1. Improving Recruitment of Women Faculty in Science and Engineering at MU Mizzou ADVANCE STRIDE Committee Spring 2009 This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. 0618977. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF. Mizzou Mizzou ADVANCE

2. Women faculty in MU’s Science and Engineering Departments Sources: National Science Foundation, 2003; 10/31/2006 HR Census Date Employee File, MU Office of Institutional Research

3. Student populations are not mirrored in the MU’s STEM faculty Sources: National Science Foundation, 2003; 10/31/2006 HR Census Date Employee File, MU Office of Institutional Research

4. Strategies: Phases of a Search 1.Pre-search 2.Solicit applicants 3.Evaluate applicants 4.Select candidates to interview 5.Interview 6.Evaluate finalists 7.Make the offer 8.Close the deal

5. Pre-Search Choose a committee committed to diversity The charge: excellence, diversity, proactive recruiting Review past searches –How many women applied? Interviewed? –Offered? Hired? How compare to males? Define the position and prepare the advertisement –As broadly as possible –Convey departmental commitment to attracting women candidates –Emphasize ability to work with diverse students

6. Soliciting Applicants: Broaden the pool Be aware of the MU Chancellor’s Diversity Initiative Consider candidates from wide range of institutions Consider established, but under-placed, women faculty from lesser-ranked institutions than MU Place suitable value on non-traditional career paths Help generate a diverse pool Attend and speak at meetings-talk to potential women candidates Cultivate future candidates and mentors of future candidates Use directories of recent Ph.D.s available in the MU Office of Equity.

7. Soliciting Applicants: Recruit actively Advertise for at least 30 days before deadline Advertise in venues that attract diverse candidates Personal contacts: colleagues, possible candidates Take advantage of rosters of female members in professional organizations, recent PhD graduates, fellowship recipients

8. Evaluating Applicants Learn about and discuss research on biases and assumptions Develop explicit criteria and apply consistently to all applicants Spend sufficient time evaluating each applicant Evaluate each candidate’s entire application Be able to defend every decision for eliminating or advancing a candidate. Evaluate.

9. Learn about schemas Schemas are expectations or stereotypes that define “average” members of a group –Guide perceptions and behaviors –Influence group members’ judgments about themselves and others Widely culturally shared –Both men and women have the same schemas about gender –People are often not aware of schemas Fiske (2002) Current Directions in Psychological Science. 11:123-128

10. Schemas are... Fiske (2002) Current Directions in Psychological Science. 11:123-128 Applied more under circumstances of: –Ambiguity (including lack of information) –Stress from competing tasks –Time pressure –Lack of critical mass

11. Schemas in action: Evaluation of Identical CVs When evaluating identical application packages … … both male and female university psychology professors preferred 2:1 to hire “Brian” over “Karen.” Brian Karen Steinpreis, Anders, & Ritzke (1999) Sex Roles, 41, 509.

12. Schemas in action: Evaluating Fellowship Applications Women had to be 2.5 times more productive to receive the same reviewer rating as the average male applicant. Similar findings: USA/GAO report on Peer Review in Federal Agency Grant Selection (1994) European Molecular Biology Organization Reports (2001) NIH Pioneer Awards: Journal of Women’s Health (2005) & Nature (August 2006) Wenneras & Wold (1997) Nature, 387, 341.

13. Letters of Recommendation for Successful Medical School Faculty Applicants Letters for men: Longer More references to CV Publications Patients Colleagues Letters for women: Shorter More references to personal life More irrelevancies, faint praise, and hedges “She is close to my wife.” “It’s amazing how much she’s accomplished.” “It appears her health is stable.” Trix & Psenka (2003) Discourse & Society, Vol 14(2): 191-220.

14. Evaluating Applicants Periodically review your judgments –Are women subject to different expectations in terms or publication and productivity? –Are candidates from lesser known institutions being under- valued? –Are the accomplishments of women being under-valued or unfairly attributed to research mentors or collaborators? –Is the ability of women to run a research group, raise funds and supervise students being underestimated? –Are assumptions about family responsibilities negatively influencing evaluation of merit, despite evidence of productivity?

15. Choosing Candidates for Visit Use a detailed rating system to select candidates Develop a “medium” list from which to generate the short list. –Are there women on the list? –If not, consider intensifying the search before moving on to a short list. Consider making multiple short lists, each emphasizing different criteria. –Develop final short list by taking the top candidates across different criteria. –Is there evidence of evaluation bias?

16. Choosing Candidates for Visit Plan to interview more than one woman. –Research shows that interviewers evaluate women more fairly when more than one woman is in the interview pool. Arrange for interviews to occur over a short time frame.

17. Interviewing During the campus visit, one goal is to learn about the candidate: –Make sure candidates meet with a variety of faculty and students in both formal and informal settings –Ask some “standardized” questions during meetings Focus on candidate’s ability to perform essential functions of the job Be sure to gather equivalent information from all candidates to make comparisons easier –Be aware of laws regarding questions about race, ethnic background, religion, marital or familial status, age, disability, sexual orientation or veteran status

18. Interviewing During the campus visit, another goal is to allow the candidate to learn about your department and MU: –Designate a faculty member as host –ADVANCE can help networking with females, if needed. –Consider how the department represents itself in terms of: Serving as a place where faculty, especially women, can thrive Having clear, public policies and procedures for evaluation and promotion Mentoring for junior and tenured faculty

19. Evaluating Finalists Solicit feedback from faculty and students who met the candidates –Develop and use a form to get specific information –Ask questions about scholarship and potential for success Be aware of possible biases in the evaluations

20. Making the Offer Be open and honest in negotiating the offer. Be aware that women may have received less mentoring than men about how to make requests in negotiation. –Consider appointing an advocate or mentor to help candidates through the negotiation. –To ensure equality, make sure the candidate knows what items are negotiable.

21. Closing the Deal Pay attention to non-professional aspects of the package –If candidate has a partner who will need placement help, try to help arrange interviews / opportunities as early in hiring process as possible. –Be ready and open to share information on other issues of concern to the candidate.

22. After the Search If you successfully hire a woman: –Consider the factors that contributed to the success –Keep a record of what worked well for future reference If the applicant pool was not as large or diverse as you wanted, ask: –Could the job description have been phrased differently to attract more candidates? –Could the department have recruited more actively? –Were there criteria that were consistently not met by the women candidates?

23. After the Search If a woman was offered the position, but chose not to accept, what reasons did they offer? –Consider as many factors as you can identify. –Share those reasons with departmental decision-makers –Re-visit those reasons as part of the initiating future searches.