1. Effective Faculty Searches Vincent Price Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs Lubna Mian Associate Director of Faculty Affairs October, 2008

2. Effective Faculty Searches | # 2 Our Goals Excellence Diversity Strategic development Interdisciplinary scholarship

3. Why Diversity? Increased talent pool Student support Better teamwork Equity Effective Faculty Searches | # 3

4. Achieving our Goals Large and diverse applicant pools Careful and unbiased evaluations Thorough interviewing processes Intelligent collective decision making Effective Faculty Searches | # 4

5. A Diverse Pool U.S. Population 2005 5.2% 12.7%13.8% 68% Effective Faculty Searches | # 5

6. A Diverse Pool Population Ph.D. Pool U.S. Ph.D. Recipients 1995-2005 21.1% 4.8% 4.6% 61.8% Effective Faculty Searches | # 6

7. A Diverse Pool Population Ph.D. Pool Penn Faculty Penn Standing Faculty 2006 10.8% 3.2%2.5% 83.4% Effective Faculty Searches | # 7

8. A Diverse Pool U.S. Population 2005 50.7% 49.3% Effective Faculty Searches | # 8

9. A Diverse Pool Population Ph.D. Pool U.S. Ph.D. Recipients 1995-2005 43% 57% Effective Faculty Searches | # 9

10. A Diverse Pool Population Ph.D. Pool Penn Faculty Penn Standing Faculty 2006 27.1% 72.9% Effective Faculty Searches | # 10

11. Comparison to peers Data reflect only tenured and tenure-track faculty Comparison Peers: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, MIT, Northwestern, Princeton, Rice, Stanford, Chicago, Rochester, Washington University, Yale Source: Data Reported to the U.S. Department of Education Effective Faculty Searches | # 11 AsianBlackHispanicWomen Penn’s Rank Among Peers12 / 184 / 1816 / 183 / 10 Low to High Range Among Peers 5.1 - 13.2% (8.1 points) 1.6 - 4.1% (2.5 points) 0.8 - 3.2% (2.4 points) 21 - 34% (13 points)

12. Faculty Turnover 2003-2006 -4-3-4 13 5 3 -64 61 Arts & Sciences Asian Black Hispanic White Effective Faculty Searches | # 12

13. Grooming Large and Diverse Pools Active Searches Know the obstacles Network before opening search Use targeted outreach Use word of mouth Avoid undue narrowcasting Effective Faculty Searches | # 13

14. Careful and Unbiased Evaluation Harder than you think! Diffusion of responsibility Short cuts Unconscious bias Effective Faculty Searches | # 14

15. Unconscious Schemas Natural part of perception and evaluation Beliefs about people Beliefs about how people “ought” to be Contributing factors Ambiguity Stress from competing tasks Time pressure Lack of critical mass Effective Faculty Searches | # 15 Fiske (2002). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 123-128.

16. Unconscious Schemas LowHigh Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu (2002). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902. Effective Faculty Searches | # 16 Low Hispanics Competence Warmth Blacks Whites Asians Men Women

17. From University of Michigan STRIDE program (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/advance/stride)http://sitemaker.umich.edu/advance/stride

18. Evaluating C.V.s University psychology professors preferred “Brian” over “Karen” by 2:1 Brian Steinpreis, Anders, & Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles, 41, 509. Effective Faculty Searches | # 18 Karen

19. Callbacks Black-sounding names (“Jamal”): 15 resumes = callback White-sounding names (“Greg”): 10 resumes = callback Equivalent to 8 extra years experience Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004) Poverty Action Lab, 3, 1-27. Effective Faculty Searches | # 19

20. Letters of Recommendation Trix & Psenka (2003) Discourse & Society, 14(2), 191-220. Effective Faculty Searches | # 20 Letters for women Shorter Fewer references to c.v. Twice as many gender references More references to personal life Fewer standout references (“excellent”) and more “grindstone” references (“hardworking”) Twice as many hedges and irrelevancies (“It’s amazing how much she’s accomplished”)

21. Influences on Advancement Martell, Lane, & Emrich (1996) American Psychologist, 51, 157-158. Effective Faculty Searches | # 21 Simulated organizational hierarchy Start with 50-50 gender mix Assume 1 percent bias in promotions After eight promotion cycles: Highest management level 65% male

22. Reducing Bias Reducing ambiguity Avoiding “solo” presence in pool Taking time to review applications Focusing on positive exemplars Effective Faculty Searches | # 22 Dovidio & Gaertner (2000). Psychological Science, 11, 315-319. Fiske (2002). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 123-128. Martell (1991). Journal of Applied Soc Psychol, 21, 1939-1960. Dasgupta & Greenwald (2001). Journal of Pers & Soc Psych, 81, 800-814.

23. Careful and Unbiased Evaluation Thoughtfulness and accountability Supportive, diverse committee Familiarity with research on bias Structured, evidence-based review Apply consistent, objective criteria Evaluate entire application Treat recommendations with care Avoid over-reliance on prestige Effective Faculty Searches | # 23

24. Effective Visits Show enthusiasm Offer dual-career and family-friendly policy information Identify colleagues who can discuss climate for women and minorities Introduce the city and region Stay in contact Be even-handed and transparent in negotiating Effective Faculty Searches | # 24

25. Dual-Career Couples Effective Faculty Searches | # 25 Dual Hires: Hired as a couple 8% Independent Hires: Each replied to separate advertisements for position, or met after they were hired. 20% Solo Hires: Only one partner in the couple is currently employed in academia. 9% Joint: Recruited by university as a couple. 2.5% Sequential: One partner hired first, then negotiates for the “second hire.” 5.5% Clayman Institute Survey of Penn Faculty N= 949 (34% response rate)

26. Faculty Opportunity Fund Benefits and Retirements Brochures Online Application System HERC Accompanying Spouse-Partner Program Relocation Assistance Child Care Some Resources Effective Faculty Searches | # 26

27. Discussion Effective Faculty Searches | # 27

28. provost-fac@upenn.edu