Diversity: Search

for STEM women on the academic career path

The Search for the Best Faculty. Some Successful Strategies

As part of an inquiry into the disparity between the known gender composition of the faculty and the known gender composition of eligible candidates (PhD holders) posed here), we at the same time address what academic institutions can do about it.

A Model for Training Workshops for Faculty Search Committees

First we educate ourselves and our faculty colleagues in STEM about the research basis of unconscious bias , to become more aware of gender schemas and how unconscious bias leads both men and women to undervalue the abilities and accomplishments of women and overvalue those of men. Then we develop strategies to conduct a search despite the existing unconscious bias.

As a Facilitator (2003-2012) in UIC's program for advancing women faculty in STEM (WISEST), named and founded by Claudia Morrissey, CJJ was one of a cadre of search committee trainers, the SUCCEED (Supporting UIC's Commitment to a Community of Excellence, Equity and Diversity) team. The unique features of the SUCCEED model for training faculty search committees at UIC were as follows:

The adaptable, ever-evolving presentations are customized to the department where possible, refined by feedback from previous SUCCEED training presentations. A typical SUCCEED presentation includes highlights of research studies which demonstrate that gender schemas influence evaluations of performance and accomplishments of women in comparison to men. [Although the main parts of each presentation remain the same, CJJ created and updated those parts that are specific to each department, namely, the gender profiles of (a) the undergraduate and graduate student populations, (b) the PhDs earned in the discipline (USA), (c) the faculty of the UIC department, and (d) the faculty of the top 100 departments (USA).] A presentation for training search committees for department heads has also been adapted, so as to influence the selection of incoming leaders who are diversity advocates.
The SUCCEED team members are research-active senior faculty members in STEM. The shared values about excellence in the discipline between this team and the members of the search committees confer on the former the mantle of unbiased advocate: "On the subject of how to conduct searches, we are just like you, we want you to find "the best" in your field, just as we do in ours."
The dynamics of the interaction between the SUCCEED team and the members of the search committee is an important component of what makes the model work, otherwise search committees might as well simply go through a web-administered training session. SUCCEED team members can provide concrete examples of previous searches they themselves have been involved with, especially the post-mortems. The respectful discussion of intangible but important factors between colleagues helps to gain acceptance of the underlying message by the audience (members of the faculty search committee).
The Faculty Search Toolkit is distributed to the search committees. This Toolkit provides very detailed examples of strategies for recruiting women into the applicant pool, strategies which were formulated and validated during a particular search, and reinforced by succeeding ones.
SUCCEED utilizes the post-mortems of previous searches (in which pro-active recruitment into the candidate pool was a major effort) to demonstrate that the persistence of women candidates at several stages (from the applicant pool, to the long/short list of acceptable candidates, to the list of applicants invited to campus interviews) increases the probability of hiring a female candidate, provided pro-active recruiting is done until the fraction in the applicant pool approaches the earned-PhDs pool. (see case studies for pro-active recruiting below.)

A Faculty Search Toolkit

The Faculty Search Toolkit authored by Cynthia Jameson and Claudia Morrissey is the outcome of a successful search for a faculty member for an engineering department which had zero women faculty at the time. The strategies developed in the process were thought to be generally useful for all STEM searches for junior faculty. The Search Toolkit is unique in providing detailed strategies for pro-active recruiting of women into the applicant pool. The set includes the following:

What Leaders Should Do to Advance Diversity: Outlines the contributions of the Provost, Dean, and Department Head to a successful search
Search Committee Tips: Summarizes the role of faculty search committees and fundamentals of building a stellar and diverse faculty.
Outline of Search Process: Recommends steps to follow to enable the identification and recruitment of a highly qualified and diverse faculty.
Candidate Review Template: Facilitates a rational comparison of candidates based on review of their application materials.
Candidate Interview Scoring Sheet: Lists and scores desirable attributes of candidates who are interviewed.
Recruitment Plan to Enrich the Applicant Pool with Women and URMs (Underrepresented Minorities): A plan for conducting a systematic search for applicants who are women and URMs
Writing Successful Recruiting E-mails: Suggestions on how to word exploratory and follow-up emails/letters to faculty and potential candidates
Pro-active ChemE Search: One example of a search process that was successful.
Annotated Bibliography on Evaluation Bias: Results from social science research on how gender expectations affect evaluations.
Diversity text for Search Ads: Some examples of the wording of inclusive language in academic search advertisements.

