Search Committee Process

[pgher]

I've been watching this thread with some interest. Hiring is such a difficult task. I think it's important to remember that a job is not a reward for previous good work but an opportunity to do future good work.

How can you evaluate that without considering past work and track record?

Sorry, I meant to write more but I was about to time out. Anyway, yes, of course you look at past work and track record, but you consider the totality of the circumstances, the environment they were in, the environment they are coming to, etc. Look at trajectory more than raw numbers. Which is better: 10 journal articles in 5 years, or 6 journal articles in 2 years? I don't know. Or, 10 articles in crappy journals vs. 6 articles in premier journals? Or, equal number of publications in the same time period, where one was a postdoc and the other an NTT lecturer? So much to consider.

Senior-level hires are even harder. I'm chair of a search committee right now that has two candidates who are both strong but quite different. There is no objective measure that would put one ahead of the other because they have had such different careers--one more administrative, one more traditionally academic. The position is something in-between, so we have to gauge which one will be able to translate their skills better.

[research_prof]

I've been watching this thread with some interest. Hiring is such a difficult task. I think it's important to remember that a job is not a reward for previous good work but an opportunity to do future good work.

How can you evaluate that without considering past work and track record?

Sorry, I meant to write more but I was about to time out. Anyway, yes, of course you look at past work and track record, but you consider the totality of the circumstances, the environment they were in, the environment they are coming to, etc. Look at trajectory more than raw numbers. Which is better: 10 journal articles in 5 years, or 6 journal articles in 2 years? I don't know. Or, 10 articles in crappy journals vs. 6 articles in premier journals? Or, equal number of publications in the same time period, where one was a postdoc and the other an NTT lecturer? So much to consider.

Senior-level hires are even harder. I'm chair of a search committee right now that has two candidates who are both strong but quite different. There is no objective measure that would put one ahead of the other because they have had such different careers--one more administrative, one more traditionally academic. The position is something in-between, so we have to gauge which one will be able to translate their skills better.

I guess it is different from one department to the other, but in my department, all current faculty vote for the finalists. I have seen my department in several occasions voting for a weak finalist because the finalist was a nice guy or lady (so they voted based on personality rather than academic accomplishments).

[Ruralguy]

My dept. tends to focus on relevant accomplishments and will usually only mention relatability in terms of a lesson they gave or an answer to an interview question.

However, in the end, the differences between two very good candidates can be arbitrary or even fairly random.

[fizzycist]

Now if a school just comes out and says "we need more African-American faculty because that will help us retain African American students" then I'd have respect for that goal, especially if there is information suggesting that the goal (hiring) is likely to lead to the desired outcomes for students (i.e., staying and graduating). But stating a specific goal is different than just using general diversity buzzwords.

One of the few comments on this thread I agreed with.

Couching these discussions in terms of Leveling The Playing Field and making compensations for the Objective Meritocratic Process of selecting faculty is why these arguments go on forever.

Fact of the matter is that search committees are selecting their colleagues. There is no requirement that the process be a Fair Evaluation of Objective Merit, because let's face it that is obviously impossible. And more importantly it is not desirable. If I am in a dept with all stuffy white dudes and it makes me feel crappy about what I do and who I surround myself with then IMO it is totally fine to say I am just going to err on the side of hiring from the demographics I feel we are missing. And if there are more tangible benefits like student retention all the better. No need to make convoluted, condescending arguments about how those folks would be better if only they hadn't suffered XYZ trauma and then try to tease those bits of personal info out of the candidates to justify. Marshwiggle probably arguing in bad faith on this thread, but I think he was right on that point.

Also, am I the only one who DGAF if the candidate has half the pubs from her postdoc? Haven't we all seen tremendous variation in outcomes amongst new faculty with similar backgrounds? If the record is decent, the papers are strong and ij a findable area, and I get the feeling from the interview that the candidate has good ideas and a clear mindset on realizing goals they prob have as good a chance as any to get lucky and have things turn their way early on.

[spork]

Much of this is discussed in Noise by Kahneman, Sibony, and Sunstein.

[ciao_yall]

Now if a school just comes out and says "we need more African-American faculty because that will help us retain African American students" then I'd have respect for that goal, especially if there is information suggesting that the goal (hiring) is likely to lead to the desired outcomes for students (i.e., staying and graduating). But stating a specific goal is different than just using general diversity buzzwords.

snip

Also, am I the only one who DGAF if the candidate has half the pubs from her postdoc? Haven't we all seen tremendous variation in outcomes amongst new faculty with similar backgrounds? If the record is decent, the papers are strong and ij a findable area, and I get the feeling from the interview that the candidate has good ideas and a clear mindset on realizing goals they prob have as good a chance as any to get lucky and have things turn their way early on.

