National Hiring Experiments Reveal 2:1 Faculty Preference for Women on Stem Tenure Track

Traditionally, the academic career is men's territory. Various metaphors are used in the literature to allude to women academics; these include 'intruders' in the 'old boys' club' and 'labourers' in a 'men's emporium' (for a discussion see Moratti, 2018). The focus of the present study is on gender and tenure. Job stability provides scholarly independence and 'full citizenship' of the scientific community (Cole, 1981: 385; see also Adams, 2006; Hohm and Shore, 1998). The question of access to tenure for historically disadvantaged groups (including women) is increasingly pressing, as academia internationally is seeing a rapid growth of casual employment at the expense of job security (Brown et al., 2010; Jessop, 2018; Larson et al., 2014; Wånggren, 2018). There is evidence that casualization undermines women's career progression more than men's (Ackers and Oliver, 2007; Barrett and Barrett, 2011; Ceci et al., 2014; Winchester and Browning, 2015). The sizeable growth of the pool of qualified women in the past decades has not led to a proportionate share of women rising to professorship (European Commission, 2019; Monroe and Chiu, 2010). Gender balance is not just a question of time, it does not materialize spontaneously: the dynamics are more complex (D'Amico et al., 2011; Valian, 1999).

One of the main points of contention in the literature is the role that women's own application patterns play in generating unequal outcomes. This debate reflects a more general controversy on the role of women's own learned behavioural schemas in perpetuating gender inequality, as well as a feature of the current scholarly and public debate on gender equality that 'tends to emphasise choices rather than constraints' (Baker, 2010b: 215; Morley, 1994). A number of recent studies conclude that, compared to men, women academics have a lower propensity to compete, lower career confidence and a higher tendency to withdraw and forego future opportunities following rejection (Baker, 2010a; Buser et al., 2014; Chesterman et al., 2005; London et al., 2012). This strand of literature explains the gender gap with women's lower proclivity to apply for faculty positions, promotion, professorship or habilitation (Bagues et al., 2017; Bosquet et al., 2019; De Paola et al., 2018; Nielsen, 2016A; Pautasso, 2015; Shaw and Stanton, 2012).

According to other contributions, women's purported tendency to self-select is a myth, a gender stereotype. Winchester et al. (2006) interviewed staff holding central roles in the promotion process to senior faculty positions in 17 Australian universities (such as chairs of promotion committees, deputy chancellors and directors of HRM [human resources management]). While the interviewees assumed that women tended to be reluctant to apply for promotion, the analysis of promotions data showed that application rates for women were similar to men's. The different outcomes across genders could therefore not be attributed to unequal application patterns, but rather to the selection process itself where women applicants are systematically dispreferred ('bottleneck problem'). Several recent studies point to the existence of a bottleneck for women applicants to faculty positions (De Paola and Scoppa, 2015; De Paola et al., 2018; Hart, 2011; Husu, 2000; Monroe et al., 2008; Nielsen, 2016a; Weisshaar, 2017; Winkler, 2004) habilitation (Filandri and Pasqua, 2019) and promotion (Bonawitz and Andel, 2009; Marini and Meschitti, 2018; Sabatier et al., 2006; van den Brink et al., 2006). These results resonate with other recent findings on gender and access to academic employment in general (Bagilhole, 2006; Moss-Racusin et al., 2012; Sheltzer and Smith, 2014). The vast majority of studies on gender and academic hiring point to a bottleneck for women; exceptions are very rare (Ceci and Williams, 2015; Lutter and Schröder, 2016; Williams and Ceci, 2015). Several works within this strand of literature question the objectivity of ostensibly gender-neutral and merit-based selection processes (Nielsen, 2016B; Roos and Gatta, 2009; van den Brink and Benschop, 2012).

Literature review

Our study stems from the need to investigate the role of mobility in driving application and selection patterns by gender. This is a question that has so far received insufficient attention in the literature. Women's propensity to apply and likelihood to win have typically been investigated without breaking down the pool of applicants into local and external candidates. Factoring in mobility is important because there is solid evidence linking academic mobility and gender inequality. There is a gap between two streams of literature that are usually not brought in conversation with each other: the literature on gender and access to faculty positions, and that on academic mobility and gender.

Internationally, there is increasing emphasis on academic mobility in academic policies, understood not only as student mobility but also as mobility of knowledge workers (Ferencz and Wächter, 2012). Academic mobility is portrayed as a strategy to accumulate symbolic, social and cultural capital – a determinant of scholarly and professional success in academia, and a precondition for career advancement (Bourdieu, 1988; Kim, 2017; van Balen et al., 2012). The emphasis on mobility in academic policies has been such that some authors speak of 'fetishisation of mobility' (Bauder et al., 2017: 1), treated as an asset irrespective of the context in which it occurs, or 'an outcome in its own right' simplistically equated with upward social mobility (Ackers, 2008: 411; see also Leung, 2017). There is a wealth of research showing that the emphasis on academic mobility tends to put women at a systematic disadvantage because it is poorly compatible with family commitments, particularly for women who have children (Børing et al., 2015; Fritsch, 2015; Leemann, 2010; Scheibelhofer, 2010; Shauman and Xie, 1996; Vohlídalová, 2014). Women academics are typically less internationally mobile than their male colleagues; mobile women academics are particularly disadvantaged in dual-career families and vulnerable to major conflicts between working life and family life that put their relationships at risk (Ackers, 2004; Bauder, 2015; Melville et al., 2019; Probert, 2005; Smith et al., 2016). Some authors have taken a more radical stance and problematized the success models in academia (including the emphasis on mobility) as tilted in favour of men (Knights and Richards, 2003; Lund, 2015). Gender disparities in mobility patterns seem a common issue across several academic systems, interwoven with matters of job security and self-selection. Brechelmacher et al. (2015) interviewed academics in eight European countries and reported a recurring notion among interviewees that women are over-represented in less attractive academic positions (such as externally funded projects), and this lack of job security exacerbates the tension between professional and private life for women who, 'in critical phases decide against their careers, for example by refusing to go abroad' (as one of their interviewees puts it; our italics). Are women self-selecting by not applying for jobs, when the job would involve relocating?

