1 / 46

Avoiding Bias: Lessons from Search Committee Training

Avoiding Bias: Lessons from Search Committee Training. Lynn K Gordon, MD, PhD Associate Dean, Diversity Affairs David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA lgordon@mednet.ucla.edu. Why is Diversity Important?. Educational experience & scholarly environment

pembroke
Télécharger la présentation

Avoiding Bias: Lessons from Search Committee Training

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. Avoiding Bias: Lessons from Search Committee Training Lynn K Gordon, MD, PhD Associate Dean, Diversity Affairs David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA lgordon@mednet.ucla.edu

  2. Why is Diversity Important? • Educational experience & scholarly environment • Legitimacy in context of California • 2000 Census • African American 7.4% • Hispanic/Latino 32.4% • Innovation & creativity “Substantial evidence suggests that functional and identity diverse groups are more innovative…studies also suggest that groups whose members have diverse preferences are more creative. “ Scott Page, The Difference, 2007, Princeton University Press, p. 327

  3. At UCLA • We always want the best: • “Best of the Best of the Best..Sir” from Men in Black • Staff • Students • Trainees • Faculty • Unconscious bias may preclude our selecting the best

  4. Goals or….. Why are you here? • Faculty: requirement for search committee training • Please sign in, stay, and you will be counted • Perhaps a better reason……. • Gain an understanding about unintended bias and how this affects our daily life---- for all of us • Discuss approaches for avoiding bias • In academic searches • In evaluations of students and trainees

  5. Sites for learning • Project Implicit • https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ • AAMC: "What You Don’t Know: The Science of Unconscious Bias and What To Do About It in the Search and Recruitment Process" • https://surveys.aamc.org/se.ashx?s=7C7E87CB561EC358

  6. Susan Drange Lee Director, Faculty Diversity & Development sdrangelee@conet.ucla.edu (310) 206-7411 Many slides taken from presentations by Susan Drange Lee and from the STRIDE program of the University of Michigan

  7. Search Resources @ faculty.diversity.ucla.edu Search Toolkit Forms Search Committee Resources

  8. Unconscious Bias & Use of Schemas PURPOSE: Increase awareness of unconscious bias Consider how unconscious bias may play a role in how you evaluate a student, how you mentor a trainee, what words you use in a letter of recommendation, and how you select new faculty Adapted in part from presentation developed by NSF ADVANCE Project at the University of Michigan (a project to increase the advancement of women faculty in the sciences)

  9. Schemas and Stereotypes • Identify this photo • Carol Greider, Ph.D. • “I think there’s a slight bias ----- still a slight cultural bias for men to help men. The derogatory term is the ‘old boys network.’ • It’s not that they are biased against women or want to hurt them. They just don’t think of them. • And they often feel more comfortable promoting their male colleagues.” From the New York Times Interview After Winning the Nobel Prize

  10. What is a Schema? “Schemas are hypotheses that we use to interpret social events. They are similar to stereotypes, but the term schema is more inclusive and more neutral.” “Gender schemas are hypotheses about what it means to be male or female – hypotheses that we share, male and female alike.” Prof. Virginia Valian, UCLA Faculty Lecture, 2008. Author of “Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women” Valian, V. (1999) Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. MIT Press: Massachusetts.

  11. Schemas Affect Evaluation

  12. 1. Estimating Height • Males were judged taller than females (in feet & inches). • Perceived difference in height was greatest when information was more ambiguous (shown in seated position vs. standing). Biernat, M., Manis, M. and Nelson, T. (1991) Stereotypes and Standards of Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60(4):495-502.

  13. 2. Orchestra Auditions When auditioners were behind a screen, the percentage of female new hires for orchestral jobs increased 25 – 46%. Goldin, C. & Rouse, C. (2000) Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians. The American Economic Review, 90, 4, 715-741.

  14. Karen Brian 3. Evaluation of CVs When evaluating identical application packages, male and female University psychology professors preferred hiring “Brian” over “Karen” by 2:1 ratio Steinpreis, R.E., Anders, K.A., & Ritzke, D. (1999) The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study. Sex Roles, Vol. 41, Nos. 7/8, 509.

