Faculty Recruitment Module (Draft)
This resource document is the outcome of the NSF ADVANCE/university initiative for
excellence in faculty recruitment.
Research on faculty recruitment and retention is a thriving, data-driven academic field in
its own right that few faculty will have time to absorb on their own. This is a digest of the
different ways that many universities are 1) maximizing excellence and diversity in the applicant
pool (excellence and diversity are not mutually exclusive), 2) guarding against unconscious bias
when evaluating candidates, 3) building large networks that allow the creative accommodation of
extraordinary candidates.
It will not be enough to excel at any one of these individual steps (e.g., Vicker and Royer,
2006). We must excel every step of the way. It will take more than the ideas in this document,
but we hope the information will inspire new, creative solutions for attracting and retaining the
best faculty members to your department.
INSTRUCTIONS: Read the 8 short introductory paragraphs, and then, answer the
subsequent questions. Then read the subsequent discussion. References are provided at the end
of each section for your own use. You are not expected to know the answers to any or all of the
questions. Most of the questions are designed to prepare you for the subsequent information and
references provided. Your answers to the multiple choice questions are not tracked, and the
feedback you receive is for your own personal use.
You can help us improve the document by answering a few short questions at the end.
Ideas for this document were inspired by and sometimes taken directly from a document
crafted by Gertrude J. Fraser and Dawn E. Hunt entitled, The Faculty Search Committee
Tutorial: Embracing Diversity, Building a Great Institution, published by the University of
Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, in 2011.
Development is part of and funded by the Lehigh ADVANCE grant (xxxx). The
following Lehigh University faculty and staff have contributed to this document. Jill Schneider,
Marci Levine Morefield, Kathy Iovine, Amber Rice,
Attachments
1. PNAS article
2. List of definitions of cognitive errors short cuts and how to avoid them
3. Sample candidate matrix showing the search criteria
1
SECTION 1. A Wide Net Catches the Most and the Best Fish
In both small and large universities, small groups of people write job descriptions for
their immediate needs, and they typically put the advertisement in journals commonly used in
their academic field. The assumption is that because this is the way things are usually done that
this is the best way to get the best candidate. Is there any data to support this notion? Are there
other alternatives?
To the best of your knowledge, which of the following statements are true and supported
by at least some data?
a. The probability that an applicant will accept an offer is higher if that applicant has had a
previous relationship to the university, and if the applicant has had 2 or more visit to the
university before the application process has begun.
b. Blanket mailings are less successful than targeted in-person networking in yielding a
diverse applicant pool.
c. In addition to an advertisement, search committee members at many universities send
out personal notes, make phone calls, and make ambassador visits to a wide range of
colleges and universities, including historically black and all female institutions. They make
it clear to their colleagues at other universities that referrals will receive immediate and
personal attention in the search process, despite a very large pool of applicants.
d. Recruiting a broad, highly gifted and highly innovative pool of applicants requires a
longer timeline than used previously (several years vs. months or a year).
e. Many universities are routinely employing broad search descriptions in place of those
that narrowly describe an already-imagined person of the “right fit.”
f. Excellence and diversity are not mutually exclusive.
g. Diversity is essential for achieving excellence.



a-g
b, c, d, and e
a, b, c, and d
2
SECTION 1. Discussion: All of the above (a-g) are true statements supported by a mounting
corpus of evidence. Courting and landing the best tenure-track faculty requires
1) a longer period of time and attention than was previously thought (several years)
2) a broad and open job description
3) personal referrals and ambassadorship
4) cultivation of relationships with senior graduate students and postdoctoral candidates years
before the actual searches
5) recognition of excellence among underrepresented groups
6) recognition of the impact of diversity on institutional excellence
Examples:
At the University of Minnesota, they conducted campus-wide research to discover why
faculty candidates decline offers. The striking outcome was that 39% of those without any
previous relationship to the university declined an offer, only 17% of those who had a previous
relationship declined. The same study showed that for those candidates who had 0-1 visits the
declination rate was 39% but for those with 2 or more visits the declination rate was only 24%
(Rachac, C. and G. Maruyama. 2007. Weather or not to come: Faculty reasons for accepting or
declining offers from a public Midwestern research university. Presentation at a conference,
Keeping Our Faculties IV Symposium: Recruiting, Retaining and Advancing Faculty of Color.
Minneapolis, MN. April 12-14, 2007).
The recruitment handbook developed by the University of Michigan's ADVANCE
program (funded by the National Science Foundation) notes that "Cultivating future candidates is
an important activity for the search committee to undertake, and may require that the search have
a longer time horizon than is typical" (p.10). In fact, recruiting a diverse pool of applicants must
be an ongoing process, and should include “growing your own.” This means recruiting the best
graduate students, providing them with the best training and experiences, tracking them after
graduation, and recruiting them to back Lehigh. Prior to the advent of the Internet, Skype, and
global travel to conferences and collaborations, a commonly-held philosophy favored applicants
with experience from several distant and unrelated institutions because it was believed that these
applicants would be superior due to their broad exposure to different programs. In today’s job
market, it is easier to become broadly educated and trained without moving from one geographic
area to another. Lehigh’s competitors are hiring our best graduates and also their own best
graduates, particularly if those applicants are from underrepresented groups.