It has been argued that women academics are typically tied to a specific spatial context because of their partner's career and their own care responsibilities (Ackers and Gill, 2009). Employees may develop their career in a single academic institution, and that does not necessarily mean that they are not marketable beyond that institution (Sagaria and Dickens, 1990). Bryson (2004) reported data from a Women in Higher Education survey, based on interviews with about 600 academics on fixed-term contracts. Compared to men, women were significantly less willing to take up a new post that involved relocating, but significantly more willing to be mobile locally; and the willingness to move was a function of the distance. The smaller the distance, the more willing women were to be mobile, the larger the gap with men's preferences. Local mobility (within a 1-hour commute) was an option for 55% of the women and 27% of the men; relocation within the UK for 20% of the women (and 27% of the men); and expatriation for 20% of the women and 44% of the men. The same study showed that women academics, as an occupational group, did not wish to have less commitment and obligations than their male colleagues, and did not have a preference for fixed-term and generally casual employment situations. Gendered patterns of mobility have been found also among (aspiring) academic managers, with women being less likely than their male counterparts to apply for leadership jobs in other universities (Chesterman et al., 2005; Shepherd, 2017). However, what happens to women academics who are not deterred by the prospect of relocating?

Gender can be a major factor affecting how women external applicants are received, particularly if they come from a different academic system. Part of the literature has called attention to the existence of a discrepancy between the prevalent portrayal of academic mobility as a career asset and its concrete impact on particular groups of academics (Morano-Foadi, 2005). In some contexts, it is actually non-mobile academics who get a permanent position earlier (Cruz-Castro and Sanz-Menéndez, 2010). Academic mobility may even lead to deskilling when the value of experience acquired outside of the institution is not recognized (Bilecen and van Mol, 2017; Weiss, 2005, 2016). Most of these contributors stress that academics are not only knowledge producers, they are also workers embedded in particular employment relations and social and cultural contexts, but they are hardly ever described as such in the literature on academic mobility (Bauder, 2015; Shinozaki, 2017). Other expressions that erase the individual worker's perspective are typically preferred, such as 'circulation of human capital', 'knowledge exchange' or 'brain drain' when the movement of skilled workers systematically impoverishes particular countries to the advantage of others, reflecting and amplifying global inequalities (Altbach, 2013; Blachford and Zhang, 2014; Nerdrum and Sarpebakken, 2006). Women can be doubly disadvantaged by their gender and outsider status when relocating, and highly skilled women are no exception (Isaakyan and Triandafyllidou, 2016). Seeber et al. (2016) found that in the Flemish university system, men, native-born and internal candidates have better chances of getting hired than women, foreigner and mobile peers, and the effects are stronger for faculty positions. The intersection between gender and international academic mobility to take up faculty jobs is an area where inequality dynamics are particularly visible. In her study on academic hiring in Germany, Shinozaki (2017) shows that, throughout all career stages, German men predominate; the higher up the career ladder (professorship), the stronger the predominance. The effect is driven by gender as well as nationality: the proportion of foreign women (but not foreign men) declines at the more senior levels. In essence, mobility does not in itself 'serve as a ticket for career progression' for women (Shinozaki, 2017: 1325); this could in turn reflect an underlying 'feeling that the jobs . . . should be protected from foreign competition' (Skachkova, 2007: 730; see also Canagarajah, 1999). There are demonstrated inequalities in access to mobility; in addition to that, 'mobility itself can create new inequalities or reinforce existing ones', including gender inequality (Bilecen and van Mol, 2017: 1245). So much for gender and external hiring; however, is there evidence that gender can play a role in internal hiring as well?

Academia differs from other types of organizations (Chan, 2006) in that its success models give prominence to mobility and typically encourage external hiring at all levels. The tendency to emphasize the value of local experience in academic recruitment and prefer internal candidates is depicted as unquestionably negative and it is referred to as 'inbreeding', a potent metaphor as biological inbreeding may lead to disability in the new generation (Gorelova and Yudkevich, 2015; Inanc and Tuncer, 2011). Altbach et al. (2015) argue that faculty inbreeding is associated with preferential hiring standards for internal candidates and leads to the exclusion of women and other groups traditionally marginalized in academia. With this approach, the problem then becomes how to counter inbreeding; for instance by means of policies, including 'mobility throughout scientific and academic careers' (Horta, 2013: 487). At the same time, even critics admit to some advantages in internal hiring, perceived as lower risk (Horta and Yudkevich, 2016). With the increasing casualization of the academic workforce, the number of faculty positions shrinks and the perceived cost of a sub-optimal hire increases. Appointment panels may use local experience as a quality indicator, and 'there is no one better able to demonstrate experience than an individual already undertaking the role' (Shepherd, 2017: 85; see also Abramo et al., 2015). Despite its claim to uniqueness and the emphasis on external hiring, academia sometimes follows the same recruitment logics that characterize other types of organizations, including the avoidance of risk, the need to maintain an incentive for employees already working at the organization, and the effort to capitalize on competency and social ties accumulated within the institution (Bidwell, 2011; Bradley, 2006; Chan, 2006; Floyd and Dimmock, 2011; Jones and Stout, 2015). One of the academic leaders interviewed by Shepherd (2017: 85) stated: 'You increasingly have to do the job before you get it.' Relatedly, there is a strand of research investigating the job tasks of externally as opposed to internally hired faculty. These vary depending on the institutional context and academic system. The two groups may significantly differ in research productivity (Horta, 2013; Inanc and Tuncer, 2011) or not (Alipova and Lovakov, 2018; Smyth and Mishra, 2014; Tavares et al., 2019). However, a pattern of findings can be noticed in the literature with regard to teaching: internally hired faculty members seem to contribute disproportionately more to teaching activities, enabling colleagues to spend more time on research (Altbach et al., 2015; Gorelova and Yudkevitch, 2015; Horta et al., 2010). This in itself can provide an organizational rationale for internal recruitment in academia, and it intersects interestingly with gender. There are structural mechanisms in place that systematically drive women on fixed-term contracts away from research and towards teaching, and the pattern seems to recur across different academic systems (Aiston and Jung, 2015; Barrett and Barrett, 2011; O'Brien and Hapgood, 2012). This creates a dual academic labour-market model and disadvantages women in contexts where research performance is assessed with a metric that does not account for their teaching load. Lecturer jobs, in particular, have been called 'a female ghetto' (O'Brien and Hapgood, 2012: 1002). In short, the literature on academic inbreeding does not quite do justice to the complexity of the considerations involved in the choice to hire internal candidates, nor to the role that gender can play in it; the matter has been investigated to an extent in organizations other than academia, with mixed findings (Gorman and Kmec, 2009; Lyness and Schrader, 2006).