  15. 4. Interview Calls for Jobs: “Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal?” • “White” names received 50% more calls for interviews than “African-American” names. • For “White” names, a higher quality resume elicited 30% more calls. • For “African-American” names, the increase was only 9% for a higher quality resume. Bertrand, M. & Mullainathan, S. (2004) Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment On Labor Market Discrimination. American Economic Review, v94(4, Sep), 991-1013.

  16. Double Standards for Competence • Varying overall qualifications • Male preference when male application is better • No preference when female application is better • Education vs. Experience: Which is More Valuable? • Male applicants shown preference • If male had more education then education was valued over experience • If female had more education then experience was valued over education Source: Foschi, Lai & Sigerson 1994; Norton, Vandello, & Darley 2004

  17. Peer reviewers gave female applicants lower scores than male applicants who displayed the same level of scientific productivity. • Women applying for the postdoctoral fellowship had to be 2.5 times more productive to receive the same reviewer rating as the average male applicant. 5. Evaluation of Fellowship Applications Wenneras, C. & Wold, A. (1997) Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review. Nature, 387: 341-43.

  18. Examples: “It’s amazing how much she’s accomplished.” • “She has a rather challenging personality.” • “She excelled in every task she chose to take on.” 6. Letters of Recommendation Differences in Letters of Recommendation: • Letters for men had more references to CV, publications, patients, and colleagues Letters for women • Were shorter • Contained more “doubt raisers” (hedges, faint praise, and irrelevancies) • Had more references to personal life Trix, F. & Psenka, C. (2003) Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommed-dation for Female and Male Medical Faculty. Discourse & Society, 14: 191-220.

  19. 7. Making Mountains out of Molehils: accumulation of disadvantage • simulated an eight-level, pyramidal hierarchical institution • Initially staffing men and women were 50% at each level • tiny bias in favor of promoting men: 1% difference • after repeated iterations: top level was 65 percent male Martell, Richard F., David M. Lane, and Cynthia Emrich. 1996. "Male-female Differences: A Computer Simulation." American Psychologist 51:157-8

  20. 8. Biased Leadership Outcomes Leadership for Asians in Academia 15% of life scientists in the US are Asian/Asian American. Of the 26 council members and 193 members of 11 standing committees in the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology in 2005, nonewere Asian/Asian American. Mervis (2005). Science, 310, 606-607.

  21. Impact of Schemas on Leadership • With single sex groups, observers identify the person at the head of the table as the leader. • With mixed sex groups • a male seated at the head of the table is identified as the leader. • a female seated at the head of the table is identified as the leader only half the time (and a male seated somewhere else is identified the other half). Porter & Geis (1981) Gender and nonverbal behavior.

  22. Impact of Schemas about Mothers Assumptions about the implications of motherhood for women’s career commitment have consequences, despite recent data showing that: • Women academics who marry and have families publish as many articles per year as single women. Cole and Zuckerman (1987) Scientific American 256 (2), 119-125. Confirmed by Yu Xie and Shauman (2003) Women in science: Career processes and outcomes.

  23. Evaluation of Identical Resumes: Mothers When evaluating identical applications: • Evaluators rated mothers as less competent and committed to paid work than nonmothers. • Mothers were less likely to be recommended for hire, promotion, and management, and were offered lower starting salaries than nonmothers. • Prospective employers called mothers back about half as often as nonmothers. Mother “Nonmother” Correll, Benard and Paik (2007) American Journal of Sociology, 112 (5), 1297-1338.

  24. Evaluation of Identical Resumes: Fathers When evaluating identical applications: • Fathers were seen as more committed to paid work and offered higher starting salaries than nonfathers. • Fathers were not disadvantaged in the hiring process. Father “Nonfather” Correll, Benard and Paik (2007) American Journal of Sociology, 112 (5), 1297-1338.

