Engineering comments in doctoral student appointments: biased fabrications and revolving door governance practices in STEM subjects seen from gender equity and academic justice perspectives

ABSTRACT

This article derives from ongoing higher education governance research in Sweden using a mix of ethnographic methodologies and data to explore and analyse patterns of gender and class inequality and injustice. The article has very specific data comprising two STEM doctoral appointment procedures together and uses a particular methodology called Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA). It raises questions relating to potential discrimination and injustice in the appointment procedure, including pure fabrication related to applicants’ competences and symbolic violence. Such violations are not uncommon in STEM, particularly toward women according to previous research, both within the ongoing project and by other researchers. Internal governance structures and procedures should anticipate and combat these tendencies. The article indicates that this did not happen in relation to the investigated appointment processes.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethnography
• doctoral education
• qualitative content analysis
• gender discrimination
• academic injustice
• fabrication

Across history, institutions of higher education have been places with very different founding principles concerning their roles in society and relations to citizens, the state, capital and religeon (Kerr 1994; SOU 2019:6). Deriving from historical templates in Paris and Bologna (Sacchini 2018), they have generally initially comprised historical elite, renaissance and modern full-faculty universities, before broadening to include specialist institutes and regional semi-universities, sometimes called university colleges (Connell 2019; Olssen and Peters 2005; Tight 2019). Grounded in different historical periods, with different traditions, different relations to different types of professions, disciplines and to the State polity, academic citizenship within these different institutions accordingly operates in widely different contexts. This is true even in relation to Sweden (Agevall and Olofsson 2019a, 2019b; Beach 2013; Beach and Puaca 2014; SOU 2019:6).

The present article is part of ongoing ethnographic research connected to this issue in three universities Sweden. Through fine-grained ethnographic data and analyses, direct involvement and long-term engagement, these works sought to contribute to understanding processes of cultural formation and maintenance at the sites. Beginning with my PhD thesis work published in 1995, the research continued into a post-doctoral thesis in 1997 and a series of articles from 1996 to 2000 and then again from 2010 onwards. There were several individual publications (e.g. Beach 2000, 2011, 2013). Other publications came from shared activities (Beach 2013, 2020, 2023; Beach and Bagley 2012, 2013; Beach et al. 2014; Beach and Puaca 2014). Their main concern was for higher education institutions (HEIs) as sites of cultural production and reproduction, forms of governance change and how changes related to academic status and conditions of labour. HEIs are highly heterogeneous contexts in these respects (Beach 2013) and are basically impossible to subsume into a single common identity (O’Keefe and Courtois 2019; SOU 2019:6; Swedish Government Proposition 2020/21:60‌).

One strongly emergent thesis in the research was the emergence of the concept of trust-based new public management (Prop. 2020/21:60) through national adaptations to and developments of the Bologna reforms from the 1990s onwards. It relates to policies describing nationally orchestrated and coordinated locally managed professionally managed organisations, through their connections to and the working of principles of global and national competition, economic growth, individual responsibility, and auditability (Kerr 1994; Olssen and Peters 2005; SOU 2019:6; Tagliaventi, Carli, and Giacomini 2019; Tight 2019). Professional academics now form a professionally managed key profession (Agevall and Olofsson 2019b; Connell 2019; Perkin 1969) capable of fulfilling a meta-professional function that reflects, mediates and instils the aims intended for the sustenance and development of a modern society (Prop. 2020/21:60; e SOU 2019:6). Local trust-based management is a key feature internationally (Olssen and Peters 2005; Pohlenz 2022; Seyfried and Pohlenz 2018) and nationally (Agevall and Olofsson 2019b; Beach 2013).

The claim and anticipation (trust-based npm is both at once) are that governments and other stakeholders should and can legitimately expect HEIs to be innovation-friendly, to pursue professionalism in their approaches to teaching and to be appreciative towards an evidence-based management based on sound evaluation research methods (Pohlenz 2022). The article is concerned with this issue of the claims about rightful anticipations of trustworthy management. In line with other previous research, the article instead opens-up serious challenges in relation to such assumptions. Historically research indicates that things have not been particularly good in these respects, and particularly not in terms of gender justice and equality within the confines of white male dominant class hegemony (Angervall and Beach 2020; Beach and Puaca 2014; Bhopal 2017; Weiner 2000). The article attempts to provide an illustration of how this disrespect for gender and justice can take place.

The position of teacher education in the academic field is a good illustration of these points, where despite a small number of stellar academics, generally teacher educators are vulnerable academic citizens within the performative culture of universities, whom others treat as inferior and as not coming from a ‘proper’ academic discipline compared to themselves (Ellis et al. 2014). Deem (1996) identified something similar in sociology, which she attributed to distinctions made between (predominantly male) theoretical high-status sociology taught and researched largely by men, and a lower status essentially female-dominated applied sociology taught primarily by women lecturers. Like teacher educators (as researchers) in academia, they were less free to pursue their own academic interests and they had little influence on academics in other areas (Ellis et al. 2014). Research citation levels were lower than in other fields and researchers and educators were also more likely to see their economic production expropriated and exploited in the interests of other fields. As academic citizens in their discipline, women had become homemakers of the academy. They endured more precarious and less rewarding work that helped to uphold the authority of others through their own subordination within the gender structures of academic life (Acker 2006; Angervall and Beach 2020; Angervall, Beach, and Gustafsson 2015; Deem 1996; Weiner 2000).

The present article explores STEM subjects in these respects. STEM subjects, in contrast to Education and Sociology, are economically buoyant fields that have generally flourished in the new millennium neoliberal reform eras (SOU 2019: 6), but that does not mean they have flourished equally, or that differently gendered and classed individuals have flourished equally well within them (Bhopal 2017; Deem 1996; Weiner 2000). Men dominate decision-making in STEM, and historical barriers such as gender stereotyping still feature in relation to women’s underrepresentation and ideas about higher education as a force for democratisation (Acker 2006; Angervall and Beach 2018; 2020; European Commission 2021a; 2021b; Morley and Lugg 2009; Weiner 2000).

Gender inequality and discrimination in STEM are present nationally in Sweden, and internationally (Nash et al. 2021), and there is also often a rather optimistic attachment to gender equity policies as tools for improving the representation of women and protecting academic women’s career progression (Acker 2006; Angervall, Beach, and Gustafsson 2015; Lipton 2017). There are multiple nationally reproduced interpretations of international ordinances connected to the regulation and correction of gender discrimination and inequality (European Commission 2021a, 2021b). They include examples like the following from the three universities investigated in the ongoing project, relating to the correction of imbalances in STEM subjects by employing women whenever other quality matters are equal, and concerning the proportion of men and women applicants for each job opening (min 30% of either) needed in order for an organisation to be able to make an appointment to a STEM post. These are efforts to try to ensure post descriptions do not favour either gender but are instead available for both and can be amenable to correcting existing imbalances of power and influence in academic life (Nash et al. 2021; O’Connor 2019; O’Keefe and Courtois 2019). They do not work very well it seems. The article strives to add new knowledge to earlier research addressing these issues.