Against the backdrop of this rather complex scenario, we will now present our data. Table 1 below summarizes our model and research questions.

Table 1. Our model: the intersection of application and selection patterns to faculty jobs with gender and mobility.

Setting

Our study was carried out in Norway, a social democracy with a solid welfare state concretely supporting mothers' employment and fathers' caring role in the family. Norway is ranked among the most gender-equal countries in the world, particularly for education and employment (World Economic Forum, 2019). The main part of the Norwegian university system is public, academics are civil servants and their recruitment is tightly regulated by statutory law and institutional regulations affording ample protection to gender equality (Frølich et al., 2018). In Norwegian academia, gender balance defined as 'at least 40% of each gender' in each academic rank has been an explicit, concretely pursued political goal since the 1980s (Nielsen, 2014, 2017). Indeed the gender balance figures for Norwegian academia seem relatively reassuring, compared to the European Union average. Our study was carried out at one Faculty of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), the largest university in the country with about 40,000 registered students. Table 2 gives an impression of the gender balance at the EU, national and local level.

Table 2. Gender balance figures at the EU, Norwegian, NTNU and Faculty level.

The setting of the present study seems reasonably gender equal if one looks at the aggregate figures. Since 2004, the percentage of women among tenured associate professors at the faculty considered has been over 40%; in the past decade it has swung between 44% and 53% (Norwegian Centre for Research Data, 2020).

All of the above does not mean that Norwegian academia is a gender equality paradise; recent contributions have brought evidence to the contrary (Bergman, 2013; Husu, 2015; Piñheiro et al., 2015; Rasmussen, 2015; Seierstad and Healy, 2012). Like academia internationally, Norway is experiencing casualization of the academic workforce, growing competition for faculty jobs, increased emphasis on mobility and gender-specific patterns of academic mobility, particularly following relatively recent higher education governance reforms (Christensen et al., 2014; Frølich, 2005, 2006; Maassen et al., 2011; Nerdrum and Sarpebakken, 2006; Thun, 2019; Vabø et al., 2014). Also in Norway, the division of labour in academia is gendered in that most temporary senior lecturer (teaching-intensive) positions are today held by women. By 'senior', we refer to posts reserved to candidates with a doctorate. The national trend is reflected in situation at the faculty we investigated: locally, 53% of temporary lecturers were women in 2002, 64% in 2010, a peak of 86% in 2014 and 76% in 2019 (data for earlier years not available). The distribution of research-intensive senior temporary contracts across genders is instead more equal at all levels (Norwegian Centre for Research Data, 2020).

Method

We accessed the full documentation pertaining to all appointments of new permanent professors and associate professors at the faculty considered in the decade 2007 to 2017. Nearly all these documents are confidential. Our research project was granted advance approval by the Data Protection Service at the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD) on condition of maintaining strict anonymity, and access to the documentation was approved by the competent administration unit of the faculty. We did not transfer information that could render candidates, departments and evaluators recognizable from the material made available to us to the raw data-sheets on which we performed our analysis. Once the approval was in, the administration sent us electronic documents organized into folders, pertaining to a total of 88 open job calls and 4 'direct invitations'; the latter refers to the appointment of one particular candidate to a position created for him or her, without advertisement and competition between applicants. Unlike the US, in Norway there is no tenure-track hiring system: academics work on fixed-term contracts until they are recruited as permanent faculty (Frølich et al., 2018; Kyvik, 2015). We did not include the direct invitations in our sample, because the lack of an applicants' pool renders them not comparable with the open calls (the direct invitations are discussed in Moratti 2020). We were only interested in permanent professorships. We therefore excluded from our analysis 11 open calls (7 lectureships, 3 temporary chairs, and one position that was planned but never got advertised). We retained part-time appointments of at least 0.5 FTE (full-time employment). This left us with a sample of N = 77 open calls, the near totality of which were for associate professorships, reflecting the fact that in Norway the rank of full professor is most often achieved through promotion (Frølich et al., 2019). From our material, we extracted manually information on applicants and winners. An open call usually leads to the appointment of one new full-time professor. Exceptionally, one call can lead to the appointment of two full-time professors (n = 4), one (n = 1) or two (n = 5) part-time professors, or to no appointment at all (n = 7). We counted part-time professors as a fraction of 1, depending on their appointment (for example, 0.5% FTE professors were counted as 0.5). In some instances, the winning candidate declined the job offer and the chair was offered to someone else. However, this is a study on decision-making and academic selection so we did not focus on who eventually filled the vacancy but on who received the offer first.

We then proceeded to code each applicant, based on his or her affiliation at the time of application. The coding was as follows: D (Department) for candidates affiliated with the department that opened the vacancy, U (University) for applicants affiliated with a different NTNU department, N (Norway) for candidates with Norwegian affiliations other than NTNU, and I (International) for applicants with non-Norwegian affiliations. 'Guest researchers' were coded as affiliated with their host department, if that was their sole affiliation; conversely, if they had another Norwegian or foreign affiliation, we assumed that to be their primary affiliation and coded them accordingly. For 'job seekers', we looked at their recent employment history. The candidates' affiliations are succinctly stated in the list of applicants that is sent to all candidates soon after the deadline, but these can be inaccurate; therefore, we triple-checked affiliations against the reports from the various committees involved in the selection procedure, then against the applicants' CV when included in the material made available to us. Our coding is exclusively based on the applicants' institutional affiliations: our material did not include systematic information on nationality or ethnicity. We did not investigate the career paths of migrant academics in Norway (Maximova-Mentzoni et al., 2016). Furthermore, we did not collect data on the applicants' names. The bias on national or ethnic origin that names can activate is not the object of our investigation. We also coded applicants by gender. The applicants' list contains each candidate's gender, as stated by the applicant. We were constrained by the features of the online application system that offers applicants only two options as pre-sets in a drop-down menu: man (M) or woman (W). We assumed that applicants' responses reflected their primary gender identification.

