of the chapter is to explore the various ways in which gender is practiced in professorial recruitment and selection, and to provide recommendations for gender neutral recruitment practices. To reveal these gender practices, this research draws primarily on quantitative and qualitative empirical material including the recruitment and selection protocols of seven universities, 971 appointment reports and 64 interviews with committee members (Van den Brink 2010), accompanied with recent work of gender in recruitment and selection.

Rethinking Diversity Management: An Intersectional Analysis of Diversity Networks

The aim of this paper has been to further our knowledge on diversity management practices by applying an intersectionality lens to single category diversity networks. Diversity networks are in-company networks intending to inform and support employees with similar social identities. Their focus on single identity categories is exemplary of current diversity management practices. We shed light on the strategies of network members to deal with their multiple identities vis-a-vis their network membership (structural intersectionality) and on the processes that hamper collaboration and coalition building between diversity networks (political intersectionality). Our intersectional analysis shows how the single category structure of diversity networks marginalizes members with multiple disadvantaged identities and reveals how collaborations between diversity networks are hindered by processes of preserving privilege rather than interrogating it. We contribute to the literature on diversity management practices by highlighting how dynamic processes of privilege and disadvantage play a role in sustaining intersectional inequalities in organizations.

Navigating norms and structures: young mothers’ pathways to economic independence

ABSTRACT Understanding the complex relationships between childcare, education and work is crucial to acknowledging how young mothers express agency in their pathways to economic independence. Instead of considering them as a policy target group at risk for multiple reasons, this research reverses the perspective by focusing on young mothers’ agency in school and paid employment. The study is set in the Netherlands, where economic independence has become a focal point of social policy and practice, especially for young people. It explores how young mothers navigate norms and structures of education and employment, drawing on 18 months of participant observation and 41 semi-structured interviews with young mothers. Notions of ‘everyday’ and ‘bounded’ agency are used in analysing structural limitations (e.g. irregular working hours in ‘women’s jobs’, a lack of maternity leave at school) and norms (e.g. completing higher education and finding a good job versus being primary caretakers, enjoying children and being role models). School and workplace structures reinforce contradictory discourses of motherhood and economic independence. Young mothers exhibit agency in considering their options around job security, work experience, wages, student loans and spending time with children. In doing so, they navigate structural and normative collisions of economic independence and mothering.