There are more and more anecdotal reports of successful recruiting by close personal
contact with target universities. Vicker and Royer, authors of The Complete Academic Search
Manual note that "One of the candidates was referred by two and another by three external
colleagues. We knew immediately that they were exceptional candidates. It helps to indicate that
their referrals will receive immediate and personal attention in the process. Blanketing mailing
lists with position announcements is rarely successful, but targeted networking can often yield
fruitful results" (Vicker and Royer, p.23).
The University of Washington and many other research universities are engaged in
continual development of ongoing relationships with graduate students with an eye to future
faculty candidates (NSF ADVANCE Cornell, NSF ADVANCE University of Michigan, NSF
3
ADVANCE University of Washington). Seminars and workshops are given by ambassadors at
historically female or historically black colleges and universities, for example.
The neuroscience programs at Emory and Georgia State Universities have reciprocal,
continuous outreach to students at historically black colleges and universities such as
Morehouse, Spelman, and Clark Atlanta. For example, undergraduates, graduate students, and
faculty from these historically black institutions worked for academic credit in Emory and
Georgia State neuroscience laboratories funded by an NSF grant obtained for this purpose. The
students and faculty from these historically black institutions are trained in summer laboratory
courses and attend weekly seminars throughout the year. This allows Emory to identify future
candidates and establish substantial, scholarly relationships with those students from the early
undergraduate years throughout their post graduate career.
Becoming a magnet for excellent graduates and postdoctoral researchers extends beyond
the formal recruiting visits. “Faculty members can be ambassadors for your department and for
the University every time they attend a conference or visit another school.” (Fraser and Hunt,
University of Virginia, The Faculty Search Committee Tutorial: Embracing Diversity, Building a
Great Institution). Develop brochures, information packets, slide presentations, and recruiting
strategies that can be used by all representatives of your department to use when they present
their research at other universities.
Broad, general, rank-open job descriptions are preferred at universities such as The
University of Maryland, The University of Michigan, The University of Massachusetts, the
University of Virginia, and Case Western Reserve.
Most all universities use inclusion of statements that would appeal to candidates
committed to diversity (e.g., "the college is especially interested in qualified candidates who can
contribute, through their research, teaching and/or service, to the diversity and excellence of the
academic community.") In other words, the statement in your advertisement should not only state
that your institution is an “equal opportunity employer” but project your commitment to
achieving excellence through increased diversity (Vicker and Royer, 2006, p. 13; Terry, Effrat
and Sorcinelli, 2006).
As top universities increase the representation of women and members of
underrepresented groups, we find evidence that diversity and excellence are not mutually
exclusive. In addition, evidence is accumulating that excellence is achieved through increased
diversity. For example, studies of group function in different professions show that groups
composed of mixed gender and representatives of a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds
achieve their goals with great enthusiasm, efficiency, motivation, and productivity than samegender, all white male groups (e.g., Fields and Blum, 1997; Reagans and Zuckerman, 2001;
Summers, 2006).
Section 1 References
Fields DL, Blum TC. 1997 Employee satisfaction in work groups with different gender
composition. J Organ Behav.;18:181– 196.
4
Lange, S.E. and J.W. Yen. 2005. Toolkits for retention and recruitment: Utilization and
outcomes. Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual
Conference and Exposition.
Moody, J. 2007. Rising above cognitive errors: Guidelines for search, tenure review, and other
evaluation committees. JoAnn Moody.
NSF ADVANCE, University of Rhode Island. 2007. Faculty recruitment handbook: A researchbased guide for active diversity recruitment practices.
Reagans R, Zuckerman EW. 2001Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of
corporate R&D teams. Organization Sci. ;12:502–517.
Sommers SR. 2006 On racial diversity and group decision making: Identifying multiple effects
of racial composition on jury deliberations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.;90:597– 612.
Terry, E., A. Effrat and M.D. Sorcinelli. 2006. Faculty development and renewal to enhance
diversity and inclusion. Presentation at a conference, Diversity and Learning: A Defining
Moment, Association of American Colleges and Universities. October 19-21, 2006. Philadelphia,
PA.
Trachtenberg, S.J. 2007. Goodbye to Procrustes and Goldilocks. Inside Higher Education,
October 18, 2007.
Turner, C.S.V. 2003. Diversifying the faculty: A guidebook for search committees. Washington,
D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Van der Vorm, P. 2001. The well-tempered search: Hiring faculty and administration for
mission. Academe. 87(3). May-June.
Vicker, L.A. and H.J. Royer. 2006. The complete academic search manual: A systematic
approach to successful and inclusive hiring. Sterling, VA: Stylus.
5
SECTION 2. Some of the most innovative and creative faculty candidates are
found outside our normal networks
This makes sense. Sheep flock together. Furthermore, search expert Caroline Turner says,
"people of color are [often] overlooked because they are not part of the primary networks of
senior faculty and administrators" (Turner, p. 9). Thus, another positive strategy to consider is to
build connections with potential faculty candidates outside our current networks.