The final result of our coding was a data table of 77 rows, one for each open call, and 22 columns reflecting the variables we considered. All numbers in the table are zero or integers, except for part-time job offers. We conducted descriptive statistics on the dataset. Our descriptive statistics included, for each variable, the mean and the standard deviation across calls (N = 77), and total counts as percentages. We then considered separately two sets of variables: variables A describing the composition of the applicants' pool and variables O classifying the candidates who received a job offer. Our 22 variables are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. The two sets of variables used in the study and their meaning.

We investigated the following questions.

1. Is there a bottleneck holding back women applicants in general, suggestive of gender-specific issues in the selection process? To answer this question, we contrasted the percentages of women among applicants and among winners.

2. Do women apply as often as men, or are they clearly self-selecting? To answer this question, we compared the percentage of women applicants against that of men applicants.

3. Are women less likely to apply, when taking up the job would involve relocating? To answer this question, we looked at the composition of the applicant pool by academic affiliation, for men and women.

4. Is there a bottleneck for women when they apply as external applicants? We answered this question by comparing the applicants' pool against the pool of winners, for both women and men.

Results

The 77 open calls we retained attracted a total of 1009 applicants; about 42% of them (to be exact, 41.53%; n = 419) were women, indicating that women did not self-select. They applied nearly as often as men did. The 77 calls led to a total of 73.7 job offers; about 46% of these (n = 34) were to women. The total of job offers is not an integer number, because we retained part-time job offers of at least 0.5 FTE. The percentage of women among applicants is roughly maintained among winners, showing that there is no bottleneck for women applicants in general. In fact, there is a small increase which suggests that, in general, women applicants between 2007 and 2017 had a slightly higher likelihood of victory compared to their men competitors.

Our data also show that the prospect of relocating does not deter women from applying. The two pools of applicants (men and women) had a very similar composition. For both genders, more than half the applicants were internationals, about one-quarter had Norwegian affiliations other than NTNU, and the rest were NTNU employees, as detailed in Table 6.

The most interesting finding is the presence of an external candidate penalty and an internal candidate bonus for women. While the two pools of men and women applicants are quite similar, there are major differences in the pools of winners. As shown in Table 5, women made up roughly 64% of D winners, 67% of U winners, 36% of N winners and 33% of I winners.

Let us compare the two figures for applicants and winners using clustered stacked bar figures (Figures 1 and 2 ).

Figures 1 and 2. Applicants and winners by gender and affiliation (%).

The figures show how most job offers to internal candidates went to women, whereas men received the lion's share of job offers to external applicants. This pattern does not fully reflect the composition of the applicants' pool. Women seem to enjoy an advantage over men when competing as internal candidates, and a disadvantage when competing as external candidates, particularly if internationals. The effect is clearly gender-specific, and it is a function of the distance. The more distant the woman is from the institution, the less likely it is that she will be taken into consideration. Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7 summarize our findings.

Table 4. Applicants by affiliation and gender.

Table 5. Job offers by affiliation and gender.

Table 6. Composition of the two pools of women and men applicants, respectively.

Table 7. Composition of the two pools of women and men winners, respectively.

Discussion and conclusion

Our study is an investigation of one decade of recruitment of new permanent (associate) professors at one faculty of the largest Norwegian university. Our sample consists of over a thousand applicants. Norwegian academia lives up to its reputation in that we found no bottleneck for women applicants. In other words, there is no indication that women applicants in general were systematically dispreferred in the selection process. Moreover, about 40% of applicants were women, indicating that women did not self-select: they applied nearly as often as men did. We do not know whether this 40% figure reflects the share of women among potential applicants on the job market. It is not possible to come up with a reliable estimate of all potential applicants during one entire decade not only nationally, but also internationally. However, we accept the assumption that has historically underlain Norwegian gender equality legislation, whereby 'at least 40% of each gender' is taken to indicate a satisfying degree of gender equality. Much of the international literature (reviewed earlier) on application patterns and selection outcomes for permanent academic positions reports that women are either reluctant to apply or systematically dispreferred (or both); that is not what we found. Contrary to the predominant perspective in the literature on gender and mobility, women do not seem deterred by the prospect of relocating: over half of the women applicants in our sample had non-Norwegian affiliations at the time of application, nearly matching their male counterparts.

Gender-specific hiring patterns emerge after breaking down data by affiliation and comparing applicants and winners. There is an evident bottleneck for external women applicants (external candidate penalty). The effect is a function of the 'distance'. The more distant the woman is from the institution, the less likely it is that she will be offered the job; this finding resonates with one stream in the literature on gender, mobility and academic hiring, but it has so far been insufficiently and unsystematically investigated. International women applicants are at a major disadvantage. They have worse chances than applicants affiliated with Norwegian institutions other than NTNU, who in turn have fewer chances than NTNU-affiliated women. Women seem to be as entrepreneurial as men, in that they are willing to apply when the job involves relocating; but they are received differently. Women seem to have to work harder than men to develop institutional rapport before they are hired permanently. This calls for a reflection on the gender-specific effects of academic mobility, discussed in the international literature but hardly ever investigated systematically by breaking down a large sample of applicants by gender and academic affiliation. We remind the reader that this is not a study on racism. We could not collect data on race or nationality as our material did not include such information.

At the same time, we found that women internal applicants were at a systematic advantage. This effect cannot be simplistically attributed to 'inbreeding', because it is gender-specific. Rather, it reflects the current tension between the intensified emphasis on internationalization and external hiring on the one hand, and the equally pressing need to keep departments running with their daily tasks (particularly teaching) on the other. As discussed, at the faculty considered, about two-thirds of temporary senior teaching contracts are held by women; these findings are fully in line with the international literature on gender and job tasks distribution in academia. The internal candidate bonus for women may come from the need to secure teaching and an acceptable degree of organizational certainty. In Norway, in recent years, considerable efforts have been made to increase the status of (and the professional rewards for) teaching in academia (Ministry of Education and Research, 2017). While this would be an effective remedy against some of the current inequalities, these efforts should ideally be accompanied by a more equitable distribution of teaching tasks across genders.

