Diversity@SPP

Archive for the ‘hiring’ Category

Hiring for 09? Some diversity advice:

Posted by anonfemphil on December 22, 2008

From Jender at FeministPhilosophers:

As we’ve noted before, there’s a lot of evidence suggesting that nearly everyone is subject to unconscious or implicit bias, and that these biases can have an inappropriate impact on hiring decisions. For example (one among many),

In a national study, 238 academic psychologists (118 male, 120 female) evaluated a curriculum vitae randomly assigned a male or a female name. Both male and female participants gave the male applicant better evaluations for teaching, research, and service experience and were more likely to hire the male than the female applicant

So if you’re hiring this year, you may want to think about how to keep this from happening to you. Here are a few suggestions:

1. Learn about and discuss research on biases and assumptions and consciously strive to minimize their influence on your evaluation. Experimental studies show that greater awareness of discrepancies between the ideals of impartiality and actual performance, together with strong internal motivations to respond without prejudice, effectively reduces prejudicial behavior.

2. Develop evaluation criteria prior to evaluating candidates and apply them consistently to all applicants. Research shows that different standards may be used to evaluate male and female applicants and that when criteria are not clearly articulated before reviewing candidates evaluators may shift or emphasize criteria that favor candidates from well-represented demographic groups.

3. Spend sufficient time (at least 20 minutes) evaluating each applicant. Evaluators who were busy, distracted by other tasks, and under time pressure gave women lower ratings than men for the same written evaluation of job performance. Sex bias decreased when they were able to give all their time and attention totheir judgments, which rarely occurs in actual work settings.

4. Be able to defend every decision for eliminating or advancing a candidate. Research shows that holding evaluators to high standards of accountability for the fairness of their evaluation reduces the influence of bias and assumptions.

5. Periodically evaluate your judgments, determine whether qualified women and underrepresented minorities are included in your pool, and consider whether evaluation biases and assumptions are influencing your decisions by asking yourself the following questions:

a. Are women and minority candidates subject to different expectations in areas such as numbers of publications, name recognition, or personal acquaintance with a committee member?
b. Have the accomplishments, ideas, and findings of women or minority candidates been undervalued or unfairly attributed to a research director or collaborators despite contrary evidence in publications or letters of reference?
c. Are assumptions about possible family responsibilities and their effect on a candidate’s career path negatively influencing evaluation of a candidate’s merit, despite evidence of productivity?

All of the above suggestions are taken from an excellent brochure that Alphafeminist called to our attention, which can be found in its very excellent entirety here. (And there are many more suggestions, and a lot more data, there.)

I think most departments genuinely do want to increase their hiring of women and minorities. But I also think that implicit bias may be impeding these efforts. If I’m right about the former, then departments might want to entertain the possibility that implicit bias is playing this role. And they should be glad to have some suggestions about how to take action against it. With that in mind, I urge you to pass some of this information on to friends and colleagues involved in hiring even if you’re not involved yourself.
———-
Update: As AZ notes in comments, departments should also be careful about weighting pedigree too heavily. If someone comes from a less prestigious pedigree, and has held less research-friendly jobs, but has *nonetheless* managed to get a damned good publication record, surely this is a sign that they will do even better in a more salubrious environment. Such candidates should be viewed as potentially especially promising, rather than getting passed over.

Posted in bias, hiring, resources | 1 Comment »

Hiring in 08-09?

Posted by anonfemphil on October 31, 2008

Research has shown that even those seeking to hire a minority can end up preferring a member of the  majority who is not as well qualified.  Implicit bias may be a big culprit in the process.  From feministphilosopher.wordpress.com comes a list of resources for dealing with implicit bias:

Here is a link to a short pamphlet from the Cornell ADVANCE Center on dealing with Implicit Bias http://advance.cornell.edu/resources/Reducing-Stereotyping-Biases-in-Hiring.pdf

Here is a link to a great pamphlet prepared by the Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute at Wisconsin-Madison: http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/initiatives/hiring/BiasBrochure_2ndEd.pdf

Here is a long document that is pretty specific to the University of Wisconsin that has a thorough section on the impact of implicit bias and how to manage tendencies toward bias in searches. This one has all kinds of cool resources for chairs of search committees : http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/initiatives/hiring/SearchBook.pdf

I think the two big factors that reduce the impact of implicit bias are (1) know that it exists and (2) give yourself sufficient time to look at an applicant’s entire application package. Course releases for faculty who are active in a search committee is a pipe dream of mine.

Posted in bias, hiring | Leave a Comment »