IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/gender/v27y2020i6p1361-1377.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Zaharie, Monica Aniela & Osoian, Codruţa Luminiţa, 2016. "Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-79.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. Maria De Paola & Michela Ponzo & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2018. "Are Men Given Priority for Top Jobs? Investigating the Glass Ceiling in Italian Academia," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(3), pages 475-503.
    9. Mooney, Shelagh, 2018. "Illuminating intersectionality for tourism researchers," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 175-176.
    10. 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.
    11. Crevani, Lucia, 2019. "Privilege in place: How organisational practices contribute to meshing privilege in place," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(2).
    12. 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.
    13. Bosquet, Clément & Combes, Pierre-Philippe & Garcia-Penalosa, Cecilia, 2013. "Gender and competition: evidence from academic promotions in France," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 58350, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Martha M Bakker & Maarten H Jacobs, 2016. "Tenure Track Policy Increases Representation of Women in Senior Academic Positions, but Is Insufficient to Achieve Gender Balance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, September.
    15. van den Besselaar, Peter & Sandström, Ulf, 2015. "Early career grants, performance, and careers: A study on predictive validity of grant decisions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 826-838.
    16. Patrícia Martinková & Dan Goldhaber & Elena Erosheva, 2018. "Disparities in ratings of internal and external applicants: A case for model-based inter-rater reliability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    17. Renata Guimarães Reynaldo & Kamila Pope & Juliano Borba & Stefan Sieber & Michelle Bonatti, 2023. "Women of the revolution and a politics of care: A gendered intersectional approach on an initiative to address socioenvironmental problems in a marginalized community in southern Brazil," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 2130-2154, November.
    18. Nadia Singh & Areet Kaur, 2022. "The COVID‐19 pandemic: Narratives of informal women workers in Indian Punjab," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 388-407, March.
    19. Sandström, Ulf & Van den Besselaar, Peter, 2018. "Funding, evaluation, and the performance of national research systems," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 365-384.
    20. Michael Miuccio & Ka-yuet Liu & Hakwan Lau & Megan A K Peters, 2017. "Six-fold over-representation of graduates from prestigious universities does not necessitate unmeritocratic selection in the faculty hiring process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, October.

    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.