In a nutshell, our study shows that underneath an apparently gender-equal picture there are gender-specific hiring patterns that are not the consequence of women's application choices: there is no bottleneck for women applicants in general, but a woman's place is in the 'home' – meaning, the institution where she already works.

Conflict of interest
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and publication of this article.

Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Research Council of Norway, grant no. 296173 – GENDIM.

Ethics
Authorization for project no. 57034 issued by the Norwegian Research Data Protection Service.

ORCID iD
Sofia Moratti https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6711-2010

References

	Abramo, G., D'Angelo, C.A., Rosati, F. (2015) 'The Determinants of Academic Career Advancement: Evidence from Italy', Science and Public Policy 42: 761–74. Google Scholar
	Ackers, L. (2004) 'Managing Relationships in Peripatetic Careers: Scientific Mobility in the European Union', Women's Studies International Forum 27: 189–201. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Ackers, L. (2008) 'Internationalisation, Mobility and Metrics: A New Form of Indirect Discrimination?', Minerva 46: 411–35. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Ackers, L., Gill, B. (2009) Moving People and Knowledge: Scientific Mobility in an Enlarging European Union. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
	Ackers, L., Oliver, L. (2007) 'From Flexicurity to Flexsecquality: The Impact of the Fixed-term Contract Provisions on Employment in Science Research', International Studies of Management & Organization 37: 53–79. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Adams, M.L. (2006) 'The Quest for Tenure: Job Security and Academic Freedom', Catholic University Law Review 56: 67. Google Scholar | ISI
	Aiston, S.J., Jung, J. (2015) 'Women Academics and Research Productivity: An International Comparison', Gender and Education 27: 205–20. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Alipova, O., Lovakov, A. (2018) 'Academic Inbreeding and Publication Activities of Russian Faculty', Tertiary Education and Management 24: 66–82. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Altbach, P. (2013) 'Brain Drain or Brain Exchange: Developing Country Implications', International Higher Education 72: 2–4. Google Scholar
	Altbach, P.G., Yudkevich, M., Rumbley, L.E. (2015) 'Academic Inbreeding: Local Challenge, Global Problem', Asia Pacific Education Review 16: 317–30. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Bagilhole, B. (2006) 'How to Keep a Good Woman Down: An Investigation of the Role of Institutional Factors in the Process of Discrimination against Women Academics', British Journal of Sociology of Education 14: 261–74. Google Scholar
	Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., Zinovyeva, N. (2017) 'Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?', American Economic Review 107: 1207–38. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Baker, M. (2010a) 'Career Confidence and Gendered Expectations of Academic Promotion', Journal of Sociology 46: 317–34. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
	Baker, M. (2010b) 'Motherhood, Employment and the "Child Penalty"', Women's Studies International Forum 33: 215–24. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Barrett, L., Barrett, P. (2011) 'Women and Academic Workloads: Career Slow Lane or Cul-de-Sac?', Higher Education 61: 141–155. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Bauder, H. (2015) 'The International Mobility of Academics: A Labour Market Perspective', International Migration 53: 83–96. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Bauder, H., Hannan, C.A., Lujan, O. (2017) 'International Experience in the Academic Field: Knowledge Production, Symbolic Capital, and Mobility Fetishism', Population, Space and Place 23: e2040. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Bergman, S. (2013) The Nordic Region – A Step Closer to Gender Balance in Research? Joint Nordic Strategies and Measures to Promote Gender Balance among Researchers in Academia. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Bidwell, M. (2011) 'Paying More to Get Less: The Effects of External Hiring versus Internal Mobility', Administrative Science Quarterly 56: 369–407. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
	Bilecen, B., van Mol, C. (2017) 'International Academic Mobility and Inequalities', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 48: 1241–55. Google Scholar
	Blachford, D.R., Zhang, B. (2014) 'Rethinking International Migration of Human Capital and Brain Circulation: The Case of Chinese-Canadian Academics', Journal of Studies in International Education 18: 202–22. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
	Bonawitz, M., Andel, N. (2009) 'The Glass Ceiling Is Made of Concrete: The Barriers to Promotion and Tenure of Women in American Academia', Forum on Public Policy Online 2. URL (consulted 6 October 2020): https://advance.washington.edu/liy/sites/default/files/glass-ceiling-bonawitz.pdf Google Scholar
	Bosquet, C., Combes, P.P., García-Peñalosa, C. (2019) 'Gender and Promotions: Evidence from Academic Economists in France', Scandinavian Journal of Economics 121: 1020–53. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Bourdieu, P. (1988) Homo Academicus, trans. Collier, P . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
	Bradley, L.M. (2006) 'Perceptions of Justice When Selecting Internal and External Job Candidates', Personnel Review 35: 66–77. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Brechelmacher, A., Park, E., Ates, G., Campbell, D.F. (2015) 'The Rocky Road to Tenure – Career Paths in Academia', pp. 13–40 in B., Kehm, Fumasoli, T. (eds) Academic Work and Careers in Europe: Trends, Challenges, Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Brown, T., Goodman, J., Yasukawa, K. (2010) 'Academic Casualization in Australia: Class Divisions in the University', Journal of Industrial Relations 52: 169–82. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
	Bryson, C. (2004) 'The Consequences for Women in the Academic Profession of the Widespread Use of Fixed-term Contracts', Gender, Work & Organization 11: 187–206. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Børing, P., Flanagan, K., Gagliardi, D., Kaloudis, A., Karakasidou, A. (2015) 'International Mobility: Findings from a Survey of Researchers in the EU', Science and Public Policy 42: 811–26. Google Scholar
	Buser, T., Niederle, M., Oosterbeek, H. (2014) 'Gender, Competitiveness, and Career Choices', Quarterly Journal of Economics 129: 1409–47. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Canagarajah, A.S. (1999) 'Interrogating the "Native Speaker Fallacy": Non-linguistic Roots, Non-pedagogical Results', pp. 77–92 in G., Braine (ed.) Non-native Educators in English Language Teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