To the best of your knowledge, which of the programs and awards listed below should be
used to provide Lehigh University faculty with contacts for expanding their recruitment
networks?
a. Recipients of Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and
Engineering Mentoring (PAESMEM)
b. Accenture American Indian Graduate Scholarship
c. Ford Foundation Diversity Fellows
d. Meyerhoff Biomedical Fellows
e. Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS)
Postdoctoral Programs
f. The University of Virginia School of Medicine SRIP participants
g. National Science Foundation IGERT and AGEP students



a-e
b, c, d, and e
a, b, c, and d
6
SECTION 2. Discussion:
All of these above resources (a-e) are useful and should receive information about
upcoming Lehigh job searches. Descriptions of each of these can be found at the end of this
document.
Years or months before a search, consider contacting candidates that are nominated for
and receive highly selective awards and graduate fellowship programs at quality institutions.
These programs identify gifted women and people from underrepresented groups. The search
committee tutorial from the University of Virginia states, “Since the level of review for these
fellowships and awards is high, and is provided by trusted faculty peers, one can trust that the
recipients of these fellowships and awards are highly competent–and highly sought after–and
would be ideal people to expand our networks.”
At the time the search committee is formed it is already too late to start this process.
Thus, each department should seriously consider forming a permanent recruitment committee
(like they have a graduate committee, undergraduate committee, infrastructure committee, etc.)
to identify candidates and foster ongoing relationships. Useful resources for identification of
candidates exist. Descriptions of each of these can be found at the end of this document.
Section 2 References:
Dreifus, G. 2007. Goal No. 1: good science. Goal No. 1: diversity: A conversation with Michael
F. Summers. The New York Times. March 13, 2007.
Krebs, P.M. and M.J. LaBare. 2004. Exploring strategies for hiring and retaining minority
faculty. Presentation at 5th Biennial Diversity and Learning Conference, Association of
American Colleges and Universities, October 21-23, Nashville, TN.
Maki, M. 2006. SRIP aims for long term diversity in the SOM. Research News, Office of the
Vice President for Research and Graduate Studies, University of Virginia.
Mannix, M. 2002. Facing the problem. American Society for Engineering Education Prism, 12
(2): 18-24.
NSF ADVANCE, University of Washington. 2007. Faculty hiring: Diversity and excellence go
hand-in-hand. Center for Institutional Change.
Turner, C.S.V. 2003. Diversifying the faculty: A guidebook for search committees. Washington,
D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
7
SECTION 3. Lashing yourself to an unbiased mast
Data have documented that bias is a natural part of the human condition, but also that
there are simple precautions to guard against it. The table below is a version of the table often
used by search committee chairs to evaluate each prospective candidate for tenure-track positions
in Integrative Biology at Lehigh University (unlike most STEM departments, this department has
achieved close to 50% women). Take a look at the table and answer the subsequent questions.
Candidates
Alphabetically
John Doe
Harvard
Productivity/funding
Jane Doe
Indiana
16, the last 4 in high
impact journals. K
Award
20 publications since the
Ph.D. in high impact
journals. High potential
for funding
Mary Smith
University of
Iowa
17.5 in a wide range of
high and medium impact
journals. Has small grant
from industry.
Alex Wilson
University of
Chicago
18 in medium impact
journals. Good potential
for funding
Collaborative
Potential
5% (low potential
letters indicate he
is an “island unto
himself”). Few of
our faculty have
any overlapping
scientific interests
85% (letters
indicate she has
been an inspiring
leader of several
productive
collaborations.
Most of the
department faculty
can think of
collaborative
projects with this
candidate)
50% (medium
potential. Some
possible
collaborations, but
none in the past)
85% (research
program overlaps
with almost all
Lehigh department
members)
Teaching
Citizenship/Diversity
(Some
experience
in fields we
do not
teach)
50% (letters and
personal
communication
indicate some negative
department
interactions)
(Excellent
experience
in the
courses that
must be
taught for
our
undergrad
and grad
programs)
100% (AfricanAmerican woman held
in very high esteem by
all in her previous 3
position,)
(some
experience
but not in
our area of
need)
(Some
experience)
Seems shy and yet
very enthusiastic about
her research.
“Listens extremely
well”
50% (medium, letters
suggest does not pull
her weight in service
to the department)
100% has served on
diversity committees
as a research associate,
very well loved by all,
interviewed very well.
Interested in setting up
a summer program to
recruit
underrepresented
groups to research in
chemistry
8
Which of these statements are true?
a. The table above might be useful for some search committee members, but there is no evidence
that using such a table prevents bias regarding race and gender.
b. There is a great deal of evidence that the tendency toward gender or racial bias can be
circumvented by ranking each candidate according to the criteria included in this table, rather
than jumping to an overall summary of each candidate.
c. In addition to using the above table, there is evidence that equitable, fair searches are most
likely to occur when search committee members have attended educational workshops on gender
and racial bias, are required to commit to the value of credentials before reviewing any
applicants, rate specific applicants against specific criteria before making summary statements,
take adequate time to review the candidates prior to the first candidate-ranking meeting, and
when they begin search committee meetings by listing positive rather than negative attributes of
particular candidates.
d. There is no evidence that attending educational workshops about gender and racial bias have
significant effects on equitable search practices.



