Search Committee Process

[research_prof]

Since we are discussing blinding application material. First of all, I fully support such a move to avoid bias. However, how can applicants talk about publications and grants through blinded application material? In my previous post, I had mentioned I fully support such a move, however, its implementation might be infeasible and its implications unclear.

[mleok]

mleok; I would rather choose better words to describe my colleagues!  I am not a full prof yet but I am a well established faculty and not a "naive"!!!

You were applying for a NSF CAREER Award, so by definition, you are not tenured, or was only recently tenured at best. You might be a reasonably established researcher, even that is unclear from your posting history, but you are naive when it comes to the issue of improving diversity in the faculty, and how to deal with your colleagues who might not share your views.

I will be blunt, the language barrier probably causes more offense than you are aware, and even when you're "strategic," you come across poorly,

I was strategic and I told them "Iam an NSF-funded researcher and diversity and inclusion is important to me"

If it isn't clear to you, most of the thread has been us trying to give you advice on how to improve the outcomes in the future if you truly desire a more diverse faculty at your institution. I'm not sure if you've truly processed any of this, and if not, you'll have a very hard time navigating the "herding cats" challenge of convincing your faculty colleagues to effect change.

Simply put, you don't have to power to change things on your own, and you will need to convince your colleagues as opposed to turning them off and putting them on the defensive by your "scolding" approach.

[mleok]

Since we are discussing blinding application material. First of all, I fully support such a move to avoid bias. However, how can applicants talk about publications and grants through blinded application material? In my previous post, I had mentioned I fully support such a move, however, its implementation might be infeasible and its implications unclear.

I wonder if there is a market for developing machine learning based natural language processing to "blind" application materials, but the legal implications of doing that is unclear.

[dismalist]

Since we are discussing blinding application material. First of all, I fully support such a move to avoid bias. However, how can applicants talk about publications and grants through blinded application material? In my previous post, I had mentioned I fully support such a move, however, its implementation might be infeasible and its implications unclear.

I wonder if there is a market for developing machine learning based natural language processing to "blind" application materials, but the legal implications of doing that is unclear.

Reducing certain information about candidates so as to decrease bias is really a mechanism to increase efficiency, and if workable, would not increase diversity.

That circle cannot be squared.

[the_geneticist]

Well, it's too late for this particular hire, but your department might want to consider that enhancing and supporting diversity doesn't mean just hiring someone that you can put in a box labeled "diverse".  Does the person's research address and support diversity (e.g. treatment of health issues associated with low-income housing?)?  Does the person mentor and train students from diverse backgrounds?  Actively recruit undergraduate students for summer research programs, especially for 1st to college/transfer/BIPOC students?  How about service to the community like leading an academic support group for student veterans?
More importantly, does your department VALUE and ENCOURAGE that type of effort?  Or is it more of a "we can't be sexist, Dr. what's-her-name is a woman".  It's one thing to hire a diverse candidate, it's another to make them feel welcomed, supported and not like a token.

[Ruralguy]

Dismalist-

Could you clarify that last comment? You might be right, but I was wondering why you think so.

I'm also concerned about implementation. Has anyone actually doe this (blind apps )? It seems to me you'd have to block out the name and school everywhere they appear.  Just blocking out a name at top of Cv or as name of file with materials probably isn't enough. But it seems like too much to blot out anything referring to the person at all.

[doc700]

Unfortunately I don't think you could hide the gender of the applicant given the gendered language in recommendation letters.  Beyond the "she, his" etc language there is huge bias in how recommendation letters are written.  I've served on search committees and seen this for a high percentage of female applicants at all career stages.  I think the committee would be better off knowing the gender of the applicant and putting the rec letter language in context than ignoring this.  If you read one package about how brilliant the applicant is and other about how hard working/kind the person, wouldn't you select the brilliant scholar (all other aspects of the applications being constant)?  I would rather be in a position to put the rec letter language in context than try to be blind to this.

[Vid]

mleok; I appreciate your advice. but I would be careful incorporating an individual advice who thinks "hiring women is really just the start of the challenge" .

Yes, I understand you being "blunt" in your comments and as the OP, I think I have got enough of it and now you are welcome to leave this thread/discussion (I won't  respond to your comments anymore!)!

Be safe.

mleok; I would rather choose better words to describe my colleagues!  I am not a full prof yet but I am a well established faculty and not a "naive"!!!

You were applying for a NSF CAREER Award, so by definition, you are not tenured, or was only recently tenured at best. You might be a reasonably established researcher, even that is unclear from your posting history, but you are naive when it comes to the issue of improving diversity in the faculty, and how to deal with your colleagues who might not share your views.

