The Role of Unconscious Bias In the Search Process

1. Diversity Workshop April 14, 2013 The Role of Unconscious Bias In the Search Process Ardie D. Walser, PhD Grove School of Engineering at the City College of New York ASEE 2013 Engineering Deans Institute New York, New York

2. Introduction • Colleges and universities are looking for ways to hire and retain an excellent and diverse faculty. • Academic institutions recognize the need to revamp their recruitment and hiring processes in order to improve the diversification of their applicant pools and ultimate hires. • Search committees need information, training, advice and tools to make a diverse and inclusive faculty a reality.

3. Goal of this Presentation • Focus on the Role of Unconscious Bias in the review process • To share some of the research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison (WISELI) and other institutions on this topic • To promote strategies for reducing the negative effects of Unconscious Bias • To review a test case as a catalyst for discussion.

4. What is Bias? Bias is an inclination towards something, or a • predisposition, • partiality, • prejudice, • preference or • predilection.

5. Are we completely Objective when we Evaluate? • Results from numerous studies show that people often hold implicit or unconscious assumptions that influence their judgment. • Both men and women share the same preconceived notions about gender and apply them in evaluations • General expectations and assumptions exists about: • Physical & Social Characteristics • Gender • Ethnicity • Job Types • Academic Institutions • Field of Studies Research on Bias and Assumptions, Eve Fine and Jo Handelsman, WISELI, 2012

6. Embrace Your Biases • Recognizing and acknowledging ones own biases and influences is one of the best ways to make sure that the candidate in a search is judged fairly and on their credentials and achievement. • We need to challenge our preconceived ideas about people (e.g., candidates).

7. Examples and Research on Bias

8. Social Assumptions & Expectations • “When shown the photographs of men with similar body types, evaluators rated the athletic ability of African American men higher than that of white men (Biernat and Manis).” • “When asked to choose counselors from among a group of equally competent applicants who were neither exceptionally qualified nor unqualified for the position, students more often chose white candidates than African American candidates, indicating their willingness to give members of the majority group the benefit of the doubt (Dovidio and Gaertner).” These studies show how GENERALIZATIONS can lead us astray when OBJECTIVITY is our goal. Research on Bias and Assumptions, Eve Fine and Jo Handelsman, WISELI, 2012

9. Application Biases • “When rating the verbal skills as indicated by vocabulary definitions, evaluators rated the skills lower if they were told an African American provided the definitions than if they were told that a white person provided them (Biernat and Manis).” • What’s in a name? “Randomly assigning different names to resumes showed that job applicants with ‘white sounding names’ were more likely to be interviewed for open positions than were equally qualified applicants with ‘African American sounding names’ (Bertrand and Mullainathan)” Research on Bias and Assumptions, Eve Fine and Jo Handelsman, WISELI, 2012

10. Bias in Academic Jobs • “A study of R01 grants awarded by the National Institute of Health found that despite controlling for educational background, publication record, and other factors, African Americans were 10 percentage points less likely than whites to receive funding (Ginther et al.).” • “In a national study, 238 academic psychologists (118 male, 120 female) evaluated a curriculum vitae randomly assigned a male or 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 (Steinpreis et al.).” Research on Bias and Assumptions, Eve Fine and Jo Handelsman, WISELI, 2012

11. Recommendations to reduce the influence of bias • Increase the representation of women and underrepresented groups in the applicant pool • Discuss research on bias and assumptions and ways to minimize their influence on evaluations • Develop and prioritize evaluation criteria before evaluating candidates and apply them consistently to All applicants • Spend sufficient time evaluating each applicant • Evaluate each candidates ENTIRE application • Be able to defend every decision for eliminating or advancing a candidate • Periodically evaluate your judgments for the effects of bias and assumptions. Research on Bias and Assumptions, Eve Fine and Jo Handelsman, WISELI, 2012

12. A Case Study Council of Colleges of Arts & Sciences http://www.ccas.net/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3660 Dr. Jennifer Schneider, Program/Research Manager

13. CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012 Faculty Recruitment Scenario at Teacher Scholar University The Department of Biology at Teacher Scholar University (TSU) is nearing the end of a faculty search in which three candidates have interviewed on campus. The first candidate has generated little enthusiasm among stakeholders, while the others have backers. Candidate Morris Moore, who has completed a post-doctoral appointment, has the slightly stronger publication record of the two. His jocular style resonated well with the senior faculty, but his research seminar was poorly organized and hard to follow. Rhea Served, a recent Ph.D. recipient, presented her research coherently in the seminar and has more teaching experience than Moore, an important consideration given TSU's mission. However, Moore's backers describe her as "a little mousy" and "maybe too green" and question her overall fit within the department. The department's faculty has voted in favor of Moore, although not by a large margin. The vote is technically advisory; however, past chairs have almost always accepted the faculty recommendation and forwarded it to the dean, who makes all offers in the college. In this instance, though, the new chair, Dee Liberative, believes that Moore's muddled seminar presentation and relatively limited teaching experience are significant issues. She also thinks that the faculty members who appreciated Moore's joviality (incorrectly) interpreted Served's more low-key style as inexperience or lack of self-confidence. Fundamentally, she suspects that Served lost votes for being female. Liberative is about to meet with the dean to discuss her recommendation and is mulling over how she should proceed.