b and c
a, b, and d
a, c, and d
9
SECTION 3. Discussion
Option a is false, there is ample evidence that this rating scheme prevents bias.
Options b and c are true, and d is false. Data have accumulated that bias is a natural part of
the human condition, but also that there are simple precautions to guard against it. To cite
an example, in 2009, faculty members at the University of Wisconsin "systematically review[ed]
experimental evidence for interventions mitigating gender bias in employment." The authors
were Isaac, Lee and Carnes. They read over one hundred articles and chose 27 articles published
between 1973 and 2008. They found that when search committee members were required "to
commit to the value of credentials before reviewing any applicants" gender bias was significantly
decreased. Some of the published articles are summarized on the University of Virginia tutorial
for search committee members:
Three papers in particular show that the more hurried and rushed a search committee
member, the more snap judgments, cognitive errors (defined in the next section), and
stereotypes were used in the decision-making process. Search committee members were
significantly less likely to demonstrate bias against women applicants when they had adequate
time to review applicant material and when they did not have cognitive diversions. This research
was conducted by
1. Martell, R.F. 1991. Sex bias at work: The effects of attentional and memory demands
on performance ratings of men and women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
21(23): 1939-1960.
2. Sczesney, S. and U. Kü 2004. Meta-cognition about biological sex and genderstereotypic physical appearance: consequences for the assessment of leadership
competence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 30: 13-21.
3. Tullar, W.L., and T.W. Mullins. 1979. Effects of interview length and applicant quality
on interview decision time. Journal of Applied Psychology. 64(6): 669-674.
Search committee members (or other hiring staff and administrators) who participated
in workshops that covered material on common hiring biases were less likely to make biased
hiring decisions. This research was conducted by
1. Hahn, D.C. and R.L. Dipboye. 1988. Effects of training and information on the
accuracy and reliability of job evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology. 73(2): 146-53.
2.Latham, G.P., K.N. Wexley and E.D. Pursell. 1975. Training managers to minimize
rating errors in the observation of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60(5): 550555.
Two other papers show that using specific criteria, such as fundability, citizenship,
productivity, and teaching experience, encourages search committee members to think broadly
and to give each candidate more careful and thorough consideration. For example, in one
study, Uhlmann and Cohen, 2005 found that, “Men who had not committed to hiring criteria
prior to disclosure of the applicant’s gender gave more favorable evaluations to a male applicant
for police chief than to a female applicant. By contrast, men who had committed to criteria prior
to disclosure of the applicant’s gender gave equivalent evaluations to the male and female
applicants. Our research thus demonstrates the efficacy of a method to reduce job discrimination:
the establishment of standards of merit prior to the review of candidates.” In another study, the
10
merit ratings of candidates more closely matched hiring decisions when the raters were required
to conduct those merit ratings based on specific criteria before making summary judgments
about whether or not to hire an applicant. In contrast, when summary hiring decisions were made
first, prior to conducting a merit rating based on specific criteria, these searches resulted in a
disparity between the summary decision and the merit rating.
1. Cann, A, W.D. Siegfried and L. Pearce. 1981. Forced attention to specific applicant
qualifications: impact on physical attractiveness and sex of applicant biases. Personnel
Psychology. 34: 65-75.
2. Uhlmann, E.L.and Cohen, J.L. 2005. Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify
discrimination. Psychological Science. 16(6): 474-480.
Section 3 References for “Lashing yourself to an unbiased mast”
Ash, A.S., P.L. Carr, R. Goldstein and R.H. Friedman. 2004. Compensation and advancement of
women in academic medicine: Is there equity? Annals of Internal Medicine. 141: 205-212.
Cann, A, W.D. Siegfried and L. Pearce. 1981. Forced attention to specific applicant
qualifications: impact on physical attractiveness and sex of applicant biases. Personnel
Psychology. 34: 65-75.
Carnes, M, C. Morrissey and S. Geller. 2008. Women's health and women in academic medicine:
Hitting the same glass ceiling? Women's Health. 17: 1453-1462.
Hahn, D.C. and R.L. Dipboye. 1988. Effects of training and information on the accuracy and
reliability of job evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology. 73(2): 146-53.
Isaac, C, B. Lee and M. Carnes. 2009. Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: A
systematic review. Academic Medicine. 84(10): 1440-1446.
Latham, G.P., K.N. Wexley and E.D. Pursell. 1975. Training managers to minimize rating errors
in the observation of behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology. 60(5): 550-555.
Martell, R.F. 1991. Sex bias at work: The effects of attentional and memory demands on
performance ratings of men and women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 21(23): 19391960.
Sczesney, S. and U. Kü 2004. Meta-cognition about biological sex and gender-stereotypic
physical appearance: consequences for the assessment of leadership competence. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin. 30: 13-21.
Sheridan, J.T., E. Fine, C.M. Pribbenow, J. Handelsman and M. Carnes. 2010. Searching for
excellence & diversity: Increasing the hiring of women faculty at one academic medical center.
Academic Medicine. 85(6): 999-1007.