  25. Obstacles to Diversification: A Self Reinforcing Cycle

  26. What can you do? • In writing letters of recommendation • In reading letters of recommendation • In evaluating candidates • Be aware of the use of language and the gender schemas that words may imply • Be aware that a small initial bias may create substantial differences

  27. Techniques to CombatOveruse of Schemas in Selections: Faculty, Staff, Trainees, Employees Developing the Pool Evaluating the Pool Interviewing Tips

  28. Responsibilities of Search Committee Members • Actively search for candidates • Carefully review and assess files • Welcome all candidates with equal respect & courtesy • Maintain confidentiality Member who assumes responsibility for Affirmative Action – monitor activities of committee for equity, broaden search for inclusivity

  29. 1. Developing the Pool • Wording in ad that highlights interest in diversity • specific language emphasizing interest in diversity, resulted in more diverse applicant pools…even in the sciences • Recruiting through targeted professional organizations • Asking colleagues to recommend women and minority candidates • But treat all applicants equally • Widening the range of institutions from which you recruit • Utilizing a diverse search committee (demographics & field)

  30. 2. Equitably Evaluate the Pool • Agree on the Criteria in Advance • Identify the desired elements • Rank order the importance of each element • Self-Correct • Slow Down & Do Not Rank Order Immediately • Insist on Evidence: no anectodal stories

  31. Be Consistent Tailor a Candidate Evaluation Tool to Meet Your Needs

  32. Interviewing Tips • Standard format for interviews and the campus visit • Avoid illegal questions • Family status • Race • Religion • Residence • Sex • Age • Citizenship or nationality • Disability

  33. Interview tips continued • Family Friendly • Provide information to everyone about applicable family-leave policies and campus resources for dual career, childcare, housing, etc • Involve Other Faculty • opportunity to talk with other faculty members about gender and climate issues – not the search committee and preferably not even in the same department • Respect • Do not treat candidates differently based on subject matter or research methodology used…whether they are known to the committee members or unknown… each candidate was ranked highly enough for a campus visit

  34. Responsibility of Search Committee Chair • Responsible for proactive, timely, fair, and legal search: develops processes and ground rules • Leads committee in all phases of work • Creation of advertisement and proactive recruitment strategy • Develops equitable evaluation criteria • Maintains positive interactions with candidates • Conducts post search committee review • What worked…..and what didn’t • Document process

  35. UC Diversity Statement The University of California diversity statement includes diversity based on: • Gender • Race • Ethnicity • Socioeconomic status • Religion • Language • Age • Disability • Sexual orientation • Geographic region

  36. Underrepresented Minorities • African Americans • Alaskan Natives • Native Americans • Pacific Islanders (e.g., Hawaiian, Samoan, etc.) • Chicano, Latino, Hispanic Americans “Underrepresented Minorities” (URMs) as defined by the Office for Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) includes the following:

  37. Although the University may not consider an individual’s race, ethnicity or gender as a component in selection for a faculty appointment… You can consider: Academic values that support a diverse learning environment -- A record of teaching, research or service that will contribute to the diversity of the campus -- Mentoring and outreach activities Academic Values that Support Diversity

  38. Affirmative Action For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Prop 209 Proposition 209 is a California State Law implemented in 1997 that states that no preferential treatment can be given during the hiring process based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

  39. DGSOM Faculty Academic senate: 25% of all female faculty 42% of all male faculty Female Male Clinical and Adjunct Full, In-Res, Clin X Females comprise: 23% of academic senate 39% of clinical and adjunct positions

  40. 2008 US Medical School Graduates 3 7 20 7 62 1

  41. DGSOM Faculty 3 24 5 <1 64

  42. Demographics • Graduates from DGSOM Medical School (Drew included) • Female 45.2% • African American 11.9% • Hispanic/Latino 16.7%

  43. What about surgery? • USA Residents in General Surgery 2007 • Female 30.8% • African American 6.8% • Hispanic/Latino 11.1%

  44. UCLA Department of Surgery • Total Faculty (n=167) • Females 16.2% • African American 5.4% • Hispanic/Latino 4.8% • Assistant Professors • Females 27% • African American 6.8% • Hispanic/Latino 4.5%

  45. Causes for Disparities • Possible role of unintended bias • Beware when evaluating applicants • Know yourself • Consider taking AAMC or Harvard programs • Specialty choices • Get involved in medical student education • Encourage the possibilities for junior colleagues

  46. We can only accomplish this together

More Related