Positions in the academic service are to be filled according to the principle of selection of the best. The evaluation of the scientific excellence of applicants is therefore the central selection criteria in an appointment procedure.
The scientific qualification must be evaluated as objectively and factually as possible. However, since it is made up of various elements, such as publication record, teaching experience or third-party funding, which on the one hand are difficult to standardize and on the other hand can be weighted differently, the evaluation is susceptible to so-called gender bias.
Gender bias is the term used to describe systematic distortion effects that have their cause in societal gender stereotypes, internalized role models and gender-specific prejudices. This unconsciously influences perception, which can lead to faulty decisions.
Studies show that CVs, research proposals and scientific publications are evaluated differently depending on whether they were submitted under a male or female name. Both men and women rate the achievements of men better than those of women. In addition, in the case of joint authorship, success is attributed to the author rather than the author, and the same behavior is evaluated positively in the case of a man and negatively in the case of a woman.
There are gender differences in our society when it comes to assessing the academic performance of female and male applicants. We all tend to judge women's performance more critically than men's, or to put it differently: what men do seems to be more brilliant to us, even if it is comparable or even the same as what women do. Those who are involved in selection procedures must therefore constantly critically check their own assessment for possible prejudices.
In this context, the consideration of disadvantages that female applicants have experienced in their academic career due to care work also plays a role. Family time should be considered when assessing performance. This also applies to male applicants. However, it should be considered that women usually also bear the significantly larger share in families in which men only take on part of the care work. This situation – as studies have shown – became even more acute during the pandemic.
In subjects where men are predominantly active in science, so-called homosocial co-optation also comes into play. This means that members of a social network tend to recruit new members according to the principle of "self-similarity", which means that same-sex promotional relationships predominate. Thus, men's prospects for support increase, while women receive less support. This also applies to inclusion in informal networks, which are crucial for a scientific career and determine the prominence of women and man scientists in the scientific community.
Women are thus in a fundamentally different situation than men when they apply for a job. They must prove their individual performance against the background of the discriminatory factors mentioned above. It is therefore important for those who take responsibility in selection procedures to be aware of these discriminatory factors to also prevent them.