Research positions should be filled on the principle of selection on basis of merit. Assessment of the academic excellence of applicants is therefore the key criterion for selection in an appointment process.
The scientific qualification must be evaluated as objectively and factually as possible. However, since it is made up of various elements, such as publication records, 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 gender biases. Gender bias is the term used to describe systematic distorting effects that have their cause in societal gender stereotypes, internalized role models, and gender-specific prejudices. These unconsciously influence the perception of applicants, 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 male-sounding author rather than the female-sounding author name. Moreover, studies show that behavior is also presumed to be gendered, meaning that some characteristics are evaluated positively when men exhibit them, while it is interpreted to the detriment of a woman, if she were to exhibit the same behavior.
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 equal to 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 bear a significantly larger share in families, even in households in which men take on part of the care work. This situation – as studies have shown – became even more acute during the pandemic and is even more exacerbated in relationships in which a woman earns more than her male parnter.
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, as people will tend to pick applicants they can easily identify with, leading to the perpetuation of marginalizing structures. 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 men scientists in the 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 and stereotypes mentioned above. It is therefore important for those who take responsibility in selection procedures to be aware of these discriminatory factors, and to also prevent them.