The European Commission (2021a; 2021b), Nerad and Chiappa (2022) and Rosa and Clavero (2022) have all identified patterns of genders injustice and inequality in STEM that generally colour recruitment and career opportunities at doctoral and post-doctoral career-building levels. They described also that improvements were both necessary and important, given how gender and difference currently work in academic cultures by reproducing predominant structures of power from gendered divisions of labour and gendered access to academic careers and capital (O’Connor 2019; O’Keefe and Courtois 2019). Caprile et al. (2012), Hearn et al. (2022) and Paoletti et al. (2020) make similar points to these. Patton (2016) discusses them in relation to features of race, skin-colour and ethnicity.

Academic institutions do not operate free from gender, class or racial discrimination (Acker 2006). They never have (Bhopal 2017). Moreover, although as Rosa and Clavero (2022), 9 indicate, there are nowadays commitments to gender equity systems at doctoral levels in most European HEIs, these systems often fail to live up to the standards set for them (Beach and Puaca 2014; Hearn 2020; Hearn et al. 2022). Doctoral education can play a critical role in making visible and questioning norms that (re)produce inequity under the right conditions but will be less likely to accomplish these aims within corrupt academic orders of gender or in conjunction with other forms of exploitation (Nerad and Chiappa 2022). The fact that they do not manage to do this presents a challenge to academic researchers to expose these conditions and to disrupt and dismantle systems when they serve the needs of the few not the many (Acker 2006; Bhopal 2017) and the present article attempts to make a small contribution.

The article commits to the interest for uncovering possible sites and covert practices of gender discrimination and academic injustice, which it approaches in relation to micro-inequities in events that are notoriously difficult to prove, where those with power can silence and marginalise those without, from influence in academic life (Angervall and Beach 2018; 2020). This occurs perhaps particularly to doctoral students and applicants and perhaps quite extensively in STEM subjects (Aiston and Fo 2021). The article uses qualitative content analysis (QCA) on documents related to STEM doctoral education appointments collected within a process of long-term ethnographic data gathering, production and investigation at a university named Host University to explore and advance knowledge about this possibility. Choosing doctoral students with the greatest likelihood of success is key for improving research according to national and local delegation ordinances. The analysis gives some insight into what ranking groups and others connected to appointment procedures can identify and employ as key markers in these respects and how their activities may undermine appointment quality in relation to issues of justice and ensuring that the best possible candidates for a post are among the ones that are most likely to obtain it. Appointments at doctoral levels should evidence impartially, respect and a ‘duty of care’ according to both national and local delegation ordinances. The article asks accordingly two simple questions. They are:

1. Did the investigated appointment processes at the Host University accomplish the ranking of applicants and reporting on their qualities for selection to the two posts fairly and without bias?

2. Did the internal governance structures respond appropriately to safeguard fair treatment and in line with their delegated duties of care to ensure unbiased appointments of the best-qualified candidates and the correction, where possible and necessary, of existing gender imbalances in STEM fields?

The questions align with (and derive from) local delegation ordinances relating to doctoral appointments and the role and function of local ranking groups and research degree boards in connection to doctoral appointments. Delegation ordinances for doctoral appointments in STEM subjects nationally and locally at one university along with all the available documents from the local registry connected to two STEM doctoral appointments form the main data.

The two appointments are in the same research area, namely Resource Recovery, and the same subject, specifically bio-technical engineering. As described in Appendix 1, they relate to posts for Membrane Bioreactor work (PA 2023/105) and Syngas Fermentation (PA 2023/86). The ranking group that produced the two academic quality reports for applicants for the two positions was the same, as was the academic governance subcommittee that selected the ranking group and quality assured its decisions and recommendations for the posts in question. The selected ranking group comprised three academically schooled men: which already says a little about the gender order of STEM at Host. The first was Professor Mo Taheer (pseudonym). The others were two senior researchers in resource recovery, Sam Keno (pseudonym), and Tobias Wallender (pseudonym). The governance subcommittee was the Research Education Subcommittee (RES) for Resource Recovery. It had obtained delegated responsibilities in relation to doctoral appointments from the Host University’s Board of Research and Education (BRE). BRE retracted the delegation however recently, on 13 October 2023.

An important part of the data comprises the two full reports written by the ranking group and submitted, together with its recommendations relating to the appointment to post, one for each of the two appointments, to the RES. There is one report for each appointment and three different sections to each report. The first part represents an introduction describing each post, the ranking group and their function, details of eligibility requirements, and the number of applicants assessed. Then follows section that gives details of the applicants according to information gathered from their cv:s, submitted research work (such as the applicants’ master’s theses) and letters of application. It includes summaries of their formal qualifications, eligibility and assessed viability for the post as ‘an interesting candidate’, or as ‘uninteresting’. Appendix 1 provides slightly abridged and anonymised details from this section of each report. The final section of each report describes the motivations for ranking the selected candidates for the respective post and inviting them to interview for the post, when the ranking group felt this was necessary. It also provides a short motivation for the final ranking order between the candidates and a recommendation of one of them for the post.

Tables 1 and 2, provide details of the two posts as they appear in part 1 of the respective ranking group reports.

Table 1. Doctoral Student in Resource Recovery – Membrane Bioreactors (PA 2023/105).

Description of post

Qualifications needed

Doctoral education within a research project including anaerobic digestion, membrane techno-logy, membrane bioreactors, bioreactor scale-up, and techno-economic analysis

In order to be admitted to the doctoral education programme in Resource Recovery, the student must have a degree at the Master’s level with sufficient connection to the doctoral subject of Resource Recovery as well as a Bachelor’s degree in Biotechnology, Chemical Engineering, or equivalent. Applicants should be able to communicate well in written and spoken English and have good collaboration and initiative-taking qualities, an ability to work independently and in a structured way, as well as the ability to prioritise work tasks. Experience in laboratory work in biotechnology, membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion of organic waste is a merit.

Table 2. Doctoral Student in Resource Recovery – Syngas Fermentation (PA 2023/86).

Description of post

Qualifications needed

Description of post: Doctoral education within the EU research project SynoProtein.

For admission to the doctoral education programme in Resource Recovery, the student must have a degree at the Master’s level with sufficient connection to the doctoral subject of Resource Recovery as well as a Bachelor’s degree in Biotechnology, Chemical Engineering, or equivalent. Applicants should be able to communicate well in written and spoken English and have good collaboration and initiative-taking qualities, an ability to work independently and in a structured way, as well as the ability to prioritise among work tasks. Experience of laboratory work in biotechnology, syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation is a merit.

The two tables show identically formulated specific and generic competences and a desire for relevant laboratory experience as a merit. The separation and specification of ‘demands’ for the post (such as basic and advanced level degrees in chemical engineering and biotechnology) with a connection to Resource Recovery, and merits (such as laboratory experience with syngas fermentation and bioreactors) are important.

