What does it actually take to become a professor in Norway?

Promotion to professor is often seen as a process guided by clear, objective criteria, but a new study finds that department heads’ assessment of ‘professorial potential’ among associate professors is not impartial. The assessments are shaped by personal views, institutional frameworks and gendered practices, according to researchers from the University of Agder (UiA).

“We are all caught up in ways of thinking and acting, often without even realising it,” says Hege Wallevik, project manager of the university’s FEMPROF project, which this study is a part of.

“Through our research, we aim to unpack and highlight the structures that help explain the patterns behind who applies for and who attains promotion to professor,” she explains.

“Extroversion confused with motivation”

The researchers have, among other things, conducted 86 personal interviews with employees at UiA.

“As part of this research, we chose to examine in depth a single section of one interview. We did this to make something institutional visible, a way of speaking and acting that we also observe in interviews with many other informants, both heads and other staff,” says Wallevik, Associate Professor at UiA.

“We show how this institutional aspect is manifested in microsociological data,” she says.

Wallevik, together with May-Linda Magnussen, Hanne Haaland, Tale Steen-Johnsen and Irene Trysnes, identified consistent patterns in how department heads talk about qualification for professorship.

“There's a lot of talk about motivation, both in academia and in society in general. It’s often linked to speaking up and drawing attention to oneself, i.e. visibility. As a result, the most extroverted individuals are often seen as the most motivated, which does not necessarily reflect reality.”

“What are the consequences of associating extroversion with motivation?”

“Such an understanding, where extroversion is confused with motivation, can lead to professorial potential only being identified in people with a particular personality type,” says May-Linda Magnussen, Professor at UiA.

Moreover, this overlooks talented individuals who are more driven by academic interest than by personal career advancement. According to Magnussen, this can make genuine motivation invisible.

Subjective criteria for ‘professor material’

In their new article, the researchers question the idea that assessments of who has the potential or is ready for promotion to professor are fully objective.

“By examining a department head’s description of their everyday activities, we can see clear examples of how priorities are set and decisions are made. This makes it easier to understand some of the many small actions that can lead to different outcomes for women and men,” explains May-Linda Magnussen.

“We see how women are often described as having lower academic confidence than men. If that is the case, we understand it as a social phenomenon, partly based on systematically lower levels of recognition,” she says.

The researchers also found that not bigging oneself up can be interpreted as a lack of motivation.

“This can contribute to someone not being seen as professor material,” says Magnussen.

Magnussen says that the criteria appear to be both subjective and influenced by already established notions of motivation as an individual trait or disposition.

“Assessments are often based on department heads’ experiences, but also on how motivation is understood within the institution,” says Magnussen.

Extra research time for a select few

The two researchers explain that examining a department head’s everyday activities in depth is important, as they can play a key role in decisions regarding promotion to professor.

Heads of departments have a degree of discretion, they plan teaching assignments and can allocate extra research time to those they ‘believe in’, explain Wallevik and Magnussen. They argue that this creates unequal conditions for qualifying as a professor, which can particularly impact women.

“In what ways does it impact women most?”

“This applies, for example, to what we mentioned earlier about motivation. Many department heads look for signs that associate professors have an extra ‘drive’, which, for example, can include a willingness to work beyond regular hours,” says Magnussen.

“This particularly affects those with significant caregiving responsibilities, which tends to impact women more.”

Professorial potential as an inherent quality

Wallevik, Magnussen and their co-authors found that many, both heads of departments and the researchers themselves, described ‘being competent’ as an inherent trait of the individual researcher, and thus viewed professorial potential as inherent. They rarely discussed it in terms of relational or institutional factors.

“We need to acknowledge the relational aspects of the whole process, including the importance of recognition and appropriate support. Some individuals receive better conditions than others. This is something we must dare to acknowledge,” say Wallevik and Magnussen.

“How would you define professorial potential?”

“We believe that we need more critical reflection on why we want people to become professors in the first place. Is it primarily to secure external research funding or to score well on various productivity and quality indicators, or is it about something else, something more?”

“Narrow understandings of the role of professor will, over time, produce a professoriate that, in our view, is alarmingly homogeneous.”

The researchers emphasise that academia needs a great diversity of professors in terms of expertise, experience, personality and strengths.

“To understand what happens in a selection process, we must also remember that department heads are often under significant time pressure. They don’t always have the capacity to take the extra steps needed to question their own assessments and gain a thorough understanding of a candidate’s qualities,” say Magnussen and Wallevik.

“Like many of us, they can be swayed by rumours that someone is exceptionally capable, and without investigating further, allow this to influence their decision,” adds Magnussen.