Steinpres, R.E., K. Anders, and D. Ritzke. 1999. The Impact of Gender on the Review of the
Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study. Sex
Roles. 41(7/8):509-28.
Trix, F. and C. Psenka. 2003. Exploring the Color of Glass: Letters of Recommendation for
Female and Male Medical Faculty. Discourse and Society. 14(2):191-220.
Tullar, W.L., and T.W. Mullins. 1979. Effects of interview length and applicant quality on
interview decision time. Journal of Applied Psychology. 64(6): 669-674.
Uhlmann, E.L.and Cohen, J.L. 2005. Constructed criteria: Redefining merit to justify
discrimination. Psychological Science. 16(6): 474-480.
Wenneras, C. and A. Wold. 1997. Nepotism and Sexism in Peer Review. Nature. 387:341-43.
11
Wright, A.L., L.A. Schwindt, T.L. Bassford, et al. 2003. Gender differences in academic
advancement" Patterns, causes, and potential solutions in one US college of medicine. Academic
Medicine. 78: 500-508.
12
SECTION 4. Cognitive Errors/Short Cuts
Definition of Cognitive Errors or Short Cuts: These are fallacies in logic, or quick routes
to a conclusion, that occur during evaluation in which the facts are overlooked in favor of
specific assumptions that are not upheld by evidence. For example, snap judgments in a search
committee are cognitive errors in that a conclusion is reached prior to any conscious examination
of evidence or prior to listening to other committee members. Provincialism is a cognitive error
in which a conclusion is reached based on limited or narrow knowledge or experience (for
example, an understanding based only on a small geographic area). These assumptions develop
as a result of socialization among peer groups in academia, but are remarkably easy to avoid by
thoughtful, thorough examination of the actual data.
To illustrate cognitive errors, a fictional search committee script is provided below. The
following scenario takes place in a hypothetical science department in which a search has led to
4 candidates. They have been interviewed. The search committee is meeting prior to giving their
recommendation to the chair. What cognitive errors can you spot in the fictional dialogue?
Ellen [search committee chair]: I’d like to start by asking each of you to note the positive
attributes of the candidates without ranking them or without bringing up anything negative. This
way, we can listen and give equal weight to each member of the search committees. I value each
of your opinions, and I would like to get them on the table before we have an open, back-andforth discussion, and then make our final ranking.
John (full professor): John Doe is my first choice, obviously, he did his Ph.D. at Harvard, and
his letters are from Frank Frink, the father of lipid bilayer chemistry. Frink wrote a very nice
letter, and we would be foolish not to take the advice of Frank Frink.
Laurie (assoc professor): I also note that John Doe has the most publications.
Anita (assoc professor): I agree, Doe is very, very productive.
Tyler (new assistant professor): All of the other candidates are from state schools, most of
them in the midwest, (where is Bloomington, again?) I think we can stop there and make an offer
to John Doe.
Ellen: I’d like to back up and reiterate the positive attributes of each of these top candidates (not
just John Doe), first without ranking the candidates and without bringing up anything negative. I
need to hear all of your thoughts, not only on the pedigree, but also on collaborative potential,
fundability, teaching experience, and citizenship. Please. Just for the start of our meeting, please
note the positive attributes for each of our top candidates. I really appreciate your giving
attention to the criteria we all agreed on at the start of this process. Let’s move to candidate Jane
Doe, and include the productivity, collaborative potential, teaching, and citizenship. Rita?
Anita: Oh, well, Jane (rather than John) Doe is the one from Indiana with the NIH K award for
advancement of women. Um, let’s see, she has just a few less publications that John Doe…and
there were some interesting things in her letters. Does anybody have them? I forgot my print
outs.
Tyler: Here, I’ll read one from her postdoctoral mentor at University of Chicago: “Jane is not
only very ambitious and independent, she attracts other brilliant, creative collaborators and gets
them excited and engaged in her ideas. She has struck-up innovative collaborations with
electrical engineers, medical doctors, and other chemists, and these projects have lead to
publications, successful, funded projects that have received a great deal of press.” Hmm.
13
Ellen: I would ad that her letters take a lot of trouble to note the way she lead collaborations with
engineers that lead to new patents and the seeds of their new lipid bilayer institute. With her
expertise we would be able to write a credible training grant and fund a lot of graduate students.
She also has collaborative potential across departments and colleges, even outside of chemistry,
computer science and engineering.
John: Well, I might also point out that John Doe does not qualify for a K award. How will Jane
Doe fair if she doesn’t get that kind of preferential treatment?
Ellen: Tyler, do you want to note any more positive attributes for Jane Doe before we move onto
the other candidates?
Tyler: Well, look, I see that Jane Doe has expertise in teaching in the exact courses that must be
taught by the person in this position. She is almost as productive as John Doe, everyone liked her
in the department, she would come with funding, she would already be able to teach the courses
we need her to teach, she would be very likely to establish a collaboration with at least two
people in our department, and that would facilitate their research programs as well. They might
get funded through collaborative grant proposals. She seems very likely to hit the ground
running.
Ellen: Thanks, everyone, now let’s talk about Mary Smith. I’d like each of you to talk about her
positive attributes. . .