Method and analysis

Hammersley and Atkinson (1983) describe ethnography as a practice associated with the study of other people that uses multiple qualitative methods and theories for the systematic recording and analysis of everyday events in relation to specific research questions (Tummons and Beach 2020). As discussed in the introduction with respect to the present investigations this has meant trying to generate accounts of how everyday activities in education contexts can be instrumental in terms of creativity and performativity and relating to both cultural production and renewal or social reproduction.

The present article aims to do these very things, using compressed and very specific data and QCA. QCA was developed initially by Philipp Mayring four decades ago and discussed in Mayring and Gläser-Zikuda (2008) was a logical analytical method. It has three different approaches for examining ethnographically gathered texts. They are respectively conventionally inductive; theory-directed deductive; and summative approaches. The present study uses the conventionally inductive approach based on an inductive bottom-up reading and interpretation of the data (Elo and Kyngäs 2008; Zhang and Wildemuth 2009), which as in Glaser and Strass grounded theory methodology is discovery-oriented.

Mayring (2015) described eight techniques or steps to conventional inductive QCA: namely, 1. Summarising, 2. Inductive category formation, 3. Narrow context analysis, 4. Broad context analysis, 5. Formal structuring, 6. Content structuring, 7. Type-building content analysis, and 8. Scaling. The first of them reduces the total data and establishes an initial category formation for category definition. It employs a mixture of explorative and comparative hermeneutic interpretation of how textual representations form or fabricate identities to, in the case of the present study, reflect or contradict the unbiased aims for appointment processes described in delegation ordinances. The process closes with the production of a narrative that attempts to draw out important meaning-bearing implications from the study.

Results

The results section deals with the outcomes from the analysis of the selected data using QCA using both tabular representation and commentary. Tables 3–6 highlight some key differences in the two reports in relation to two significant marker concepts for applicants/applications, namely ‘interesting’ and ‘uninteresting’. Table 3 compares comments on the applicants to each post listed as most interesting by the ranking group. It shows a clear imbalance across the two lists. Whist the comments for interesting applicants for the first post (membrane bioreactor) highlight subject-specific skills, knowledge, and competence the second list does not. It highlights generic skills, knowledge, and competence as more decisive. All three top-ranked applicants to this post lacked the specified qualifications as well as knowledge and experience in syngas fermentation, and one of them had not actually applied for the post (perhaps for this reason).

Table 3. Ranking group comments on ‘interesting’ applicants for the two posts.

Membrane bioreactor

Syngas fermentation

Trained and experienced in membrane separation processes including pilot units. He also has a bachelors in biological engineering. Lacking merit in work with anaerobic digestion. Experienced in membrane separation processes including pilot units. He also has also worked with biotechnological processes. Lacking merit in work with anaerobic digestion. Experienced in membrane separation processes, pilot scale experiments and anaerobic digestion. Known to have good collaboration and initiative-taking qualities, as well as the ability to work independently in a structured manner.

Although … key merits … with syngas fermentation and bioreactor optimisation are missing, he seems like someone with good collaboration and initiative-taking qualities, an ability to work independently and in a structured way, as well as the ability to prioritise among work tasks. Lacks experience with gas fermentation and applied for Membrane bioreactor call and not this project. Has not worked with syngas fermentation … An interview was scheduled to get to know his strengths and if he fits requirements  …

Table 4. Ranking group comments: ‘uninteresting’ applicants with five study years at Host University.

Membrane bioreactor

Syngas fermentation

(Missing) key merits such as … membrane separation, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and anaerobic digestion. (Missing) key merits (such as) membrane separation (and) the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion. (Missing) key merits in biotechnology … with membrane separation (and) pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion … Lacks hands-on skills (for) the PhD project.

(Has) gas fermentation experience (but not) bioreactor optimisation or scale up*. Senior researchers  …  doubt if she can manage the demands of a PhD project. Her ability to take initiative, work independently and in a structured way cannot be guaranteed. (Missing) key merits in biotechnology … syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation. Bioreactor optimisation is a merit and was part of her background section in her masters’ thesis.

Table 5. Comparing ‘interesting’ and ‘uninteresting’ comments: Membrane bioreactors post.

Interesting

Uninteresting (also) Host

Trained and experienced in membrane separation processes (with) a bachelors in biological engineering. Lacking merit in work with anaerobic digestion. Experienced in membrane separation … Has worked with biotechnological processes. Lacking merit in work with anaerobic digestion. Experienced in membrane separation, pilot scale experiments and anaerobic digestion … Good collaboration and initiative-taking qualities (and) to work independently and in a structured way.

(Lacking) merits … with membrane separation … pilot-scale bioreactors and anaerobic digestion. (Lacking) work in biotechnology … with membrane separation … application of pilot-scale bioreactors (and) anaerobic digestion. (Lacking) work in biotechnology … membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion, are missing … Has a master’s in biotechnology (but) lacks hands-on skills to work in the PhD project.

Table 6. Comparing ‘interesting’ and ‘uninteresting’ comments: Syngas fermentation.

Interesting

Uninteresting (also) Host

(Missing) some key merits with syngas fermentation (but) he seems like someone with good collaboration and initiative-taking qualities, an ability to work independently and in a structured way, as well as the ability to prioritise among work tasks. Lacks experience with gas fermentation and applied only to Membrane bioreactor call. Has not worked with syngas fermentation … An interview was scheduled to get to know his strengths and if he fits requirements.

Has experience in gas fermentation (but) has not worked with bioreactor optimisation or scale up*. Senior researchers (express) doubt if she can manage the demands of a PhD project. Her ability to take initiative, work independently and in a structured way cannot be guaranteed. All the key merits, i.e. work in biotechnology, work with syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation, are missing (despite an) MSc in Biotechnology & Bioeconomy. Bioreactor optimisation was part of her basic education and her masters’ thesis.

According to delegation ordinances at Host, applicants that a ranking group calls to interview for a post would normally have all the formal qualifications and merits. However, for the syngas post this is not the case. Instead, it is assumptions by the ranking group relating to applicants’ descriptions of their undocumented generic capabilities that have underlain these decisions. Self-declarations about collaboration, initiative-taking, being able to prioritise among work tasks, and being able to work independently in a structured way, led to invitations to interviews, which then became a source to provide information about the applicants’ strengths, and how they might fit post-requirements. All applicants to the syngas post had claimed to have these generic skills of course. Only three of them obtained invitations to interviews, one of which obtained a recommendation for the post. The comments on the interviewees interview performance were the foundations for this recommendation according to the ranking group report:

He was very interesting as he described his start-up company focused on plant cell biotechnology … his beliefs in leading by example and belief in his abilities to create a conducive work environment and work under stress … calm personality and ability to balance work with personal life.

He was unable to communicate verbally and chose to use the chat option on zoom. It … would be very difficult for him to be part of the PhD project, as it will require constant communication between supervisors and other external partners.