14. Questions • Based on the information provided, is there evidence for Liberative's concern that gender bias has factored into the evaluation of the two candidates? If so, what is it? • What candidate do you recommend Liberative endorse? • How should she justify her selection to you, the dean? • How should she justify her selection to the faculty? • If Served is the selected candidate, what steps might Liberative consider to support her success within the unit? CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

15. What do you think?

16. Possible Responses

17. 1.Based on the information provided, is there evidence for Liberative's concern that gender bias has factored into the evaluation of the two candidates? If so, what is it? There are some indications that gender bias may be at play. It appears that Moore's supporters may be responding favorably in response to his outgoing style rather than job-related performance indicators, because it appears that his performance during the interview, in terms of presenting his research, should have been a cause for concern. As well, confirmation bias – people's tendency to selectively consider evidence, favoring information that aligns with their expectations – could be benefitting Moore to the detriment of Served. The descriptions of Served by Moore's backers are inappropriate and seem gendered – for example, would a male candidate be described "a little mousy"? As well, the issue of a candidate's "fit" in a department can be a cover for rejecting a candidate who is different from the norm…and who would therefore add to the unit's diversity. CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

18. 2. What candidate do you recommend Liberative endorse? The case provides an indication that Served is the better choice in terms of the job-related criteria; she has more teaching experience and gave a better presentation of her research than Moore, and while Moore's publication record is described as "slightly stronger," such a difference may be readily explained by the fact that Served has not completed a postdoctoral appointment, as Moore has. As well, Liberative is wise to be attuned to the possibility that some of the faculty's preferences may be driven by factors other than an objective evaluation of qualifications. However, if Liberative elects to endorse Served, she should be prepared to cultivate the faculty's support for extending an offer to that candidate, as deviating from the faculty's recommendation may foster resentment of both Liberative and Served, should the latter individual join the department. Liberative should also be prepared to justify her endorsement to the Dean. A strategy she might employ, prior to finalizing her recommendation, is to extend an invitation to Served for a return visit, enabling the faculty to resolve any previously unaddressed concerns about her qualifications. CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

19. 3. How should she justify her selection to you, the dean? If she endorses Moore, Liberative is supporting the majority recommendation of the faculty, and so that outcome requires no unusual justification. However, she may wish to discuss with the dean her observations and concerns regarding the two candidates' qualifications and solicit his input as to the direction to proceed. If she endorses Served, Liberative might choose to share with the dean her observations and concerns with regard to the search and her assessment of the candidates' qualifications and the faculty's support for them. She might also note the value in recruiting a woman in this STEM field, particularly if the unit's gender diversity is not reflective of that of the pool of available PhDs. CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

20. 4. How should she justify her selection to the faculty? If she endorses Moore, Liberative is supporting the majority recommendation of the faculty, and so that outcome requires no unusual justification. However, she may wish to discuss with the dean her observations and concerns regarding the two candidates' qualifications and solicit his input as to the direction to proceed. If she endorses Served, Liberative might choose to share with the dean her observations and concerns with regard to the search and her assessment of the candidates' qualifications and the faculty's support for them. She might also note the value in recruiting a woman in this STEM field, particularly if the unit's gender diversity is not reflective of that of the pool of available PhDs. CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

21. 5. If Served is the selected candidate, what steps might Liberative consider to support her success within the unit? As noted above, if Liberative chooses Served, building faculty support for her as early as possible in the recruitment process seems wise. Even if some faculty continue to see Moore as the candidate of choice, Liberative should seek to communicate to them a persuasive rationale for recruiting Served, so that at a minimum her colleagues can understand her choice and its basis – the job description and her best assessment of the candidates' qualifications to perform job duties. Liberative might also do well to identify one or more faculty mentors for Served - individuals who are supportive of Served and will assist in her transition into the unit. These might be formal or informal mentors, depending on the culture of the department. If well-chosen, such individuals could facilitate Served's acceptance by other members of the department through their role-modeling of collegial, supportive behavior. CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

22. Another Case Study

23. A Case of Tenure Denial It is faculty evaluation season at Comprehensive State University, and the Department of Geosciences’ Promotion and Tenure Committee, a body composed of all tenured faculty members, has voted to deny promotion and tenure to Dr. Susan Stalwart. Dr. Stalwart has a stellar record as a teacher, particularly in the large enrollment sections of Physical Geology, and she recently received a university-wide teaching medal that is awarded by students. Her service record is satisfactory for a junior faculty member. The committee vote was close (5-3) and was largely based on strong disagreements about Stalwart’s research. Although the number of articles published during her probationary period meets the departmental criteria for promotion and tenure, some committee members argue that her co-authored geology publications should not count because she played a secondary role that was not significant. In addition, they take issue with the fact that two of her first-authored publications are in geoscience education, rather than her specialty area within the discipline. The latter publications results from an NSF Course, Curriculum, and Laboratory Improvement grant on which she is PI. Although the committee’s deliberations are intended to be confidential, word quickly leaks to the other junior faculty members in the department, who are appalled and upset that Stalwart has been denied tenure. As a group, they express grave concerns about the manner in which the criteria have been applied and worry that, if Stalwart does not meet the standards, surely neither do they. CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