	Ceci, S.J., Williams, W.M (2015) 'Women Have Substantial Advantage in STEM Faculty Hiring, Except When Competing Against More-accomplished Men', Frontiers in Psychology 6: 1532. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
	Ceci, S.J., Ginther, D.K., Kahn, S., Williams, W.M. (2014) 'Women in Academic Science: A Changing Landscape', Psychological Science in the Public Interest 15: 75–141. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
	Chan, W. (2006) 'External Recruitment and Intrafirm Mobility', Economic Inquiry 44: 169–84. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Chesterman, C., Ross-Smith, A., Peters, M. (2005) '"Not Doable Jobs!" Exploring Senior Women's Attitudes to Academic Leadership Roles', Women's Studies International Forum 28: 163–80. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Christensen, T., Gornitzka, A., Maassen, P. (2014) 'Global Pressures and National Cultures', pp. 30–51 in P., Mattei , University Adaptation in Difficult Economic Times. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Cole, J.R. (1981) 'Views: Women in Science: Despite Many Recent Advances, Women Are Still Less Likely than Men to Be Promoted to High Academic Rank, and Few Have Full Citizenship in the Informal Scientific Community', American Scientist 69: 385–91. Google Scholar
	Cruz-Castro, L., Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2010) 'Mobility versus Job Stability: Assessing Tenure and Productivity Outcomes', Research Policy 39: 27–38. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	D'Amico, R., Vermigli, P., Canetto, S.S. (2011) 'Publication Productivity and Career Advancement by Female and Male Psychology Faculty: The Case of Italy', Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 4: 175–84. Google Scholar | Crossref
	De Paola, M., Scoppa, V. (2015) 'Gender Discrimination and Evaluators' Gender: Evidence from Italian Academia', Economica 82: 162–88. Google Scholar | Crossref
	De Paola, M., Ponzo, M., Scoppa, V. (2018) 'Are Men Given Priority for Top Jobs? Investigating the Glass Ceiling in Italian Academia', Journal of Human Capital 12: 475–503. Google Scholar | Crossref
	European Commission – Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (2019) She Figures 2018. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union. Google Scholar
	Ferencz, I., Wächter, B. (2012) European and National Policies for Academic Mobility: Linking Rhetoric, Practice and Mobility Trends. Bonn: Lemmens. Google Scholar
	Filandri, M., Pasqua, S. (2019) '"Being Good Isn't Good Enough": Gender Discrimination in Italian Academia', Studies in Higher Education, doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1693990. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Floyd, A., Dimmock, C. (2011) '"Jugglers", "Copers" and "Strugglers": Academics' Perceptions of Being a Head of Department in a Post-1992 UK University and How It Influences Their Future Careers', Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 33: 387–99. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Fritsch, N.S. (2015) 'At the Leading Edge – Does Gender Still Matter? A Qualitative Study of Prevailing Obstacles and Successful Coping Strategies in Academia', Current Sociology 63: 547–65. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
	Frølich, N. (2005) 'Implementation of New Public Management in Norwegian Universities', European Journal of Education 40: 223–34. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Frølich, N. (2006) 'Still Academic and National – Internationalisation in Norwegian Research and Higher Education', Higher Education 52: 405–20. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Frølich, N., Wendt, K., Reymert, I., Tellmann, A.M., Elken, M., Kyvik, S., et al. on behalf of the NIFU (Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education) (2018) Academic Career Structures in Europe: Perspectives from Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, the Netherlands, Austria and the UK. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. Google Scholar
	Frølich, N., Reiling, R.B., Gunnes, H., Mangset, M., Orupabo, J., Ulvestad, M.E.S., et al. on behalf of the NIFU (Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education) (2019) Attraktive akademiske karrierer? Søkning, rekruttering og mobilitet i UH-sektoren. Oslo: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. Google Scholar
	Gorelova, O., Yudkevich, M. (2015) 'Academic Inbreeding: State of the Literature', pp. 17–44 in M., Yudkevich, Altbach, P.G., Rumbley, L.E. (eds) Young Faculty in the Twenty-first Century: International Perspectives. New York: SUNY Press. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Gorman, E.H., Kmec, J.A. (2009) 'Hierarchical Rank and Women's Organizational Mobility: Glass Ceilings in Corporate Law Firms', American Journal of Sociology 114: 1428–74. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
	Hart, J. (2011) 'Non-tenure Track Women Faculty: Opening the Door', Journal of the Professoriate 4: 96–124. Google Scholar
	Hohm, C.F., Shore, H.B. (1998) 'The Academy under Siege: Informing the Public about the Merits of Academic Tenure', Sociological Perspectives 41: 827–31. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
	Horta, H. (2013) 'Deepening Our Understanding of Academic Inbreeding Effects on Research Information Exchange and Scientific Output: New Insights for Academic Based Research', Higher Education 65: 487–510. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Horta, H., Yudkevich, M. (2016) 'The Role of Academic Inbreeding in Developing Higher Education Systems: Challenges and Possible Solutions', Technological Forecasting and Social Change 113: 363–72. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Horta, H., Veloso, F.M., Grediaga, R. (2010) 'Navel Gazing: Academic Inbreeding and Scientific Productivity', Management Science 56: 414–29. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Husu, L. (2000) 'Gender Discrimination in the Promised Land of Gender Equality', Higher Education in Europe 25: 221–8. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Husu, L. (2015) 'A Comprehensive National Approach to Promote Gender Equality in Science: The Case of Norway', pp. 329–31 in W., Pearson, Frehill, L.M., McNeely, L. (eds) Advancing Women in Science: An International Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
	Inanc, O., Tuncer, O. (2011) 'The Effect of Academic Inbreeding on Scientific Effectiveness', Scientometrics 88: 885–98. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Isaakyan, I., Triandafyllidou, A. (2016) 'Female High-skill Migration in the 21st Century: The Challenge of the Recession', pp. 3–21 in I., Isaakyan, Triandafyllidou, A. (eds) High-skill Migration and Recession. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Jessop, B. (2018) 'On Academic Capitalism', Critical Policy Studies 12: 104–9. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Jones, R.G., Stout, T. (2015) 'Policing Nepotism and Cronyism without Losing the Value of Social Connection', Industrial and Organizational Psychology 8: 2–12. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Kim, T. (2017) 'Academic Mobility, Transnational Identity Capital, and Stratification under Conditions of Academic Capitalism', Higher Education 73: 981–97. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Knights, D., Richards, W. (2003) 'Sex Discrimination in UK Academia', Gender, Work & Organization 10: 213–238. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Kyvik, S . (2015) 'The Academic Career System in Norway', pp. 173–200 in Yudkevich, M., Altbach, P.G., Rumbley, L.E. (eds) Young Faculty in the Twenty-first Century: International Perspectives. New York: SUNY Press. Google Scholar