He expressed himself well in English. He is currently working in a wastewater company  …  In addition to pilot reactors, he has worked with different scales of lab bioreactors between 1–20 litres (both batch and continuous). He believes he can work under stress due to his calm personality (and) that he has conflict resolution skills … 

These are speculative traits. They are of course desirable and PhD students would probably fare far better with them than without them. The interviews confirm the candidates had them. Yet the point here is that there were several applicants with formal qualifications that better fit with the official descriptions of formal post requirements than any of them, and that the ranking group had side-lined as ‘uninteresting’. They included four women and two men in their mid- to late twenties and early- to mid-thirties.

• Applicant 5: Bachelor and master in biotechnology, fluent in English, and had experience in molecular biology and with three publications.

• Applicant 6: BSc in Chemical Engineering and an MSc in Bio-chemical Engineering. She is fluent in English according to IELTS and has two publications.

• Applicant 11: BSc and an MSc in Chemical Engineering. He is fluent in English according to IELTS and has five publications.

• Applicant 12: BSc and MSc in Chemical Engineering. She is fluent in English and has two publications.

• Applicant 15: BSc and MSc in Chemical Engineering. She is fluent in English according to IELTS and has two publications.

• Applicant 17: BSc in Chemical engineering – applied biotechnology, and an MSc in Resource Recovery – Biotechnology & Bioeconomy. She also has experience in gas fermentation and is fluent in English according to her high school certificate.

The reasons why the ranking group considered these applicants as ‘uninteresting’ appear in the ranking group report (Appendix 1, PA 2023/86). The most common was ‘the absence of … key merits, such as work with syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation’ (Applicant 11). Others, such as for applicants 5, 9 and 14, were through ‘having a major strength … outside the scope of the PhD position’, namely in biology, which was also the case for two of the applicants listed as most interesting, including the one the ranking group recommended for the post. Being a graduate biologist (as opposed to chemical engineer or biotechnician) led to the exclusion of some applicants but not others. Having generic competences according to interviews that all applicants claimed to possess in their letters of application, led to recommendations to post for some applicants but not others, even in cases where the recommendation was of a candidate who lacked the formal qualifications and had not applied for the post for these reasons.

Table 4 looks at statements in the reports relating to unsuccessful applicants for the two posts. The examples chosen were all young women with three to five years of study in resource recovery, including in 3 of five cases, chemical engineering, and biotechnology as the main subjects. This is in line with the specific stipulated requirements for the two posts and the ranking group knew the applicants had them as they were Host students who had obtained recommendations to apply from senior researchers there, including in at least three instances from at least one member of the ranking group itself. The statement ‘uninteresting’ seems a little out of place under these circumstances. Given the high-quality Host claims to have relating to both its basic, advanced and research degree studies (on the Host webpages) we might expect the RES to react to this. It did not. Instead, it accepted the recommendation of the ranking group without further comment.

Several things stand out here. The first and most obvious is that the ranking committee expressed that the applicants lacked relevant skills. This is odd of course, given firstly that at least one of the ranking-group had recommended them to apply in the first place, and that each applicant had completed five years of study at basic and advanced levels in appropriate subjects (chemical engineering with biotechnical enrichment) at Host, and which according to course descriptions do provide knowledge about anaerobic digestion and membrane technology and scale-up, as well as, in some study option combinations, techno-economic analysis. They form basic content that master’s level studies build on to provide:

Skills in analysing and solving problems related to the transport, processing, and transformation of waste streams and residues into useful products using biotechnological methods and … to develop related processes and business enterprises. (MSc Resource Recovery – Biotechnology and bioeconomy)

Deeper understanding of the status and trends in the field of resource recovery, both globally and nationally, including business and methodological knowledge  …  (MSc Resource Recovery – Sustainable energy processes)

The dismissal of applicant 17 for the syngas post is particularly unusual. This applicant has a BSc in Chemical engineering (applied biotechnology enrichment) and an MSc in Resource Recovery (biotechnology and bioeconomy enrichment) as well as experience in gas fermentation (Appendix 1, applicant 17, PA 2023/86). Yet according to the ranking group report, she is still ‘not interesting … as she has not worked with bioreactor optimization nor scale up’, which the report states despite them figuring both in courses on her degree programmes and in her master’s thesis, which at least two of the ranking committee had read prior to the application process. The report falsifies the applicant’s qualifications in other words, before then stating: ‘besides which, senior researchers who have followed her progress … doubt … her ability to take initiative, work independently and in a structured way’, which the applicant’s official study performance record (available in full from Host’s own registry), contradicts completely and totally. These things are all strange in themselves, but in the present case things are even more unusual than this. As recorded in field-notes:

Three senior researchers, including Sam Keno deputy supervisor on her master’s thesis … several PhD students and her main supervisor had encouraged Applicant 17 to apply for the post, and they had all said that she had the potential and extensive knowledge about the subject. These people had all known her and her work for a year or more … They knew too that she had obtained a top-student prize during her undergraduate studies based on descriptions of her as ‘an ambitious top student in her year group who had made strong contributions during covid on the zoom platform meetings … done good lab-work and wrote outstandingly well in English’. Taheer knew this. He had examined and passed her master’s thesis with no mention of insufficient skills or bad work management … That the appointments subcommittee then failed to address this discrimination is contradictory to the ascribed role of the subcommittee according to delegation ordinances  …  Other data suggest that there appears to be a revolving door relating to recommendations from senior academics in relation to posts, which includes all four PhD appointments made in biotechnology so far in 2023.

Using fabricated comments from an undocumented source to eliminate an applicant is an act of power-based discrimination. Tables 5 and 6 show data relating to further comments on ‘interesting’ and ‘uninteresting’ applicants.

Table 5 refers primarily to subject-specific competences in both columns. An applicant who had already begun her PhD and who has two members of the ranking group in her supervisory team obtained the post. There is a potential for bias therefore, yet the RES did not react to this. It operated instead as a revolving door to the recommendation presented by Taheer (the candidate’s main supervisor) who is also a member of RES and coordinator of the ranking group when it made its assessments. Table 6 makes the same kind of comparison as Table 5 for the syngas fermentation post. It suggests that the separation of applicants uses fabrication relating to formal qualifications and experience along with conjecture about generic competences and damaging undocumented hearsay to include or exclude applicants as interesting for the post, which in addition the RES then fails to react to.

Table 6 provides further input relating to the article’s first research question on whether ranking groups and their reports accomplish their ranking task without bias. The answer is that they do not. It is the answer also however to the second question, about whether the RES responds appropriately and ‘protectively’ to these transgressions. It does not. The only response is one of a revolving door in relation to the recommendations of the ranking group. Patton (2016) indicates that such transgressions may be far from uncommon from the perspective of academic injustice according to internal research. It has applied to both posts in different ways in this investigation but is obviously most significant concerning one of them. This is the post in syngas fermentation where point for point.

• The ranking group alleged that several local students from the host university lacked necessary skills and knowledge, despite these applicants having completed all the requirements for basic and advanced level degrees in relevant subjects and the RES accepted this fabrication without challenging it.

• None of the applicants invited to interview for PA 2023:86 had studied chemical engineering, biotechnology or an equivalent at basic degree levels or had the stipulated key competences for the post, yet the RES offered no challenge to this decision.

