Search Committee Process

[research_prof]

The solution here is to have an evaluation rubric that will be agreed upon before any applications are received. If the "diversity" of the candidates is one of the points for the evaluation, then "diverse" candidates should get points for that. However, if all the evaluation factors have to do with scholarly metrics, then the "most qualified" applicants should be interviewed.

Inclusion is all about *not* excluding people simply because of the color of their skin, religion, gender, etc. However, this does not seem to be the case here. The committee seems indeed to be pursuing the "most qualified" applicants based on their evaluation criteria, but the OP is insisting that they exclude certain applicants, because they are not perceived as "diverse" enough by them. This is based on the OP's biased opinion (and overgeneralization) that "this applicant is a female, so she must be a housewife at the same time." and "this applicant is a male, so he must have a wife that takes care of everything for him, so that he has all the time he wants to work". If that's the case, in my opinion, this is equally sad and troubling as discriminating against applicants due to their race, religion, gender, etc.

[Hegemony]

It could also easily be argued that unconscious (or at least unspoken) factors lead some of the committee members, like this guy in question, to declare that the candidates who fall into certain categories are less qualified, even though on paper it is subjective at best. There have been numerous studies that have shown this happens frequently, e.g. the writing that was given high marks when it had a male name attached but lower marks when it had a female name attached; or how symphonies suddenly chose many more women musicians when the candidates auditioned behind a screen where their gender couldn't be seen. So instead of just summarily adding in some women or minority candidates in a random attempt at inclusion, the real question to be asking would be, "Are these highly qualified candidates that you have excluded from the short list really excluded because of quality, or could some unconscious bias have crept in?" Of course no one ever wants to admit to bias, unconscious or not, so the question has to be phrased in a sensitive way. Because despite the fact that no one ever admits to it, the studies have shown that selection processes frequently suffer from it, and someone has to be doing it.

[research_prof]

Hegemony, I fully agree with you and no one can deny scientific evidence. I support having search committees access candidate material that does not contain identifiable information about the candidates to avoid bias. This also has issues as a process. However, based on what the OP has mentioned, the argument and situation here were probably different.

[mleok]

It could also easily be argued that unconscious (or at least unspoken) factors lead some of the committee members, like this guy in question, to declare that the candidates who fall into certain categories are less qualified, even though on paper it is subjective at best. There have been numerous studies that have shown this happens frequently, e.g. the writing that was given high marks when it had a male name attached but lower marks when it had a female name attached; or how symphonies suddenly chose many more women musicians when the candidates auditioned behind a screen where their gender couldn't be seen. So instead of just summarily adding in some women or minority candidates in a random attempt at inclusion, the real question to be asking would be, "Are these highly qualified candidates that you have excluded from the short list really excluded because of quality, or could some unconscious bias have crept in?" Of course no one ever wants to admit to bias, unconscious or not, so the question has to be phrased in a sensitive way. Because despite the fact that no one ever admits to it, the studies have shown that selection processes frequently suffer from it, and someone has to be doing it.

The issue also extends to letters of recommendation, and how writers describe candidates with similar levels of accomplishments. But, as research_professor mentions, that quite different from what Vid is describing where s/he thinks that a female candidate should be considered equally competitive with half the publications and grants, assuming the publications and grants are of equal quality, prestige, or competitiveness. That would not be a winning argument at a R1 STEM department, at least if one is more concerned about actually hiring that candidate into anything but a targeted diversity position, as opposed to simply offering them a courtesy interview.

[doc700]

In my department we usually run pretty broad searches, encompassing about half our department at a time.  Within that broad area we list some sub-subfields of particular interest.  When reviewing the applications we are most interested in candidates with research program within one of those sub-subfields.  That said, we will be on the lookout for superstar female/minority candidates whose research fits into the broader search criteria but may not be aligned with designated sub-subfields. About half of our recent searches have gone to one of these candidates and the department has gotten quite excited about the research programs.

The downside of broad searches is that its not clarified which subfield gets the hire ahead of time and its a bit messy down the line.  But in our department we are careful to include (not just for courtesy interviews but actually make offers to!) more diverse candidates by slightly expanding the area of research interest, not lowering the bar for candidate quality. 

[mleok]

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

You're at a R1, is the fact that you're a NSF-funded researcher somehow notable in your department? Isn't everyone funded by a competitive federal agency in some way, shape, or form? That just seems like a strange way to preface your point about diversity and inclusion being important to you, and there's the implicit scold that it's not important to other people on the committee.

[mleok]

But in our department we are careful to include (not just for courtesy interviews but actually make offers to!) more diverse candidates by slightly expanding the area of research interest, not lowering the bar for candidate quality.

For me, I am much more supportive of hiring targets of opportunity in this manner, as opposed to lowering the bar for candidate quality.

