Valery Evlakhov/Shutterstock
In the constantly evolving landscape of academia, attracting and retaining a diverse faculty remains critical. Recognizing the need for transformative change, the University of Iowa launched the Path to Distinction pilot initiative to transform the faculty recruitment process. This article highlights the goals and impact of our initiative which adopted research-informed best practices to create a more inclusive faculty search process and, by extension, a more diverse faculty.
Implementation and Results of the Pilot Initiative
Based on “The Department Chair as Transformative Diversity Leader,” we knew that to increase faculty diversity we needed to work directly with department chairs and search committees, the individuals making screening and hiring decisions. The project team researched faculty search strategies to mitigate bias and support an inclusive search process. Based on the literature, we developed and delivered a search committee training program and a toolkit of resources to support faculty search committees. We piloted these strategies in four academic departments searching for tenure-track faculty during the 2019-2020 academic year.
The results were promising.
We saw greater diversity in the pilot department applicant pools at the interview and finalist stages when compared to their historical applicant pools. Based on the results, the Path to Distinction was implemented in 2020 for the entire campus.
Key Strategies for Inclusive Faculty Searches
The Path to Distinction toolkit and best practices guidance are available online. In this article, we highlight a few of the most frequently used and most impactful strategies for inclusive faculty searches.
Search committee training. We developed a training program for faculty search committees exploring the impact of implicit bias, providing research-informed strategies that can be used at each stage of the process to mitigate bias. While many of our faculty members were familiar with implicit bias, the strategies we offered were new for many on our campus. We used a train-the-trainer model to train a faculty member and human resources partner in each college to introduce the program to faculty search committees in their college.
Articulate evaluation criteria. It’s critical for the committee to articulate evaluation criteria early in the process before they review a candidate’s application. Through committee conversation, they develop a common understanding of how they will assess each qualification so they can be consistent in their initial candidate reviews.
Active recruitment. We asked committees to actively recruit candidates and provided guidance in identifying prospective candidates, including those who may be underrepresented in the field. In addition, we provided boots-on-the-ground practical tools such as phone call and email scripts so they could feel more comfortable and be more effective in their outreach.
Forms and templates. We developed ad templates and best practices to attract a robust and diverse applicant pool using inclusive language and highlighting campus resources. In addition, we provided candidate evaluation forms in Qualtrics which facilitates the consistent application of evaluation criteria, participation of all committee members and the ability to generate reports for committee discussion.
Community time. During the on-campus finalist interviews, we build in a block of “community time” during which the candidate can explore campus and community resources of interest to them. This time is facilitated by a human resources partner so that the candidate’s personal interests are not disclosed to the search committee members. This practice signals to the candidate that we value their ability to build a life and a career in our community.
Tailored Strategies for Departmental Needs
Recognizing the unique challenges faced by different colleges and departments, we encouraged departments to tailor strategies to their specific needs. While our materials remain consistent throughout campus, some colleges added information specific to their field that could lead to deeper discussions. For instance, related to the strategy of articulating evaluation criteria, one college presented the qualifications typically used and challenged their faculty to articulate their own interpretations of the qualifications. Unsurprisingly, the definitions varied significantly. Another tailored strategy is focusing on data-driven decision-making. One college sourced their faculty composition data, highlighting disparities such as the underrepresentation of women in tenure and tenure-track positions. By comparing these figures to female student enrollment statistics, they were able to effectively illustrate the need for change.
Two critical pillars of our initiative are open communication among the search committee and a focus on the process. By creating open channels for dialogue and guiding search committees through each stage, we were able to build trust in the process.
By challenging norms, adopting research-informed strategies and embracing inclusivity, we are fostering a future where academia reflects the diversity of the world it serves. Understanding that large-scale change can be overwhelming, we encourage others to start small with two or three strategies from the toolkit and build from there. We hope our work will inspire others to rethink business as usual practices in faculty recruitment, explore the resources that we assembled and apply similar strategies to embrace an inclusive search process.