• The ranking group evaded established criteria and Host University’s gender equality plan when it fabricated the competence of applicants, yet RES simply accepted the ranking report and supported appointments based on the given recommendations.

• The ranking group used inappropriate formulations and fabrications. The RES failed to fulfil the commitments described in delegation ordinances concerning protection of individuals and the organisation from harm when receiving these recommendations.

Senior researchers recommended people to apply for posts and an appointed ranking group summarily dismissed them as ‘uninteresting’ for it, using at times clearly inappropriate symbolically violent language. This is not acceptable practice. It transcends what Nerad and Chiappa (2022) from perspectives of academic justice describe as individual rights to freedom from marginalisation, exploitation and cultural silencing in the processes of doctoral recruitment and admission. Like Acker (2006) Bhopal (2017) Nerad and Chiappa’s (2022) research involved uncovering how institutional domination is often placed in the control of groups who feel they have an entitlement and rights to position themselves above legislative frameworks and agreements relating to correct practice. Their results suggest this can give rise to potentially highly destructive gender order and culture of oppression. Such a culture is not asserted to prevail in the organisation referred to in the present article. What the article asserts is that reports from the ranking group fail to show awareness of gender responsibilities and academic justice and that the RES responded by failing to enlighten the ranking group on these matters, by challenging the group in relation to the recommendations it made and the grounds it presented to support its decisions.

Discussion

Choosing doctoral students with the greatest likelihood of success is key to improving research quality. The greatest likelihood usually aligns with the strongest subject competence and desired experience in the first instance, together with necessary generic skills in the second. Guaranteed through a carefully planned, conducted and assessed recruitment process, candidate selection normally follows a set procedure. It begins with a careful description of a doctoral post, descriptions of the application procedure, and descriptions of the relevant basic qualifications needed, after which an appointed unbiased group of experts with high integrity rank applications and then interview and recommend applicants to the posts in question. These features characterise aspects of the presently researched situation, yet perhaps the most striking thing about the patterns identified in the results section in the present study concerns the number of irregularities in these respects, and in particular for the syngas fermentation post (PA 2023/86).

Several applicants had the relevant qualifications for this post and the stipulated five years of basic and advanced level education in biotechnology and chemical engineering or related area. Yet the ranking group report described them as uninteresting and recommended instead three other applicants to interview as candidates, based largely on subtle fabrications and even some falsification of applicants’ skills, knowledge, competences and suitability for post. Suitability related to claims about the possession of skills such as collaboration, initiative, an ability to work independently in a structured way, and being able to prioritise among different work tasks. They are as such things that are impossible to predict in advance and for which the only documented evidence existed in the letters of application created by applicants themselves, which whilst they may be realistic, can also be the product of hubris and overconfidence. Moreover, even if they are not, they do not provide a discriminatory foundation for candidate selection. This is obvious when looking closely at the letters of application from applicants, which shows clearly that more or less all of them described their generic skills similarly and as, generally speaking, positive.

It seems in other words that selection based on self-declared generic competences could have included any applicant and that is was first on the basis of an exaggerated fabrication about the generic skills of three of them that the ranking group motivated its choices. Looking at the formal qualifications and documented competence of applicants for post PA 2023:86 (syngas fermentation) in Appendix 1 adds weight to this idea. It shows clearly that applicants 5, 6, 11, 12, 15 and 17 have chemical engineering or an equivalent subject as a qualification and would normally be among the ones invited to interview for the post. The motivations the raking group expressed for not doing so are contradictory and appear as follows:

• Applicant 5: The major strength of the candidate is in molecular biology, which is outside the scope of the position. This is fabrication. The candidate has two academic degrees in biotechnology.

• Applicants 6, 11, 12 and 15: All the key merits in biotechnology, work and with syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation, are missing. However, though this is the case for the three interviewees, applicants 6, 11, 12 and 15’s degrees in chemical engineering and biotechnology would most likely include them.

• Applicant 17: Senior researchers doubt if she can manage the demands of a PhD project, yet here is no evidence that she lacks these capabilities. She was a top quartile student with good study records and documented lab-work of a high standard who is fluent in English and has specific knowledge of syngas fermentation.

The motivation to invite the three male candidates to interview for the post were equally contradictory to those relating to exclusion criteria listed above.

• Applicant 1: He seems like someone with good collaboration and initiative-taking qualities, an ability to work independently and in a structured way, as well as the ability to prioritise among work tasks according to his application documents. However, these documents were self-declaration statements made by the applicant himself and all applicants described themselves in these ways.

• Applicant 4: Could be interesting due to his experience in biotechnology and development of bioreactors, yet he had only applied for post 105 initially, as he did not have qualifications and desired experience for post 86. He only submitted a letter of application when the ranking group asked if he had an interest in doing so.

• Applicant 8: He has worked with biotechnological processes, including various types of bioreactors … The ranking group scheduled an interview to get to know if his other strengths matched with post requirements.

In relation to the description of qualifications for the post, the ranking group called the wrong people to interview and according to delegation ordinances and normal praxis for interview use it used them for the wrong reasons. Namely, to (a) get to know the candidate’s formal strengths and (b) find out whether they met the requirements of the PhD position. This is wrong. The use of interviews is for selecting from amongst highly qualified candidates not to see if applicants have the necessary qualifications for post, which is the aim of the assessment of written application, and certainly not to embellish favoured applicants on comparison with others who had better formal qualifications. Yet possible malpractice in the present case does not end here however, as on closer inspection two members of the ranking group (Taheer and Keno) are the proposed supervisors of the recommended applicants for the two posts outlined in appendix 1. Moreover, in addition, Taheer is also a member of RES (the research education subcommittee), and one of only two scientifically qualified RES members present at the ratification meeting regarding the appointment of post PA 2023/86 (FUU 2023-06-30), which made it formally corrupt and unable guarantee that appointments fairly reflect applicants and their competences. Assuring this is part of the official mandate of the RES. By failing in this capacity, it has allowed better-qualified applicants to suffer discrimination based on falsification and poetic constructions embellishing undocumented generic skills of three men who formally lacked the relevant skills and knowledge for the post in question. The ranking of applicants has accordingly had little to do with the possession of formal knowledge and competence gained at basic and advanced degree level and a lot to do with fabrications engineered by an all-male ranking group. Appointing an all-male ranking group is one way to ensure the silencing of women in relation to important appointments and appointment procedures in academic organisations (Aiston and Fo 2021) and more generally (Acker 2006). Accepting the decisions of these men without question, and this endorsing both the recommendations made and the assessment process behind them, is another. Subjective male academic understandings of gender and academic rights still appear to structure divisions of academic labour by gatekeeping, and in instances like the present one this can restrict access to academic capital and career possibilities inappropriately (Caprile et al. 2012; Hearn et al. 2022; Paoletti et al. 2020).

