IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v9y2020i6p89-d362908.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Low-Openness, Low-Transparency Procedures in Academic Hiring Disadvantage Women?

Author

Listed:
  • Sofia Moratti

    (Center for Gender Research, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, NO-7491 Trondheim, Norway)

Abstract

Research has shown that low openness and low transparency in the process of recruitment of new (associate) professors put women at a systematic disadvantage. Examples include professorships awarded by direct invitation (as opposed to job calls); contexts where nominally open job calls routinely get only one applicant; and procedural rules that allow the filtering out of qualified applicants without sharing the grounds of the decision with the candidates. We investigated one decade (2007–2017) of hiring of new (associate) professors in one Faculty at the largest university in Norway, the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) ( n = 79). The Faculty is a highly gender-equal setting, in that the share of women among associate professors has been >40% for over a decade. We found (1) a high share (about 40%) of women among applicants, maintained among winners; (2) a very sporadic use of direct invitations (two in a decade) and no sign that their use advantages men; (3) no nominally ‘open’ job calls with only one applicant; (4) no disadvantage for women when the pool of applicants is small; (5) no systematic filtering out of women when low-transparency internal formal preselection procedures are used because of organizational contingencies (e.g., a high number of applicants). We found an overall high degree of openness in the selection procedure when compared to other Scandinavian and Western European studies. Contrary to our expectations (based on the relevant literature), we found no link between low openness in the selection process and gender inequality in the outcome. The latter finding must be interpreted in context. We conclude that the overall good gender balance locally is an antidote to the potential biasing effect of low-openness and low-transparency procedures, so long as such procedures are used only exceptionally, and their use is clearly tied with organizational contingencies. At the same time, we found no indication that low-openness and low-transparency procedures systematically advantage women.

Suggested Citation

  • Sofia Moratti, 2020. "Do Low-Openness, Low-Transparency Procedures in Academic Hiring Disadvantage Women?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-13, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:9:y:2020:i:6:p:89-:d:362908
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/9/6/89/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/9/6/89/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard C. Larson & Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Yi Xue, 2014. "Too Many PhD Graduates or Too Few Academic Job Openings: The Basic Reproductive Number R0 in Academia," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 745-750, November.
    2. Louise Ackers & Liz Oliver, 2007. "From Flexicurity to Flexsecquality?: The Impact of the Fixed-Term Contract Provisions on Employment in Science Research," International Studies of Management & Organization, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 53-79, January.
    3. Checchi, Daniele & Cicognani, Simona & Kulic, Nevena, 2018. "Gender Quotas or Girls' Networks? Evidence from an Italian Research Selection," IZA Discussion Papers 12021, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    4. Marieke Brink & Yvonne Benschop, 2014. "Gender in Academic Networking: The Role of Gatekeepers in Professorial Recruitment," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 460-492, May.
    5. Rómulo Pinheiro & Lars Geschwind & Hanne Foss Hansen & Elias Pekkola, 2015. "Academic Leadership in the Nordic Countries: Patterns of Gender Equality," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Helena Desivilya Syna & Carmen-Eugenia Costea (ed.), Women’s Voices in Management, chapter 2, pages 15-33, Palgrave Macmillan.
    6. Lars Nerdrum & Bo Sarpebakken, 2006. "Mobility of foreign researchers in Norway," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(3), pages 217-229, April.
    7. Lisa M. Frehill & Connie L. McNeely & Willie Pearson, 2015. "An International Perspective on Advancing Women in Science," Springer Books, in: Willie Pearson, Jr. & Lisa M. Frehill & Connie L. McNeely (ed.), Advancing Women in Science, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 1-6, Springer.
    8. Bente Rasmussen, 2015. "From Collegial Organization to Strategic Management of Resources," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    9. 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.
    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. Jiale Yang & Qing Wu & Chuanyi Wang, 2022. "Research networks and the initial placement of PhD holders in academia: evidence from social science fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3253-3278, June.
    2. Fernandez-Zubieta, Ana & Geuna, Aldo & Lawson, Cornelia, 2015. "What do We Know of the Mobility of Research Scientists and of its Impact on Scientific Production," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201522, University of Turin.
    3. Herschberg, Channah & Benschop, Yvonne & van den Brink, Marieke, 2018. "Precarious postdocs: A comparative study on recruitment and selection of early-career researchers," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 303-310.
    4. Hajibabaei, Anahita & Schiffauerova, Andrea & Ebadi, Ashkan, 2022. "Gender-specific patterns in the artificial intelligence scientific ecosystem," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    5. Lawson, Cornelia & Geuna, Aldo & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Toselli, Manuel & Kataishi, Rodrigo, 2015. "International Careers of Researchers in Biomedical Sciences: A Comparison of the US and the UK," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201514, University of Turin.
    6. Wenxuan Shi & Renli Wu, 2024. "Women’s strength in science: exploring the influence of female participation on research impact and innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4529-4551, July.
    7. 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.
    8. Ghaffarzadegan, Navid & Xue, Yi & Larson, Richard C., 2017. "Work-education mismatch: An endogenous theory of professionalization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(3), pages 1085-1097.
    9. Hyungjo Hur & Maryam A Andalib & Julie A Maurer & Joshua D Hawley & Navid Ghaffarzadegan, 2017. "Recent trends in the U.S. Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (BSSR) workforce," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Jeongeun Kim & Molly Ott & Lindsey Dippold, 2020. "University and Department Influences on Scientists’ Occupational Outcomes," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 61(2), pages 197-228, March.
    11. Esther Chan & Di Di & Elaine Howard Ecklund, 2024. "Scientists explain the underrepresentation of women in physics compared to biology in four national contexts," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 399-418, March.
    12. Sucharita Ghosh & Emanuele Grassi, 2020. "Overeducation and overskilling in the early careers of PhD graduates: Does international migration reduce labour market mismatch?," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(4), pages 915-944, August.
    13. Peter Huber & Klaus Nowotny & Julia Bock-Schappelwein, 2010. "Qualification Structure, Over- and Under-qualification of the Foreign Born in Austria and the EU," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 41226, March.
    14. Vanda Papafilippou & Susan Durbin & Hazel Conley, 2022. "Women's formal networking: The relationship between networking activities and power," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(5), pages 1712-1741, September.
    15. Lucia Cervi & David Knights, 2022. "Organizing male infertility: Masculinities and fertility treatment," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 1113-1131, July.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Giulia Rossello & Robin Cowan & Jacques Mairesse, 2024. "Ph.D. publication productivity: the role of gender and race in supervision in South Africa," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 215-227, June.
    20. Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Richard C. Larson, 2018. "SD meets OR: a new synergy to address policy problems," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 327-353, January.

    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:gam:jscscx:v:9:y:2020:i:6:p:89-:d:362908. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.