Which of these cognitive errors did you detect?
A List of Some Cognitive Errors
a) snap judgment: making a decision without substantive thought and/or one that is not based
on evidence
b) elitism: assuming that the best candidates always come from schools/social classes/regions
that have traditionally been considered "the best," without careful attention to CVs,
recommendations, needs of the department, etc.
c) positive & negative stereotypes: presumption of innate competence/incompetence,
ability/lack of ability to fit in, etc., based on race, gender, and other personal characteristics
d) raising or lowering the bar: setting higher/lower standards for some candidates based on
negative/positive stereotypes
e) provincialism: limiting a definition of excellence to those schools/individuals/geographic
areas one knows
a. snap judgment
b. elite-ism
c. positive or negative stereotype
d. raising or lowering the bar
e. provincialism



a, b, c, and e
a, b, and d
a, c, and d
14
SECTION 4. Discussion: All of the cognitive errors A, B, C and E are present.
Options a, b, c and e are found in this example. John is obviously making three
cognitive errors when he is ready to rank John Doe highest based on his academic pedigree
(Harvard Ph.D.) and association with the father of his field. Ranking before listening to
colleagues is classic snap judgment. Ranking based solely on an ivy league school and a famous
mentor is elite-ism. Later, John uses a negative stereotype by implying that Jane Doe is not
capable of success without getting what he sees as the “preferential treatment” of an NIH K
award for advancement of women. Tyler commits the cognitive error of provincialism (making a
decision based on his limited knowledge of institutions in his eastern geographic area). He
doesn’t even realize that the University of Indiana in Bloomington is an excellent university.
This is hypothetical, but can you remember hearing similar cognitive errors in search committee
meetings? How should a search committee chair deal with cognitive errors? Should they be
pointed out when they happen?
There are obviously good reasons for being impressed with a Harvard degree, or with
applicants who have been trained by excellent mentors. This is not the point. The point is that
fair and equitable treatment of applicants requires more careful and thorough consideration of a
wide range of qualities. When we make snap judgments based only on these assumptions about
Harvard or about the applicant’s famous mentor, it is akin to drawing a scientific conclusion
based on only a small fraction of the available data.
Ellen’s leadership on the committee is not only an attempt to ensure equity and fairness
with regard to race, gender, and ethnicity. It encourages and allows all search committee
members to probe more deeply into each applicants to reveal the applicants’ talents and potential
contributions to the department. It also provokes and uncovers faculty aspirations for the future
of the department.
Section 4 References for Cognitive Errors/Shortcuts
1) Sczesny, S., Kuhnen, U. Meta-cognition about biological sex and gender-stereotypic physical
appearance: consequences for assessment of leadership and competence. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. 30:13-21.
2) Cain, D.M. and Detsky, A.S. Everyone’s a little bit biased: Even physicians. Journal of the
American Medical Association. 299(24):2893-289.
3) Snyder, Mark; Tanke, Elizabeth D.; Berscheid, Ellen (1977). Social perception and the
interpersonal behavior: on the self-fulfilling nature of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 35 (9): 656–666.
15
SECTION 5. Unconscious Bias
Section 3 and 4 provided you with strategies for a creative, thorough, fair, open-minded
search. Some of these strategies were 1) establish criteria for ranking candidates prior to reading
the files, 2) include the opinions of all search committee members at each meeting, 3) discuss all
the positive attributes of finalists prior to discussing negatives and prior to ranking, 4) remain
aware of cognitive errors such as negative stereotypes, snap judgments, elite-ism, and
provincialism. These strategies were inspired by data from a exploding research field concerned
with decisions made by the unconscious mind.
The unconscious mind is a fertile field of scientific research. Clever experiments and lifechanging philosophies arise from research on the way human beings make unconscious
assumptions and decisions. This research is a vibrant and innovative subfield of neurobiology,
medicine, education, psychology, sociology, economics, linguistics, women’s studies, and
organizational behavior.
Answer true or false to these questions about unconscious bias.
a. I am aware that I use unconscious bias in making some decisions.
b. Unconscious bias plays no role whatsoever in my decisions about hiring or promotion.
c. There is more than one study that shows that seemingly objective decisions are influenced by
unconscious thoughts, even in the most well-meaning individuals.
d. Unconscious bias about gender is found not only in men, but also in women making decisions
about hiring.
e. Unconscious bias against women is limited to STEM fields of academia



a, b, c, and d
a-e
c and d
16
SECTION 5. Discussion
One cannot answer “true” to a and b with any degree of accuracy. The thing about
unconscious bias is that it is unconscious, so, by definition, you are not aware that you harbor
unconscious bias. Likewise, most of us are not aware that we snore in our sleep. If presented
with evidence, a video, an audiotape, or a reliable witness account of ourselves sawing logs, we
have some reason to believe that we snore in our sleep. Similarly, unless you have been caught in
the act of using stereotypes, you might not know that you do this unconsciously, once in a very
long while or several times a day.