	Larson, R.C., Ghaffarzadegan, N., Xue, Y. (2014) 'Too Many PhD Graduates or Too Few Academic Job Openings: The Basic Reproductive Number R0 in Academia', Systems Research and Behavioral Science 31: 745–50. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
	Leemann, R.J. (2010) 'Gender Inequalities in Transnational Academic Mobility and the Ideal Type of Academic Entrepreneur', Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 31: 605–25. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Leung, M.W. (2017) 'Social Mobility via Academic Mobility: Reconfigurations in Class and Gender Identities among Asian Scholars in the Global North', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43: 2704–19. Google Scholar | Crossref
	London, B., Downey, G., Romero-Canyas, R., Rattan, A., Tyson, D. (2012) 'Gender-based Rejection Sensitivity and Academic Self-silencing in Women', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 102: 961–79. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
	Lund, R.W. (2015) Doing the Ideal Academic: Gender, Excellence and Changing Academia. Helsinki: UniPress. Google Scholar
	Lutter, M., Schröder, M. (2016) 'Who Becomes a Tenured Professor, and Why? Panel Data Evidence from German Sociology, 1980–2013', Research Policy 45: 999–1013. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Lyness, K.S., Schrader, C.A. (2006) 'Moving Ahead or Just Moving? An Examination of Gender Differences in Senior Corporate Management Appointments', Group & Organization Management 31: 651–76. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
	Maassen, P., Moen, E., Stensaker, B. (2011) 'Reforming Higher Education in the Netherlands and Norway: The Role of the State and National Modes of Governance', Policy Studies 32: 479–95. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Marini, G., Meschitti, V. (2018) 'The Trench Warfare of Gender Discrimination: Evidence from Academic Promotions to Full Professor in Italy', Scientometrics 115: 989–1006. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Maximova-Mentzoni, T., Egeland, C., Askvik, T., Drange, I., Støren, A., Røsdal, T., et al. (2016) 'Being a Foreigner is No Advantage': Career Paths and Barriers for Immigrants in Norwegian Academia. Oslo: AFI – The Work Research Institute. Google Scholar
	Melville, A., Barrow, A., Morgan, P. (2019) 'The Limits and Benefits of International Mobility: An Empirical Examination of the Biographies of Australian Legal Academics', International Journal of the Legal Profession 27(1): 3–24. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Ministry of Education and Research (2017) Quality Culture in Higher Education: Recommendation to the Government on Quality Culture in Higher Education (Meld. St. 16 2016–2017, 27 January 2017). URL (consulted 6 October 2020): https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/meld.-st.-16-20162017/id2536007 Google Scholar
	Monroe, K.R., Chiu, W.F. (2010) 'Gender Equality in the Academy: The Pipeline Problem', PS: Political Science and Politics 43: 303–8. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
	Monroe, K., Ozyurt, S., Wrigley, T., Alexander, A. (2008) 'Gender Equality in Academia: Bad News from the Trenches, and Some Possible Solutions', Perspectives on Politics 6: 215–33. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Morano-Foadi, S. (2005) 'Scientific Mobility, Career Progression, and Excellence in the European Research Area', International Migration 43: 133–62. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Moratti, S. (2018) 'What's in a Word? On the Use of Metaphors to Describe the Careers of Women Academics', Gender and Education 32: 862–72. Google Scholar
	Moratti, S. (2020) 'Do Low-Openness, Low-Transparency Procedures in Academic Hiring Disadvantage Women?', Social Sciences 9: 89–102. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Morley, L. (1994) 'Glass Ceiling or Iron Cage? Women in UK Academia', Gender, Work & Organization 1: 194–204. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V.L., Graham, M.J., Handelsman, J. (2012) 'Science Faculty's Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 16474–9. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
	Nerdrum, L., Sarpebakken, J. (2006) 'Mobility of Foreign Researchers in Norway', Science and Public Policy 33: 217–29. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Nielsen, M.W. (2014) 'Justifications of Gender Equality in Academia: Comparing Gender Equality Policies of Six Scandinavian Universities', NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 22: 187–203. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Nielsen, M.W. (2016a) 'Limits to Meritocracy? Gender in Academic Recruitment and Promotion Processes', Science and Public Policy 43: 386–99. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
	Nielsen, M.W. (2016b) 'Gender Inequality and Research Performance: Moving beyond Individual-meritocratic Explanations of Academic Advancement', Studies in Higher Education 41: 2044–60. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Nielsen, M.W. (2017) 'Scandinavian Approaches to Gender Equality in Academia: A Comparative Study', Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 61: 295–318. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD) (2020) Database for Statistics in Higher Education (DBH). URL (consulted 6 October 2020): https://dbh.nsd.uib.no/ Google Scholar
	O'Brien, K.R., Hapgood, K.P. (2012) 'The Academic Jungle: Ecosystem Modelling Reveals Why Women Are Driven Out of Research', Oikos 121: 999–1004. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Pautasso, M. (2015) 'The Italian University Habilitation and the Challenge of Increasing the Representation of Women in Academia', Challenges 6: 26–41. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Piñheiro, R., Geschwind, L., Hansen, H.F., Pekkola, E. (2015) 'Academic Leadership in the Nordic Countries: Patterns of Gender Equality', pp. 15–33 in H.D., Syna, Costea, C.-E. (eds) Women's Voices in Management. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Probert, B. (2005) '"I Just Couldn't Fit It In": Gender and Unequal Outcomes in Academic Careers', Gender, Work & Organization 12: 50–72. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