Believe the selection process is objective

Promotion to professor is key in career development. That power and positioning also influence the culture of academic institutions is therefore not that surprising, the article’s authors suggest.

“What surprised us most is that the interviewed department heads largely describe themselves as objective,” say Wallevik and Magnussen.

“We see that the assessments are influenced, among other things, by their subjective understandings of what potential is. But these understandings are strongly shaped by already established truths and patterns embedded in the institution’s culture.”

“What are the consequences of believing that promotions and the assessment of candidates are objectively based?”

“If we believe the assessments are neutral, we overlook the importance of our own perspectives and how power dynamics work,” say Wallevik and Magnussen.

They refer to research showing that women, for example, speak up in meetings less frequently than men.

“It’s not necessarily about competence or motivation, but about structural factors, such as the fact that women may have received less recognition than men throughout their educational and professional careers.”

“Promotion processes must be made visible”

“What should be done to improve promotion processes?”

“We need to begin by highlighting the microsociological processes involved in assessing quality in academia,” says Magnussen.

“We also need to challenge the notion that assessments are impartial.”

The researchers believe that this involves having a holistic understanding of the promotion process. According to them, the culture and expectations that shape various candidate selection processes need to be openly addressed.

Greater focus on career development today than in the past

“Having spent several years in academia, do you notice a shift in direction in academia that supports the findings of your research?”

“Yes, I would say that a ‘new’ academia has emerged, where career development, among other factors, occupies a much more prominent place than it did previously. Excellent or outstanding research are terms that occupy a prominent place, and there is a strong focus on individual researchers and specific research environments. This affects both culture and context, not to mention promotion processes,” says Wallevik.

UiA’s strategy states that the university should ‘cultivate a culture of critical thinking’. The researchers behind the study argue that, for this to succeed, critical scrutiny must also be applied to the university’s own practices.

“We can only do that if we examine processes such as qualification for and promotion to professor more closely,” say Wallevik and Magnussen.

“We also need to recognise that by viewing ‘competence’ too narrowly, we end up excluding many talented academics.”

“How can we adopt a broader understanding of what it means to be ‘competent’?”

“It’s about seeing competence as diverse and context-dependent.”

Wallevik and Magnussen go on to add:

“Valuing different forms of academic contribution, not only publishing in prestigious journals or ‘putting oneself forward’, but also, for example, teaching quality, collaborative skills, networking, dissemination and the capacity to develop academic environments.”

Promotion grants and mentoring programmes play a crucial role

Professor Vivian Anette Lagesen at NTNU has studied perceptions of equality policies and organisational change processes in academia. She has not read the study itself, only the article presenting its findings.

When asked how she views the hypothesis that promotions to professor are less objective than commonly believed, she responds:

“That doesn’t surprise me. But I was rather surprised by the lack of awareness regarding promotion issues in the in-depth interview with the department head.”

“Could you elaborate?”

“I have personally interviewed department heads about, among other things, what they do to promote gender balance. I encountered far greater awareness and proactivity than is evident in the work conducted at the University of Agder.”

Lagesen explains that she recognises the researchers’ description of female associate professors holding back when it comes to promotion to professor, because they, among other things, are more dedicated to other tasks and often need to be encouraged to apply for promotion.

She points to a recent interview in Khrono, which highlights the importance of support and encouragement from department heads when applying for promotion, as well as measures such as promotion grants and mentoring programmes.

“Such measures not only help the women in question, but can also influence department heads’ awareness and motivation regarding the importance of promoting gender balance. This can create greater legitimacy for supporting women,” according to Lagesen.

“Most people are aware that assessments are not objective”

“The researchers in the UiA study note that women often fall behind in their careers. What are your thoughts about that?”

“Competition has always existed in academia, but as more people earn doctorates and internationalisation increases, the competition has intensified and everything is happening faster. A great deal of research indicates that women are more adversely affected by this,” says Vivian Lagesen.

Lagesen adds that this varies between academic disciplines and institutions. While some fields are becoming female-dominated, others remain heavily male-dominated despite measures to address this, she emphasises.

“What new knowledge does this study provide to explain why men, according to statistics, dominate the professor ranks?”

“The study highlights the need to raise department heads’ awareness and understanding of their own role, and to integrate a gender perspective into the promotion process.”

“At the same time, other studies show that many department heads can be more aware and proactive in their role than this suggests. The variations are thus significant, and the department head plays a critical role,” explains Lagesen, adding:

“Assessments of academic quality or potential are never objective, and most of them realise that,” says Lagesen with reference to the debate around the allocation of research funding.

“Yet, that notion is relied upon when making decisions. That is precisely why it is important to have an open discussion about how such assessments are made,” she says.

Translated by Totaltekst.