Statement c is true. For example, Banaji, Bazerman and Chugh, 2003 reported in the
Harvard Business Review that “Most people believe that they are ethical, unbiased decision
makers, but the truth can be somewhat different. Psychological research routinely demonstrates
that people hold counterintentional, unconscious biases. The prevalence of these biases suggests
that even the most well-intentioned person unwittingly allows unconscious thoughts and feelings
to influence apparently objective decisions. These flawed judgments are ethically problematic
and undermine managers' fundamental role—to recruit and retain superior talent, improve the
performance of individuals and teams, and collaborate effectively with partners.”
Statement d is true. It is important to note that several studies have shown that both men
and women search committee members harbor the same biases against women. The attached
article recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is perhaps
one of the most convincing data sets documenting unconscious bias in both male and female
faculty members asked to evaluate job candidates (Moss-Racusin et al., 2012).
Trix and Psenka (2003), demonstrated this for the health sciences. Steinpreis et al.,
(1999) demonstrated that in the academic field of psychology, “both men and women were more
likely to vote to hire a male job applicant than a female job applicant with an identical record.
Similarly, both sexes reported that the male job applicant had done adequate teaching, research,
and service experience compared to the female job applicant with an identical record.” Biernat
and Fuegen (2001) review an extensive literature on many and varied professions and
experimental situations in which females rate other females as inherently less competent than
males, even though the comparisons where between applicants with the exact same credentials.
Broder (1993) did an analysis of the reviews of grant proposals to the National Science
Foundation in economics and found that female reviewers gave significantly lower scores than
male reviewers to female-authored proposals. In some cases, a simple bias against women can be
masked by the more complicated bias that results from shifting standards of judgment. An
example of shifting the standard of judgment is when a search committee member reaches the
conclusion that female applicant is “good, for a woman”) (Biernat and Fuegen, 2001). In
summary, studies that ask subjects to rate candidates of equal merit reveal both simple and
complex tendencies for both men and women to harbor bias against women.
Statement e is most certainly false. As you can see by many of the above examples,
unconscious bias is prevalent in many fields of academia and in many different professions, not
just science, math, and technology.
17
The good news is that the strategies described in section 3 and 4 are effective ways to
guard against unconscious bias. Thus, it is important to evaluate according to a pre-agreed upon
set of criteria, and attend workshops that educate faculty about the nature of unconscious bias
(e.g., Hahn and Dipboye, 1988; Latham et al., 1975; Sheridan et al., 2010).
Section 5 References for Unconscious Bias
1. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., and Handelsman, J. 2012
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Procedings of the National Academy
of Science, in press, 2012. THIS DOCUMENT IS ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS
RESOURCE DOCUMENT.
2. Devine P.G. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. J Pers Soc Psychol 56(1):5–18.
3. Eagly A.H., Mladinic A. 1994. Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from
research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competence. Eur Rev Soc Psychol
5(1):1–35.
4. Spence J.T., Hahn E.D. 1997. The attitudes toward women scale and attitude change in
college students. Psychol Women Q 21(1):17–34.
5. Dovidio J.F., Gaertner S.L. 2004. In: Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed
Zanna MP (Elsevier, New York), pp 1–51.
6. Nosek, B.A., Banaji, M., Greenwald, A.G. 2002. Harvesting implicit group attitudes and
beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dyn 6(1):101–115.
7. Goldin, C., Rouse, C. 2000. Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions
on female musicians. Am Econ Rev 90:715–741.
8. Foschi, M. 2000. Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annu Rev
Sociol 26(1):21–42.
9. Foschi, M.1996. Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Soc Psychol Q
59:237–254.
10. Goldberg, P. 1968. Are women prejudiced against women? Transaction 5(5):28–30.
11. Heilman, M.E., Wallen, A.S., Fuchs, D., Tamkins, M.M. 2004. Penalties for success:
Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. J Appl Psychol 89:416–427.
12. Monin, B., Miller, D.T, 2001. Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. J Pers Soc
Psychol 81:33–43.
18
19
6. Lehigh Hospitality: Brown and White and Red Carpet
Which of the following statements are true?
a. At the University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education, search committees often leave a
UVA-related gift in the hotel room to show the visiting candidate he or she is an honored guest.
b. At the University of Michigan, search committees are forbidden to give flowers or gifts
because they feel the candidate should feel lucky to be among the few who receive interviews.
c. The University of California at Berkeley School of Engineering took down a wall of
photographs of retired, Caucasian, male professors in order to make their college appear more
hospitable and welcoming to future candidates for tenure-track positions.
d. As long as the search committee rolls out the red carpet, the candidate will feel comfortable,
valued, and respected.



a, b, c, and d
a, b, and d
a, c, and d
20
SECTION 6. Discussion
Statement a is true, and statement b is false. It is not only well understood but also
well documented that successful recruiting requires the “red-carpet treatment.” The red-carpet
treatment, however, is relative to those institutions with which you compete. Universities like the
University of Michigan, the University of Virginia and many other even more prominent
universities boast competitive start-up packages, an excellent academic reputation, and state-ofthe-art facilities, and yet they all lay out the red carpet for their candidates no matter how large
the applicant pool. The University of Virginia’s Curry School of Education actually does leave
flowers and a small UVA-related gift in the hotel room for each candidate, and administrators are
quoted as saying "Deliberate acts that reflect our thoughtfulness are planned in an attempt to
express our sincere desire to have the candidate as a colleague. We try to capitalize on the adage
that first impressions are lasting ones" (Pendleton, D. 2005. Southern inhospitality. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. April 13, 2005).