	Rasmussen, B. (2015) 'From Collegial Organization to Strategic Management of Resources: Changes in Recruitment in a Norwegian University', Sage Open 5: 2158244015603904. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
	Roos, P.A., Gatta, M.L. (2009) 'Gender (In)Equity in the Academy: Subtle Mechanisms and the Production of Inequality', Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 27: 177–200. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Sabatier, M., Carrere, M., Mangematin, V. (2006) 'Profiles of Academic Activities and Careers: Does Gender Matter? An Analysis Based on French Life Scientist CVs', Journal of Technology Transfer 31: 311–24. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Sagaria, M.A.D., Dickens, C.S. (1990) 'Thriving at Home: Developing a Career as an Insider', New Directions of Higher Education 72: 19–28. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Scheibelhofer, E. (2010) 'Gendered Differences in Emigration and Mobility Perspectives among European Researchers Working Abroad', Migration Letters 7: 33–41. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Seeber, M., Debacker, N., Vandevelde, K. (2016) 'Mobility and Inbreeding in the Heart of Europe: What Factors Predict Academic Career in Dutch-speaking Belgian Universities', in OECD Blue Sky Forum on Science and Innovation Indicators. URL (consulted 30 September 2020): https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/25a0/82a92b462ff87c39172ca46e07209a80f365.pdf Google Scholar
	Seierstad, C., Healy, G. (2012) 'Women's Equality in the Scandinavian Academy: A Distant Dream?', Work, Employment & Society 26: 296–313. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI
	Shauman, K.A., Xie, Y. (1996) 'Geographic Mobility of Scientists: Sex Differences and Family Constraints', Demography 33: 455–68. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
	Shaw, A.K., Stanton, D.E. (2012) 'Leaks in the Pipeline: Separating Demographic Inertia from Ongoing Gender Differences in Academia', Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279: 3736–741. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Sheltzer, J.M., Smith, J.C. (2014) 'Elite Male Faculty in the Life Sciences Employ Fewer Women', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 10107–12. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
	Shepherd, S. (2017) 'Why Are There So Few Female Leaders in Higher Education: A Case of Structure or Agency?', Management in Education 31: 82–7. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
	Shinozaki, K. (2017) 'Gender and Citizenship in Academic Career Progression: An Intersectional, Meso-scale Analysis in German Higher Education Institutions', Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 43: 1325–46. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Skachkova, P. (2007) 'Academic Careers of Immigrant Women Professors in the US', Higher Education 53: 697–738. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Smith, D., Spronken-Smith, R., Stringer, R., Wilson, C.A. (2016) 'Gender, Academic Careers and the Sabbatical: A New Zealand Case Study', Higher Education Research and Development 35: 589–603. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Smyth, R., Mishra, V. (2014) 'Academic Inbreeding and Research Productivity and Impact in Australian Law Schools', Scientometrics 98: 583–618. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Tavares, O., Sin, C., Lança, V. (2019) 'Inbreeding and Research Productivity among Sociology PhD Holders in Portugal', Minerva 57: 373–90. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Thun, C. (2019) 'Excellent and Gender Equal? Academic Motherhood and "Gender Blindness" in Norwegian Academia', Gender, Work & Organization 27: 166–80. Google Scholar
	Vabø, A., Padilla-González, L.E., Waagene, E., Næss, T. (2014) 'Gender and Faculty Internationalization', pp. 183–205 in F., Huang, Finkelstein, M., Rostan, M. (eds) The Internationalization of the Academy. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Valian, V. (1999) Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Google Scholar | Crossref
	van Balen, B., van Arensbergen, P., van Der Weijden, I., Van Den Besselaar, P. (2012) 'Determinants of Success in Academic Careers', Higher Education Policy 25: 313–34. Google Scholar | Crossref
	van den Brink, M., Brouns, M., Waslander, S. (2006) 'Does Excellence Have a Gender? A National Research Study on Recruitment and Selection Procedures for Professorial Appointments in The Netherlands', Employee Relations 28: 523–39. Google Scholar | Crossref
	van den Brink, M., Benschop, Y. (2012) 'Gender Practices in the Construction of Academic Excellence: Sheep with Five Legs', Organization 19: 507–24. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
	Vohlídalová, M. (2014) 'Academic Mobility in the Context of Linked Lives', Human Affairs 24: 89–102. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Wånggren, L. (2018) 'Precarious Responsibility: Teaching with Feminist Politics in the Marketized University', Journal of Feminist Scholarship 14: 1–24. Google Scholar
	Weiss, A. (2005) 'The Transnationalization of Social Inequality: Conceptualizing Social Positions on a World Scale', Current Sociology 53: 707–28. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
	Weiss, A. (2016) 'Understanding Physicians' Professional Knowledge and Practice in Research on Skilled Migration', Ethnicity and Health 21: 397–409. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline
	Weisshaar, K. (2017) 'Publish and Perish? An Assessment of Gender Gaps in Promotion to Tenure in Academia', Social Forces 96: 529–60. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Williams, W.M., Ceci, S.J. (2015) 'National Hiring Experiments Reveal 2:1 Faculty Preference for Women on STEM Tenure Track', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 5360–5. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Winchester, H.P., Browning, L. (2015) 'Gender Equality in Academia: A Critical Reflection', Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 37: 269–81. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Winchester, H., Lorenzo, S., Browning, L., Chesterman, C. (2006) 'Academic Women's Promotions in Australian Universities', Employee Relations 28: 505–22. Google Scholar | Crossref
	Winkler, J.A. (2004) 'Faculty Reappointment, Tenure, and Promotion: Barriers for Women', Professional Geographer 52: 737–50. Google Scholar
	World Economic Forum (2019) Global Gender Gap Report 2020. Cologne and Geneva: World Economic Forum. Google Scholar

Sofia Moratti received her PhD from the University of Groningen (the Netherlands). She was a 'Max Weber' postdoctoral fellow and later a senior researcher at the European University Institute (Florence, Italy). She is currently affiliated with the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, where she investigates gender equality throughout academic careers.

National Hiring Experiments Reveal 2:1 Faculty Preference for Women on Stem Tenure Track

Source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1440783320960530

Share this post