1 / 21

A&S Faculty Recruiting Workshop

A&S Faculty Recruiting Workshop. OU Climate Survey Lori Snyder Implicit Bias and Better Practices Sheena Murphy Experiences of OU Dept. of Philosophy Wayne Riggs and Stephen Ellis. Factors which may impact the impartiality of your search process. Sheena Murphy

chun
Télécharger la présentation

A&S Faculty Recruiting Workshop

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A&S Faculty Recruiting Workshop • OU Climate Survey • Lori Snyder • Implicit Bias and Better Practices • Sheena Murphy • Experiences of OU Dept. of Philosophy • Wayne Riggs and Stephen Ellis

  2. Factors which may impact the impartiality of your search process Sheena Murphy Department of Physics and Astronomy

  3. Experiments on the influences of race and gender on hiring • “Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students”, Corinne A. Moss-Racusina, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman, Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 109 16474 (2012). • “The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study”, Rhea E. Steinpreis, Katie A. Anders, and Dawn Ritzke, Sex Roles41, 509 (1999). • “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination”, Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, American Economic Review, 94 991 (2004).

  4. Experiment on Gender Bias for Academic Scientists: Details of Study • Mythical Applicationfor a lab manager position, submitted by an “undergrad science major” with stated intention to attend grad school • evaluated by 127 U.S. men and women • in biology, chemistry or physics departments • from 3 private, 3 public, large, Research-Intensive universities “Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students”, Corinne A. Moss-Racusina, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman, Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, 109 16474 (2012).

  5. Experiment on Gender Bias for Academic Scientists: Results • 1-7 (low-high) Scale • John was • more competent • more hireable • deserving of more mentoring • than Jennifer

  6. Experiment on Gender Bias for Academic Scientists: Results • Both men and women faculty were more likely to hire the male applicant, “John” • Both men and women faculty offered “John” a higher starting salary

  7. Experiment on Gender, Hiring and Tenure in Academic Psychology: Details of Study • Subjects: • 238 academic psychologists (half female/half male) • Gender and quality of academic institution were known to researchers • Each subject received one of 4 possible packets • Early packet (CV, teaching statement, bibliography) • Identical except for name Karen Miller or Brian Miller • Mature packet (CV, teaching record, more mature bibliography) • Identical except for name Karen Miller or Brian Miller • Tasks for Subjects: • To make a hiring decision recommendation • To make a tenure recommendation “The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study”, Rhea E. Steinpreis, Katie A. Anders, and Dawn Ritzke, Sex Roles41, 509 (1999).

  8. Experiment on Gender, Hiring and Tenure in Academic Psychology: Results for Entry Level Hire Early cv Mature cv Early stage female cvs resulted in more negative hiring recommendations.

  9. Experiment on Gender, Hiring and Tenure in Academic Psychology Does Gender of Reviewer Matter? Gender of reviewer did not matter. Women and men discriminated equally in regards to gender of candidate.

  10. Experiment on Race and Hiring in Marketplace:Details of Study • 1300 help wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. • Four fictitious resumes sent to each ad • Two high quality resumes/Two lower quality resumes • Each resume tagged with either a traditionally African-American name or a traditionally white name • Return calls requesting interviews were logged for each of the four classifications. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination”, Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, American Economic Review, 94 991 (2004).

  11. Experiment on Race and Hiring in Marketplace: Results Resumes with white names received callbacks 50% more often than those with African-American names.

  12. Implicit Bias Summary • It is quite possible for well-meaning, egalitarian minded individuals (both men and women) to discriminate both on gender and race. • While the act is subtle (implicit bias) the net result is not. Are there intervention strategies? Fortunately, some implicit bias can be negated by reminding subjects to be cognizant of impartiality and bias at the onset of the review process, Devine, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82 (2002).

  13. Before you interview Committee Construction Establishing criteria Reaching the Pool Documentation Campus Interview Concerns Better Search Committee Practices

  14. Construction of search committee • Include individuals with different perspectives and expertise and with demonstrated commitment to diversity. Make sure the committee reflects as well as possible the diversity within the unit. • Include a graduate student if possible. • All departments should include an outside member on the committee. If there is no woman or minority within the department, consider including one from outside.

  15. Guiding the Process • Hold mtg before the application deadline to develop and implement a recruiting plan. • Discuss and establish ground rules on meeting schedules, and confidentiality issues. • Discuss the roles and expectations. • Discuss the decision making process • Discuss implicit bias • Reach a common understanding of the selection criteria and procedures for screening candidates, before materials from applicants begin to arrive. • Potential vs. demonstrated accomplishments • What constitutes a strong publication record? • Is “fit” important? What does “fit” mean? • Relative weight of necessary qualifications • Be able to defend decisions • Is mentoring of students important? • Approximate length of long list • Approximate length of short list • Keep minutes to minimize misunderstandings

  16. Reaching the pool • May consider using proactive language. Ex. from MIT: • “MIT is dedicated to the goal of building a culturally diverse and pluralistic faculty committed to teaching and working in a multicultural environment and strongly encourages applications from minorities and women.” • Make personal contact with underrepresented groups (minorities or women in some departments) at professional conferences and invite them to apply. OEO requires that you list the advertisement sources and the outreach efforts for minorities and women.

  17. Campus Interview Concerns Provide packets to on campus candidates Leave policies Childcare resources Community literature Real estate contacts Do not ask questions about: Religion Ethnic Origin Marital Status Sexual Orientation Employment Status of Spouse Parenthood Future Parenthood Disability Insure that graduate students/faculty spouses etc. are also informed about what to ask/what not to ask Protect candidates from renegade faculty

  18. Tips • Prioritize selection criteria • Do not let personal or narrow perspectives of individual committee members dominate the process • Make committee members defend their decisions to reject or retain an applicant • Be sure standards are being applied consistently

More Related