[Hibush]

I should say that if you are truly concerned about diversity and inclusion, then the best way to achieve this is to ensure that one performs outreach prior to the application deadline, so that one has a highly qualified and diverse pool of applicants. Having said that, it seems a bit unusual that you have a phone interview list of 10 candidates, all of whom are male, and a better method of addressing this would be to reopen the job ad and perform some of the outreach I mentioned, so that you have a stronger pool of diverse candidates. If your institution is serious about diversity and inclusion, your department may be forced to do that.

This is so important. If you want to improve diversity of the faculty, you have to increase the diversity of the highly qualified candidates. Some may even bring diversity attributes that have objective value to the departments mission. You can't interview them if they don't apply.

Failing to do that outreach, and then elevating the less qualified ones that did apply causes harm in many ways. That is not strong DEI.

[Ruralguy]

Getting back to the original general question, I think it helps to come to some general agreements first, such as whether you want to hire in a specialty only or how you'll address diversity, etc. The more you just delve into reading and discussing applications, the greater the chances are for later misunderstandings.

[mleok]

Getting back to the original general question, I think it helps to come to some general agreements first, such as whether you want to hire in a specialty only or how you'll address diversity, etc. The more you just delve into reading and discussing applications, the greater the chances are for later misunderstandings.

Yes, ideally such general guidelines are discussed prior to considering any specific candidates.

[Vid]

AJ_Katz: we had 10 male applicants, I didnt feel fair about the selection. Anyway, the Chair should answer any HR/dean diversity questions.

we had fair number of female applicants.

Thank you, folks.

[Vid]

Ruralguy= I understand. she mentioned in her application that she was on maternity leave due to complicated pregnancy, etc.

The Chair wasn't overall happy with my diversity comments. anyway, I said congratulations to him today bc the finalist accepted the offer.   

Thank you.

You have no idea who is a primary caregiver or if any of these women even have children. I don't doubt that in general what you say is so, but applying this to differences you see in your female and male candidates is probably not helpful. However, I would tend to agree that if you and maybe one or two others on the committee see these differences in granting and such as relativley minor, you should include some women at least at the interview stage.

[Ruralguy]

Right. I think in a case such as what you mention (a candidate mentions personal obstacles), I think letters from mentors can be illuminating. They can at least speak to potential before and after a particular incident, so long as they know about it (of course in the case of a difficult pregnancy, it can also be followed by many years of difficult child rearing).
Also, you can try to do that sort of analysis yourself. But, if, in the end, people aren't having it, then there isn't much you can do but continue to be assertive about such things into the future. Whatever you do, don't take it out on your new colleague!

[Vid]

research_prof: My apologies, if I was unclear. But by diversity and inclusion I didn't really mean "this applicant is a female, so she must be a housewife at the same time." and "this applicant is a male, so he must have a wife that takes care of everything for him, so that he has all the time he wants to work".

Diversity makes us stronger. If you are a STEM educator, I would highly recommend reading NSF diversity strategic plan: https://www.nsf.gov/od/odi/reports/StrategicPlan.pdf


Diversity is about all of us and about us having to figure out how to walk through this world together.
~ Jacqueline Woodson

Inclusivity means not 'just we're allowed to be there,' but we are valued. I've always said: smart teams will do amazing things, but truly diverse teams will do impossible things.
~ Claudia Brind-Woody

The solution here is to have an evaluation rubric that will be agreed upon before any applications are received. If the "diversity" of the candidates is one of the points for the evaluation, then "diverse" candidates should get points for that. However, if all the evaluation factors have to do with scholarly metrics, then the "most qualified" applicants should be interviewed.

Inclusion is all about *not* excluding people simply because of the color of their skin, religion, gender, etc. However, this does not seem to be the case here. The committee seems indeed to be pursuing the "most qualified" applicants based on their evaluation criteria, but the OP is insisting that they exclude certain applicants, because they are not perceived as "diverse" enough by them. This is based on the OP's biased opinion (and overgeneralization) that "this applicant is a female, so she must be a housewife at the same time." and "this applicant is a male, so he must have a wife that takes care of everything for him, so that he has all the time he wants to work". If that's the case, in my opinion, this is equally sad and troubling as discriminating against applicants due to their race, religion, gender, etc.

[dr_codex]

Ruralguy= I understand. she mentioned in her application that she was on maternity leave due to complicated pregnancy, etc.

This addresses my concern, also raised by others, about assumptions.

Evaluating applications that diverge from the norm is always difficult. In my current search, one applicant discussed his time caring for a special needs child, as an explanation for why he did not have a full-time job for a significant period of time. On the one hand, it explained some of the CV. On the other, it did not get him an interview. But it was worth the attempt.

This is an important thread. Academic hiring is overdetermined, with too many inputs sufficient to produce an outcome. For diversity to matter, it needs to be one of those inputs, and sufficiently weighted to potentially make a difference.