It is a myth that quality is a gender-neutral concept. Based on our cognitive patterns, we judge people differently depending on whether they are men, women, foreigners, senior citizens or adolescents, to name just a few. This also holds true when we assess the quality of research and make appointments to academic positions. To be hired as a researcher an individual must fulfil many stringent requirements, the most important one being the number of publications. In general, men publish more than women, and therefore take their place at the front of the queue. However, the appointment process in academia has become hotly debated, partly because research shows that the peer review system is not as objective as it should be: While the quality of the application is an important factor in the assessment process, the applicant’s gender and whether the applicant knows one of the persons conducting the assessment also play a role. In addition to publications, assessments of personal suitability, teaching and supervising expertise, ability to fit into the group, and overall potential are used to determine whether or not a person will be employed. However, it is not possible to assess these factors objectively! Terms used to describe a person conjure up associations with whether something (or someone) is or is not of high quality. Women tend to be described as diligent, responsible and conscientious, whereas men are more likely to be described as enthusiastic, outstanding, creative, ambitious and tough. These terms indicate how a person’s qualifications are assessed and ranked, which in turn may play a decisive role in the appointment process.

To achieve gender equality in academia, more expertise is needed about the mechanisms that are set in motion when assessments are made and that result in certain factors being ranked higher in terms of quality than others. Raising the level of expertise is costly, but the alternative is that we will end up with an extremely homogenous staff of researchers, and this does not lead to high-quality research in the long run; which is even more costly.