24. A Case of Tenure Denial (continued) Just six months into her tenure as department chair, a position for which she was externally recruited, Dr. Anna Lytical is in a difficult situation. Citing the fact that her prior annual reviews have been positive, Stalwart has decided to appeal the tenure and promotion denial, which requires a determination by the chair whether to uphold or overturn the decision by the Promotion and Tenure Committee. As someone who was recruited from a research university, Lytical has not yet garnered a sense of her institution’s expectations for advancement, but her own assessment is that Stalwart meets the criteria as specified in the department’s evaluation policy. However, she finds the prospect of overturning the majority vote of her colleagues to be a daunting one, as she is new to a leadership role and actively establishing her credibility in the position. She knows the geosciences department has had a spotty record with regard to recruiting and retaining female faculty members (Lytical’s appointment made her only the second tenured woman in the unit). Should she support the committee decision or the candidate’s appeal? CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

25. Questions • The committee’s decision to deny promotion and tenure focused on Stalwart’ research. Based on the information provided, how strong is the rationale for denial? • Is there evidence that the criteria for advancement are being applied inappropriately by the committee? If so, what is it? • Is there an indication in the scenario of gender bias? If so, what is it? • What strategies might Lytical utilize in responding to the appeal that are mindful of her need to establish credibility? • Addressing the consternation of the junior faculty will be important to their morale and retention. What steps might Lytical take to mitigate the negative impact of the committee decision on these individuals? CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

26. What do you think?

27. Possible Responses

28. 1. The committee's decision to deny promotion and tenure focused on Stalwart's research. Based on the information provided, how strong is the rationale for denial? The rationale seems weak, as it appears to be inconsistent with the department’s written criteria for advancement. CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

29. 2. Is there evidence that the criteria for advancement are being applied inappropriately by the committee? If so, what is it? Apparently, as some evaluators wish to discount several publications that “meet the criteria,” either because they deem Stalwart’s contributions on collaborative publications as “not significant” or because the publications are in an area of geology that doesn’t reflect her sub-discipline (but is related to her NSF grant). CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

30. 3. Is there an indication in the scenario of gender bias? If so, what is it? Elements that may suggest gender bias: • The statement that Stalwart played a “secondary role that was not significant” on her co-authored publications. Research on gender bias has shown that women’s work may be inappropriately discounted or devalued. No justification is presented in the scenario regarding the judgment that Stalwart played a secondary role that was not significant. • Similarly, the discounting of her geoscience education publications - which are related to her role as an NSF grant PI – may reflect inappropriate devaluing of the accomplishment. • While too little information is provided to draw firm conclusions, the fact that Lytical's selection as chair was a point of some division among the faculty and that the nature of that division was not made clear to you by the objecting faculty, is worth noting, although the fact that Lytical was the ultimate selection weighs against an inference of invasive gender bias. CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

31. 4. What strategies might you suggest Lytical utilize in responding to the appeal that are mindful of her need to establish credibility? The department’s written criteria may provide Lytical’s best tool in handling the appeal. In circumstances in which evaluation decisions are contested, adherence to the applicable written policies and procedures is generally of central importance. Specifically, deviation from its written protocols and standards tends not to serve an institution well. Tying her response to the stated criteria - which by Lytical’s analysis supports Stalwart’s promotion and tenure - should provide a highly defensible and objective basis for Lytical to overturn the committee’s decision. Doing so may also support her credibility as a leader, as she can document that her decision is in the unit’s best interest (by adhering to the written criteria she is likely reducing her unit’s risk of negative consequences of an inappropriate promotion and tenure decision). As well, making a decision that differs from that of the majority of the faculty may establish Lytical as an individual who does not back away from a tough call, a quality that helps to document her leadership. CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

32. 5. Addressing the consternation of the junior faculty will be important to their morale and retention. What steps might you recommend Lytical take to mitigate the negative impact of the committee decision on these individuals? In that the committee’s deliberations are intended to be confidential, it would be inappropriate for Lytical to discuss the case specifically with the pre-tenure faculty and, at any rate, the outcome of the evaluation will become apparent to the faculty with time. However, it may be productive for Lytical to meet with each of the pre-tenure faculty members individually, reinforce the department’s written criteria, and discuss her perceptions of each individual’s progress relative to those criteria and recommended actions to best position that individual for success. After the “dust has settled” on Stalwart’s application, Lytical might engage the faculty as a whole in discussions about the faculty evaluation criteria to ensure that there is a common understanding of the criteria such that they can be applied consistently. In looking ahead to future evaluation processes, if Lytical learns that the Promotion and Tenure Committee was the source of the "leak," then she would do well to discuss with the committee members the importance of maintaining confidentiality in such matters. CCAS case study for inclusion in the Department Chairs Seminar March 12, 2012

33. Thank you and good luck!