The article is however not only about the operation of a possibly corrupt STEM gender order dominated by men. There are systems such as RES at Host University, to watch-over and safeguard against this, but we know that very often these systems fail to live up to the standards needed and set for them (European Commission 2021a; 2021b; Hearn 2020; O’Connor 2019) and the article is about this as well. There was no protection offered to either individuals or institutions. Instead, the RES functioned as a revolving door for recommendations made by senior male academics, two of whom are also RES members. Global scholarship has documented gender discrepancies in power in HEIs of these kinds for several decades (O’Connor 2019). The outcomes from the investigation thus indicate possible trends in one institution that seem to link with other research, such as that by Rosa and Clavero (2022) but they also suggest how established deviant groups and inadequate governance practices can undermine well-intentioned policies.

For instance, there are regulations for the proportion of men and women applicants for each job opening needed for an organisation to be able to make appointment to a STEM post at Host (min. 30%). Yet the ranking group undermined this policy and even added a further layer of gender injustice to it by first coaxing women to apply for posts to ensure sufficient gender representation before then undermining their efforts and describing them as ‘uninteresting’. Whether this is because women do not match the ideal image of the worthy scientist is irrelevant in this circumstance. Both they and others have obtained encouragement to apply under false pretences, before then suffering damaging symbolic violence unprotected by a revolving door RES. Introducing equality practices is not enough in these circumstances (European Commission 2021b). Organisations must also undo practices and attitudes that cement inequity. When they do not, as in the present case, policies like those for counting the number of women applying to posts may risk reinforcing discrimination rather than challenging it and the retention of gender inequity by it.

Conclusions

The article provides some clues relating to the perpetuation of inequity practices within an organisation with a delegation order that claims to strive to eliminate them. It does so by illustrating how the interests of powerful male academics and the corrupt fabricating actions of all-male ranking group prevail uncorrected due to the revolving door practices of an appointed RES. The subcommittee, though led by a woman academic has failed to safeguard gender abuse and academic injustice. This is common within academic organisations (European Commission 2021a; 2021b; Hearn 2020; O’Connor 2019). ‘Fail-safes’ will often malfunction but it is still important to give insight into how. The article tries to do this. Male researchers have a history of corrupting STEM department procedures related to history, access, curriculum, policy, and research (Bhopal 2017; Patton 2016; Weiner 2000) and delegation of regulatory procedures to subcommittees like RES have the role of protecting organisations and individuals from them. This did not happen here. Instead of examining practices to see whether there was a serious ground for gender discrimination, the subcommittee did the opposite. Instead of looking to see whether women needed protection from symbolic violence, it found a way to keep a symbolically violent ranking group report free from complaint and became in this way complicit in undermining gender equity policy.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Vetenskapsradet [grant number VR2013–2142].

Appendix 1:

Anonymised data relating to the ranking group comments for two doctoral positions: Membrane bioreactors (PA 2023/105) and Syngas fermentation (PA 2023/86) at Host University

   