I will be blunt, the language barrier probably causes more offense than you are aware, and even when you're "strategic," you come across poorly,

I was strategic and I told them "Iam an NSF-funded researcher and diversity and inclusion is important to me"

If it isn't clear to you, most of the thread has been us trying to give you advice on how to improve the outcomes in the future if you truly desire a more diverse faculty at your institution. I'm not sure if you've truly processed any of this, and if not, you'll have a very hard time navigating the "herding cats" challenge of convincing your faculty colleagues to effect change.

Simply put, you don't have to power to change things on your own, and you will need to convince your colleagues as opposed to turning them off and putting them on the defensive by your "scolding" approach.

[dismalist]

Dismalist-

Could you clarify that last comment? You might be right, but I was wondering why you think so.

I'm also concerned about implementation. Has anyone actually doe this (blind apps )? It seems to me you'd have to block out the name and school everywhere they appear.  Just blocking out a name at top of Cv or as name of file with materials probably isn't enough. But it seems like too much to blot out anything referring to the person at all.

Sure. Bias against anybody could be a result of animus. That's pretty much gone, certainly in our circles. Blind vetting would change nothing in that case. Or, bias could be the result of statistical discrimination. Blind vetting would see to it that individuals were treated as individuals, as is efficient. But then, blind vetting would not change the composition of faculty for there are very few suitable candidates in some fields on account of lack of past investment in human capital.

[Thus, calls for diversity are calls for higher income for certain groups. Nothing more. Hell, make a quota system, with tradable quota rights. :-(]

[Vid]

Rurlguy= Many institutions use Interfolio and it is relatively easy to rank, comments and evaluate in Interfolio.  I donot think HR can blind applications in Interfolio, though. 

Thanks for shifting the focus, Spork.

Rather than making this about whether any particular "weight" can be tantamount to putting the thumb on the scale, lets discuss general practices that would effectively take the thumb *off* the scale more often than not.

On a practical note, we now use Interfolio for all applications (I think we allow mail ins if they contact HR or SC first, but haven't gotten any in several years).
Can we automatically "blind" applications within Interfolio, or does "someone" (HR?) have to blind everything?

[Vid]

the_geneticist= Thank you. Yes, my department chair is very supportive of Diversity and Inclusion! Unfortunately, some senior faculty in our department (and some of them were in the search committee) are still not there!

So what type of diversity question(s) you 'd suggest to be included in the rubric?

Thanks,

Well, it's too late for this particular hire, but your department might want to consider that enhancing and supporting diversity doesn't mean just hiring someone that you can put in a box labeled "diverse".  Does the person's research address and support diversity (e.g. treatment of health issues associated with low-income housing?)?  Does the person mentor and train students from diverse backgrounds?  Actively recruit undergraduate students for summer research programs, especially for 1st to college/transfer/BIPOC students?  How about service to the community like leading an academic support group for student veterans?
More importantly, does your department VALUE and ENCOURAGE that type of effort?  Or is it more of a "we can't be sexist, Dr. what's-her-name is a woman".  It's one thing to hire a diverse candidate, it's another to make them feel welcomed, supported and not like a token.

[mleok]

mleok; I appreciate your advice. but I would be careful incorporating an individual advice who thinks "hiring women is really just the start of the challenge" .

You are a fool who thinks that you know better than people who have been grappling with this issue for a very long time. Just hiring more women is not going to fully address the barriers, again for no other reason than they still need to get through the tenure process, and the many barriers to advancement within academia. Just read the NSF document you cited. You have a lot to learn, but clearly are too dense to do so.

[mleok]

So what type of diversity question(s) you 'd suggest to be included in the rubric?

Take the time to learn about what other institutions do with regards to things like diversity statements, and how to incorporate these into the evaluation process. And learn to make allies, instead of dismissing them the way that you have on this thread and in real life.

[mleok]

Reducing certain information about candidates so as to decrease bias is really a mechanism to increase efficiency, and if workable, would not increase diversity.

That circle cannot be squared.

It would reduce implicit bias, but I suspect that that's not the only impediment to diversity in the academic workforce.

[mleok]

Unfortunately I don't think you could hide the gender of the applicant given the gendered language in recommendation letters.  Beyond the "she, his" etc language there is huge bias in how recommendation letters are written.  I've served on search committees and seen this for a high percentage of female applicants at all career stages.  I think the committee would be better off knowing the gender of the applicant and putting the rec letter language in context than ignoring this.  If you read one package about how brilliant the applicant is and other about how hard working/kind the person, wouldn't you select the brilliant scholar (all other aspects of the applications being constant)?  I would rather be in a position to put the rec letter language in context than try to be blind to this.

For what it's worth, I ran the gender bias calculator,

https://www.tomforth.co.uk/genderbias/

on two letters of recommendation that I wrote and the amount of gendered language I used did not correlate with the gender of the person I was writing the letter for, because the female candidate was a postdoc I worked closely on in terms of research, and the male candidate was a postdoc with whom my main interaction related to his teaching responsibilities, and the calculator was essentially picking up on whether I was focusing on research or teaching in the letter.