Case Studies for Pro-Active Recruiting

CJJ collected data for two departments where the members of the search committees bought into the ideas and procedures outlined in the Search Toolkit, including proactive recruiting. Comparisons against previous searches using standard practices in these same two departments, show that pro-active recruiting into the applicant pool can have diversifying results for new faculty hires, as shown here . The presentation of these data was incorporated into training workshops for search committees.

And Beyond ...

The evolved strategies differ from many others (such as WISELI in University of Wisconsin, as shown in this comparison presented by both teams in a GCHERC Symposium at the University of Chicago, in the emphasis on pro-active recruiting, use of STEM research-active professors rather than staff as presenters, and customizing presentations for individual departments. These efforts naturally led to being invited to present at diversity workshops (see table of presentations below) and to present to promotion and tenure committees. Some of these presentations are represented below.

For Faculty Search Committees in STEM
SUCCEED (2012)	Math (2010)	Physics (2011)
BioEngineering (2011)
For Faculty Search Committees in non-STEM
Anthropology (2009)	Economics (2009)
for Department Head Search Committee
Head BioE
Diversity Workshops, College of LAS
Recruiting Minority Women	Diversity Workshop for LAS Heads	LAS Diversity Workshop
Diversity Workshop, College of Engineering
Diversity Workshop for COE Faculty
for Promotion & Tenure Committees
P&T Committee, College of LAS	P&T Committee, College of Engg	Campus-wide P&T Committee

The Research Studies that are the Basis for the Presentations

Presentations used data from the following sources (although we drew from others as well):

Interventions That Affect Gender Bias in Hiring: A Systematic Review, Carol Isaac, Barbara Lee, and Molly Carnes, Academic Medicine, 2009; 84(10): 1440–1446.
Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians, Claudia Goldin; Cecilia Rouse, The American Economic Review, 2000, 90(4): 715-741.
Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students, Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA, 2012, 109(41): 16474–16479.
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 Roles, 1999, 41(7/8): 509-528.
Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommendation for Female and Male Medical Faculty, Frances Trix and Carolyn Psenka, Discourse and Society 2003, 14(2): 191-220.
Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review, Christine Wenneras and Agnes Wold, Nature, 1997, 387: 341-343.
Persistent Nepotism in Peer-Review, Ulf Sandström, Martin Hällsten, Scientometrics, 2008, 74(2): 175–189.
Male-female differences: A computer simulation. Richard F Martell , David M. Lane, and Cynthia Emrich. American Psychologist 1996, 51:157–58.
Women and nonverbal leadership cues: When seeing is not believing, Natalie Porter and Florence L. Geis. In Gender and nonverbal behavior, ed. Clara Mayo and Nancy Henley. New York: Springer, 1981.
Stereotypes and standards of judgment. Biernat, Monica, Melvin Manis, and Thomas E. Nelson. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991, 60 (4): 495–502.
The impact of situational factors on personnel decisions concerning women: Varying the sex composition of the applicant pool, Madeline E. Heilman, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1980, 26, 386-395.
Constructed Criteria Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination, Eric Luis Uhlmann and Geoffrey L. Cohen, Psychological Science, 2005, 16(6): 474-480.
Keeping Women in the Science Pipeline, Marc Goulden, Mary Ann Mason, Karie Frasch, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 2011 638(1): 141-162.
Beyond Gender Schemas: Improving the Advancement of Women in Academia, Virginia Valian, Hypatia 2005, 20(3): 198-213.
Why so slow? The advancement of women, Virginia Valian, 1998. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, (Washington: National Academies Press, 2007).
Donna Nelson, "National Analysis of Diversity in Science & Engineering Faculties at Research Universities," available here
National Science Foundation, Survey of Earned Doctorates, available here
National Research Council, Gender Differences at Critical Transitions in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2009).

Other Examples

Links to workshops for Faculty Search Committees:

Links to Manuals and Toolkits for Faculty Search Committees:

| Back To Top| Jameson | Contact info |