When I was doing my EdD (okay, go ahead and snicker and no, I don't make people call me 'Doctor') I found the process of getting my dissertation done fraught with the biases of the stuffy white dude running the program. I actually had to change programs to finish because he was hell-bent-for-leather on seeing himself as the White Savior of oppressed people of color. (Even referred to a Black person in class as "you people.") He didn't like that my topic was actually about pushing back on some of his attitudes and recommended policies about college students of color.

So... while candidates should meet a particular floor of accomplishment, a stack of publications might not mean more than a few well-placed ones.

[Ruralguy]

Yes, there really is no "the best" candidate most of the time. It can be a mixture of publications, grants/awards, teaching ability, soft skills and then we are already into a gray area. I think this gray area is where we can consider issues such as diversity, generalist vs. specific discipline, and just that vague sense that so-and-so is going to be a better colleague. Perhaps that does mean lifting it out of the gray area a bit though. As we can see from above, if we leave "diversity" as undefined and buzz-wordy, or if we don't bring it up as a goal in the search before reading applications, then we are getting to the same old battles that we see within and  external to academia.

I think I am going to check out Noise.

[Vid]

ciao_yall= I agree with you, publication is important for search committee/faculty assessment. I personally prefer high q publications rather than crap! Frankly you can write and publish on average 1-3 high q papers each year even if you are a superstar.

Ruralguy= I think many institutions recognize the importance of diversity and inclusion work being done on their campuses, but that doesn't always mean the work is happening for the right reasons or leading to the right results. For example, in my institution, we have a written diversity and inclusion at each college level (recently updated) that talks about what diversity work is and isn't. But what is missing here is the rise of diversity work as a profession, and how the work should lead to more courageous spaces on college campuses. Diversity and inclusion is more interpersonal in my opinion and a lot of reflective experiences!

[Ruralguy]

Vid-

Your last two statements are unclear to me. Can you clarify what you mean by "courageous spaces" and "reflective experiences?"

[Vid]

Ruralguy; by "courageous spaces" I meant colleges as courageous spaces where everyone feels welcome/people have to feel a sense of belonging (intersex, disability, homosexuality, religious or spiritual beliefs, etc.)-I know of a male colleague in a great R1 univ who is a gay but had to hide it until he got tenured! 

"reflective experiences?" I meant "self care for diversity" bc a lot of this is related to the psyche!

[fizzycist]

Much of this is discussed in Noise by Kahneman, Sibony, and Sunstein.

And what is the conclusion?

I read a review on the book and found the premise unhelpful as it was portrayed there (if we can define objectively what we want in a candidate then sure you can use a rubric and rigorously defined process to reduce noise; but the problem is it is impossible to define the goal objectively and ppl don't agree, as we see on these fora). But presumably one gets more insight from actually reading the book.

[fizzycist]

Ruralguy; by "courageous spaces" I meant colleges as courageous spaces where everyone feels welcome/people have to feel a sense of belonging (intersex, disability, homosexuality, religious or spiritual beliefs, etc.)-I know of a male colleague in a great R1 univ who is a gay but had to hide it until he got tenured! 

"reflective experiences?" I meant "self care for diversity" bc a lot of this is related to the psyche!

ok, I'll bite--what does "self care for diversity" mean?

[dismalist]

Much of this is discussed in Noise by Kahneman, Sibony, and Sunstein.

And what is the conclusion?

I read a review on the book and found the premise unhelpful as it was portrayed there (if we can define objectively what we want in a candidate then sure you can use a rubric and rigorously defined process to reduce noise; but the problem is it is impossible to define the goal objectively and ppl don't agree, as we see on these fora). But presumably one gets more insight from actually reading the book.

The Guardian review https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/03/noise-by-daniel-kahneman-olivier-sibony-and-cass-sunstein-review-the-price-of-poor-judgment is quite helpful for the problem at hand. One doesn't need a goal. Just arrive at committee members decisions independently and then vote by some rule.

[Vid]

It also has a lot to do with empathy--a key ingredient in effective diversity & inclusion!

[marshwiggle]

Ruralguy; by "courageous spaces" I meant colleges as courageous spaces where everyone feels welcome/people have to feel a sense of belonging (intersex, disability, homosexuality, religious or spiritual beliefs, etc.)

This is an inherently contradictory goal, at least in the way it is presented now. If you want to have a restaurant that lets both carnivores and vegetarians "belong", then that only works if the vegetarians don't express that eating meat is morally wrong. On the other hand, if people don't need to express their moral views out loud, then as long as the restaurant serves both vegetarian dishes and non-vegetarian dishes, both groups can be "welcome". Similarly, if the goal is to have a place where all religious groups can be "welcome", it can't be for any sort of religious service. If they're getting together for a math study group, or even a *potluck, it may be fine, but anything involving questions of faith or morality is potentially problematic.

The point is that if everyone doesn't need to wear all of their politics, religion, etc. on their sleeves, then peaceful coexistence is possible. But the more people need to express and even more so advocate for their preferences, the less possible it is to make everyone feel "welcome".


*A potluck, of course, runs the risk of conflicts over dietary restrictions.