Membrane bioreactor

Syngas fermentation

Applicant 1 (born 1998) (a) Male (b) BSc in Biology, Skövde, Sweden (c) MSc in Biology, Skövde, Sweden (d) Provided his links to dissertations as publications (e) Fluent in English according to CV (f) Has experience in molecular biology.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 2 (born 1993) (a) Male (b) BSc in Cellular and Molecular Biology, Iran (c) MSc in Molecular Biotechnology, Iran (d) MSc in Business admnistration, Iran (e) Has six publications and presented work in very more than 20 conferences (f) Fluent in English according to applicant but no proof yet (g) Has experience in molecular biology.(h) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Even though the candidate has a good publishing record, the work covered is within biomedical applications, which is out of scope of the advertised PhD position. Applicant 3 (born 1993) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (d) Has 3 publications (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS results (f) Has experience in anaerobic digestion.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Even though the candidate has experience in anaerobic digestion, the domain covered was in modelling of the process, which is out of scope of the advertised PhD position. Applicant 4 (born 2000) (a) Male (b) BSc in Biotechnology, India (c) MSc in Biotechnology, India (d) Has one publication and attended 5 conferences (e) Fluent in English according to cover letter (f) Has experience in molecular biology.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 5 (unknown birth date) (a) Gender not indicated (b) BSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (d) Has 6 publications (e) Fluent in English according to CV- IELTS results pending (f) Has experience in membrane fabrication and membrane bioreactors construction.(g) Not an interesting candidate for the PhD position. Even though most of the publications were on membranes, other key merits such as work with the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. The candidate does not hold a passport. It is therefore a risk to offer them the position even if the other qualifications were met. Applicant 6 (born 1999) (a) Female (b) BSc in Microbiology, India (c) MSc in Microbiology, India (d) 3 publications (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS (f) Experience in molecular biology.(g) Not an interesting candidate for the PhD position. She seems like a strong candidate for a molecular biology project, which is not the case for the advertised position. Key merits such as work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 7 (born 1992) (a) Male (b) BSc in Textile engineering, Bangladesh (c) MSc in Textile engineering, China (d) Has 30 publications (e) Fluent in English according to CV (f) Has experience in membrane fabrication.(g) Not an interesting candidate for the PhD position. The candidate has a very strong publications record on membrane fabrication and nanomaterials. The advertised PhD position however requires other key merits such as the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion which are missing. Applicant 8 (born 1985) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (d) Has 10 publications and 4 conference attendance (e) Fluent in English according to CV (f) Has experience in membrane fabrication.(g) Not an interesting candidate for the PhD position. Most of the work by the candidate is on adsorption processes. Some work with membrane separation is provided, no experience with pilotscale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion can be seen. Applicant 9 (born 1997) (a) Male (b) BSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Biological & Chemical engineering, European Master (France, Estonia & Belgium) (d) Has experience in process simulation and LCA (e) Has 3 publications and several scholarships (f) Fluent in English according to CV.(g) Not an interesting candidate for the PhD position. The work the candidate seems strong process simulation and LCA but that is out of scope of the present PhD position. Applicant 10 (born 1990) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (d) Has experience in separation technologies (e) Has 4 publications and attended several workshops and conferences (f) Fluent in English according to IELTS results.(g) Not an interesting candidate for the PhD position. The major strength of the candidate is on adsorption technology which is out of scope of the present PhD position. Applicant 11 (born 1996) (a) Male (b) BSc in Civil Engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Environmental Engineering, Iran (d) Has experience in anaerobic and aerobic bioreactors (e) Has experience in modelling (f) Fluent in English according to TOEFL results (g) One publication.(h) Not an interesting candidate for the PhD position. Even though he has worked with different types of bioreactors, he lacks sufficient experience in membrane separation processes and/or anaerobic digestion. Applicant 12 (unknown birth date) (a) Male (b) BSc in Biology, India (c) MSc in Biology, India (d) Has experience in molecular biology (e) Fluent in English according to CV (f) Has one publication.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. The major strength of the candidate is on molecular biology which is out of scope of the present PhD position. The candidate does not seem to hold a passport. It is therefore a risk to offer them the position even if the other qualifications were met. Applicant 13 (born 1999) (a) Male (b) BSc in Chemistry, Pakistan (c) MSc in Chemistry, Pakistan (d) Experience as assistant chemist (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS (f) Has one publication.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 14 (born 1990) (a) Male (b) BSc in Chemical & Biological Engineering, Ethiopia (c) Erasmus Mundus Master in Membrane Engineering for Sustainable World, Portugal (d) Has experience working with membrane separation and membrane bioreactors (e) Fluent in English according to university confir-mation (f) Has 2 published articles and 3 ongoing manuscripts.(g) Interesting candidate for the PhD position. Trained and experienced in membrane separation processes including pilot units. He also has a bachelors in biological engineering. The only lacking merit is work with anaerobic digestion. Applicant 15 (born 1993) (a) Male (b) Bachelors in Biotechnology, India (c) Masters in Biotechnology, India (d) Fluent in English from his CV (e) Experience in molecular biology (f) 3 publications.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. The major strength of the candidate is on molecular biology which is out of scope of the present PhD position. Applicant 16 (born 1996) (a) Male (b) BSc in Chemical engineering, Pakistan (c) MSc in Sustainable Environment & Energy Systems, Turkey (d) Fluent in English according to IELTS (e) Has experience in wastewater treatment and simulation of gasification process(f) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work within biotechnology, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 17 (born 1987) (a) Female (b) BSc in Environmental Engineering, Turkey (c) MSc in Environmental Engineering, Turkey (d) Has experience with algal biotechnology (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS results (f) Has 5 publications.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 18 (born 1995) (a) Male (b) BSc in Environmental engineering, Turkey (c) MSc in Environmental engineering, Turkey (d) Has experience in Anammox process and environmental engineering (e) Fluent in English according to CV.(f) Could be an interesting candidate for the PhD position. Experienced in membrane separation processes including pilot units. He also has also worked with biotechnological processes. The only lacking merit is work with anaerobic digestion. Applicant 19 (born 1995) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Chemical process engineering, Iran (d) Has experience in wastewater treatment (e) Fluent in English.(f) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work within biotechnology, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 20 (born 1991) (a) Female (b) BSc in Applied chemistry, Iran (c) MSc in Applied chemistry, Iran (d) Has experience as an analyst in the food and pharmaceutical industries (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS results (f) Has 3 publications.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work within biotechnology, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 21 (born 1992) (a) Female (b) BSc in Environmental engineering, Turkey (c) MSc in Environmental engineering, Turkey (d) Ongoing PhD at HB (e) Has experience in membrane processes. (f) Fluent in English according to IELTS results (g) 6 publications.(h) Not an interesting candidate. Even though she has worked with anaerobic digestion processes and has experience in membrane separation processes, she has not worked with pilot units. She is also on the final phase of her PhD studies. Applicant 22 (born 1986) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (d) Ongoing PhD at HB (e) Has experience in membrane separation, pilot processes and anaerobic digestion (f) Fluent in English according to TOEFL results.(g) Very interesting candidate for the PhD position. Experienced in membrane separation processes and pilot scale experiments. She has also worked with anaerobic digestion. She is known to have good collaboration and initiative-taking qualities, as well as the ability to work independently and in a very structured manner. She is at the early stages of her current PhD studies. Applicant 23 (born 1982) (a) Female (b) BSc not provided (c) MSc in Microbial Biology and industrial biotechnology, Iran (d) Has experience in anaerobic and aerobic bioreactors (e) Has experience in molecular biology (f) No official record of English proficiency (g) Has two publications.(h) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. The major strength of the candidate is on molecular biology which is out of scope of the present PhD position. Applicant 24 (born 1997) (a) Male (b) Bachelors in Microbiology, Pakistan (c) Masters in Microbiology, Pakistan (d) Has experience in molecular biology (e) Fluent in English according to CV (f) Has 4 publications and attended several conferences.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. The major strength of the candidate is on molecular biology which is out of scope of the present PhD position. Applicant 25 (born 1990) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (d) Has experience in fabrication of membranes (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS results (f) Has 3 publications.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Even though she has worked with membrane separation processes, she has no experience with pilot units nor anaerobic digestion. Applicant 26 (born 1993) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical Engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Chemical Engineering, Iran (d) Has experience in wastewater treatment (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS results (f) Has two publications.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 27 (born 1988) (a) Female (b) BSc in Environmental Engineering, Albania (c) MSc in Environmental Engineering, Albania (d) MSc in Resource Recovery – Biotechnology & Bioeconomy, Sweden (e) Has experience with bioreactors and experimental scale up but no experience with membranes (f) Has 2 manuscripts for publication from her MSc work.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Even though she is known to be very skilled, diligent, and organised, key merits such as work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilotscale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. In addition, she got a job and decided to drop her application. Applicant 28 (born 1996) (a) Female (b) BSc in Microbiology, Nigeria (c) Masters in Public health, Nigeria (d) Has experience with microbiology (e) Fluent in English according to CV (f) Has attended 7 conferences.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 29 (born 1991) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical engineering – applied biotechnology, Sweden (c) MSc in Resource Recovery – Biotechnology & Bioeconomy, Sweden (d) Has experience in gas fermentation (e) Fluent in English according to high school certificate.(f) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 30 (born 1976) (a) Male (b) BSc in Chemical & polymer engineering, Nigeria (c) MSc in Chemical & polymer engineering, Nigeria (d) Ongoing PhD in Nigeria (e) Has 2 publications (f) Experience in investigation of contaminated soil (g) Fluent in English according to TOEFL results.(h) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 31 (born 1996) (a) Male (b) BSc in Chemical engineering, Iran (c) MSc Environmental engineering, Iran (d) 5 publications and two conference attendance (e) Experience in wastewater treatment (f) Fluent in English according to IELTS.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion are missing. Applicant 32 (born 1992) (a) Female (b) BSc in Textile technology, Sweden (c) MSc in Resource Recovery – Polymer technology, Sweden (d) Experience in qualitative and quantitative research methods (e) Fluent in English according to high school certificate.(f) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. All the key merits, i.e. work in biotechnology, work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion, are missing. Applicant 33 (born 1998) (a) Female (b) BSc in Industrial economy – work organisation and leadership, Sweden (c) MSc in Resource Recovery – Biotechnology & Bioeconomy, Sweden (d) Has no experience in biotechnology-related work (e) Fluent in English according to high school certificate.(f) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. All the key merits, i.e. work in biotechnology, work with membrane separation processes, the application of pilot-scale bioreactors, and/or anaerobic digestion, are missing. Even though she has a masters in Biotechnology, her project work was not biotechnology-related therefore she lacks hands-on skills to work in the PhD project. Applicant 34 (born 1995) (a) Male (b) BSc in Microbiology, Iran (c) MSc in Microbial biotechnology, Iran (d) Has 2 publications (e) Experience in molecular biology (f) Fluent in English according to IELTS results.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. The major strength of the candidate is on molecular biology which is out of scope of the present PhD position. Applicant 35 (born 1997) (a) Male (b) Bachelors in Biotechnology, India (c) MSc in Biotechnology, Sweden (d) Experience in mole-cular biology (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS.(f) Not interesting for the PhD position. The major strength in molecular biology which is out of scope of the PhD position. Applicant 36 (born 1993) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical engineering – Chemical industry, Iran (c) Masters in Chemical engineering – Industrial biotechnology, Iran (d) Has 2 publications (e) Experience in anaerobic digestion (f) No proof of English proficiency yet (IELTS certificate to be collected in September).(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Even though she has worked with anaerobic digestion processes, she lacks experience in membrane separation processes. She also has not worked with pilot units.

Applicant 1 (born 1998) (a) Male (b) BSc in Biology, Skövde, Sweden (c) MSc in Biology, Skövde, Sweden (d) Provided his links to dissertations as publications (e) Fluent in English according to CV (f) Has experience in molecular biology.(g) Could be interesting candidate for the PhD position. Although some key merits such as work with syngas fermentation and bioreactor optimisation are missing, he seems like someone with good collaboration and initiative-taking qualities, an ability to work independently and in a structured way, as well as the ability to prioritise among work tasks according to his application documents. An interview was scheduled to get to know his strengths and if he fits to the requirements of the PhD position. Applicant 2 (born 1996) (a) Male (b) BSc in Civil Engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Environmental Engineering, Iran (d) Has experience in anaerobic and aerobic bioreactors (e) Has experience in modelling (f) Fluent in English according to TOEFL results (g) Has one publication.(h) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits such as work with syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation are missing. Applicant 3 (born 1999) (a) Male (b) BSc in Chemistry, Pakistan (c) MSc in Chemistry, Pakistan (d) Has experience as assistant chemist (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS results (f) One publication.(g) Not interesting for the PhD position. Key merits such as work with syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation are missing. Applicant 4 (born 1994) (a) Male (b) BSc in Biological Sciences, Brazil (c) MSc in Biotechnologies for food sciences, Italy (d) Has experience in cell culture experiments and development of bioreactors (e) Fluent in English according to CV.(f) Could be an interesting candidate for the PhD position due to the experience in biotechnology and development of bioreactors. He only lacks experience with gas fermentation. However, he applied for Membrane bioreactor call and not this project, and it was confirmed by communication with him. He was requested to send an updated cover letter in order to be considered for the interview. Upon receiving the updated cover letter, the interview was arranged. Applicant 5 (born 1993) (a) Male (b) Bachelors in Biotechnology, India (c) Masters in Biotechnology, India (d) Fluent in English according to CV (e) Has experience in molecular biology (f) Has 3 publications.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. The major strength of the candidate is on molecular biology which is out of scope of the present PhD position. Applicant 6 (born 1995) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical Engineering, Iran (c) MSc in BioChemical Engineering, Iran (d) Experience in chromate-graphy (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS results (f) Two publications (1 manuscript 1 submitted).(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. All the key merits in biotechnology, work and with syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation, are missing. Applicant 7 (born 1987) (a) Female (b) BSc in Environmental Engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Environmental Engineering, Iran (d) Has experience with algal biotechnology (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS results (f) Has 5 publications.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits in work with syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation are missing. Applicant 8 (born 1995) (a) Male (b) BSc in Environmental engineering, Turkey (c) MSc in Environmental engineering, Turkey (d) Has experience in Anammox and environmental engineering (e) Fluent in English according to CV.(f) Could be an interesting candidate for the PhD position. Although he has not worked with syngas fermentation, he has worked with biotechno-logical processes, including various types of bioreactors. An interview was scheduled to get to know his strengths and if he fits to the requirements of the PhD position. Applicant 9 (born 1982) (a) Female (b) BSc not provided (c) MSc in Microbial Biology and industrial biotechnology, Iran (d) Has experience in anaerobic and aerobic bioreactors (e) Has experience in molecular biology (f) No record of English proficiency (g) Has two publications.(h) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. The major strength of the candidate is on molecular biology which is out of scope of the present PhD position. Applicant 10 (born 1985) (a) Male (b) BSc in Agricultural Engineering (Soil & Water Engineering Technology), Nigeria (c) MSc in Civil Engineering (Water Resources & Environmental), Nigeria (d) Has more than 15 publications (e) Fluent in English according to TOEFL results (f) Has experience in teaching and collaborated in experiments with anaerobic digestion.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits of work with syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation are missing. Applicant 11 (born 1990) (a) Male (b) BSc in Chemical Engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Chemical Engineering, Separation Process, Iran (d) Has experience in water and wastewater treatment (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS results (f) 5 publications.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits in with syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation are missing. Applicant 12 (born 1994) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical Engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Chemical Engineering, Iran (d) Has experience in CO2 sorbents using surface modification (e) Has one publication (f) Fluent in English according to CV.(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits, i.e. work in biotech-nology, work with syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation, are missing. Applicant 13. Not found. Applicant 14 (born 1996) (a) Female (b) Bachelors in Botany and Environmental Sciences, Pakistan (c) M.Phil in Microbiology, Pakistan (d) Proof of fluency in English not provided (e) Has experience in molecular biology.(f) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. The major strength of the candidate on molecular biology is outside the scope of the PhD position. Applicant 15 (born 1993) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical Engineering, Iran (c) MSc in Chemical Engineering, Iran (d) Has experience in wastewater treatment (e) Fluent in English according to IELTS results (f) Has two publications (one journal article and one conference paper).(g) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Key merits, i.e. work in biotech-nology, work with syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation, are missing. Applicant 16 (born 1988) (a) Female (b) BSc in Environmental Engineering, Albania (c) MSc in Environ-mental Engineering, Albania (d) MSc in Resource Recovery – Biotechnology & Bioeconomy, Sweden (e) Has experience with bioreactors and experimental scale up (f) Has 2 manuscripts for publication from her MSc.(g) Very interesting candidate for the PhD position as she is known to be very skilled in biotechnology, diligent, fluent in English and organised. She also has experience with experimental scale up in line with bioreactor optimisation skills. She however indicated that she accepted another job offer and is no longer available for this position. Applicant 17 (born 1991) (a) Female (b) BSc in Chemical engineering – applied biotechnology, Sweden (c) MSc in Resource Recovery – Biotechnology & Bioeconomy, Sweden (d) Has experience in gas fermentation (e) Fluent in English according to high school certificate.(f) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. Even though she has experience in gas fermentation, she has not worked with bioreactor optimisation nor scale up. Furthermore, senior researchers who have followed her progress during her MSc studies doubt if she can manage the demands of a PhD project. Her ability to take initiative, work independently and in a structured way cannot be guaranteed. Applicant 18 (born 1998) (a) Female (b) BSc in Industrial economy – work organisation and leadership, Sweden (c) MSc in Resource Recovery – Biotechnology & Bioeconomy, Sweden (d) Has no experience in biotechnology-related work (e) Fluent in English according to high school certificate.(f) Not interesting candidate for the PhD position. All the key merits, i.e. work in biotechnology, work with syngas fermentation, and bioreactor optimisation, are missing. Even though she has MSc in Biotechnology & Bioeconomy, her thesis work did not include any hands-on training in biotechnology.