Statement c is true. If our competitors are making strides to create a friendlier more
hospitable environment that is representative of the growing number of women in engineering,
can we expect to draw women away from those friendly environments? An article in the UCBerkeley' News Berkleyan describes how the UC-Berkeley School of Engineering improved the
representation of women faculty, in part by eliminating the wall of photos of white male retired
professors. They point out that visible, physical messages about the environment/cultural climate
can undermine any attempts by the search committee to create a welcoming, comfortable
environment (Hunter, D.L. 2003. Turning things around: How engineering increased its number
of female faculty. UCBerkeleyNews, Berkeleyan).
Statement d is false. Faculty members who are not on the search committee, staff
members, administrators, or graduate students might undermine the efforts of the search
committee if they are not aware of the importance of rolling out the red carpet. Search
committees and chairs must make the entire department aware of the importance of the
candidates’ visits (Vicker, L.A. and H.J. Royer. 2006. The complete academic search manual: A
systematic approach to successful and inclusive hiring. Sterling, VA: Stylus).
21
SECTION 7. Dual-career couples
The best candidates often chose a university based on the ability to find employment for
their spouse. Administrators have the ability to create positions for spouses, if they are
committed to attracting the best candidates. The search committee does not make these
decisions, and yet the search committee can succeed or fail miserably if they are not aware of
some crucial issues. It is absolutely imperative for members of the search committee or other
department members to communicate effectively about university policy regarding dual career
couples. Errors and missteps in communication about these issues can lead to a lost candidate at
best and a law suit at worst.
First, it is absolutely essential for all faculty and especially search committee members to
know that accommodation of dual-career couples is possible and that there are mechanisms for
achievement of this goal.
Which of the following are commonly used strategies for recruiting two career couples?
a. A spouse position created via cost sharing between the hiring department and the provost.
b. Development of regional networks of schools to advertise jointly and/or help partners
search for jobs
c. The university can create a second position in the department
d. Lehigh University’s Strategic Hiring Initiative
e. Accommodation through non-tenure track and adjunct positions



a, b, c, d, and e
a, b, and d only
a, c, and d only
22
SECTION 7. Discussion:
All of the above strategies (a-e) are used at many universities, and Lehigh University has
(in 2012) hired a dual career couple under the Strategic Hiring Initiative (one spouse is in the
Department of Physics the other in the Department of Sociology/Anthropology).
Decisions about spousal hires are made by administrators not by search committees, and
yet the dual-career couple automatically extends many opportunities for the search committee to
make fatal mistakes or win decisive victories in handling the situation. Most important, make it a
point to be up-to-date on the policies about dual career couples at Lehigh University. For
example, know about the Strategic Hiring Initiative on the Provost’s website. In this document,
the errors that the search committee can make regarding dual career couples are explained in
detail in the next section on discrimination based on marital or reproductive status.
23
SECTION 8. More on sex, children, and dual-careers
According to your understanding, which of the following are defined as “sex
discrimination” and have been and can be used in a legal complaint filed against a university that
did not hire or promote them?
a. A member of the search committee asks the applicant his or her marital status prior to
or during the interview.
b. A member of the search committee frowns and/or makes a negative comment when the
applicant volunteers the information that he or she is planning to have children.
c. A member of the search committee, department chair, or dean declares that preference
will be given to candidates who do not have an academic spouse who expects to get an academic
job within a 100 mile radius of the Lehigh Valley.
d. When the applicant shares their concerns regarding the employment of their academic
spouse, the search committee members shows understanding and enthusiasm and refer the
applicant promptly to the dean of the college and human resources.
e. In the packet that is provided to every candidate about Lehigh benefits and child care,
there is also a brochure or information sheet regarding dual career couples.



a, b, c, d, and e
a, b, c, and d only
a, b, and c only
SECTION 8. Discussion
Options a-c are all excellent grounds for filing a complaint against a university for
sex discrimination. Ethical and legal considerations are in agreement that no preference shall be
given based on their reproductive or marital status. There can be no exceptions.
Thus, the search committee members, the rest of the faculty, the staff, and the
administrators should never ask the candidates about their marital status, reproductive status
and plans, or their sexual orientation. Remember that anyone who meets the candidate at the
interview can undermine all of the search committee’s good faith efforts.
Search committees should never discuss the dual career issue in their deliberations.
Furthermore, search committees should not include information about dual-career issues (or
marital status or reproductive plans or status) in discussions with the department as a whole. It
would be unethical for the search committee to enter into discussions about the spouse of an
applicant with each other or with other department members. This is the reason: Worries and
fears about the administration’s ability to accommodate a dual-career couple can impact the
ranking of candidates. Thus, these discussions about the dual career issue within search
committees are unethical because they discriminate based on reproductive or marital status.
Search committees focus on the individual; administrators focus on the dual career
issues that come with the individual.
24
Many universities now have an excellent administrative Office of Dual Career
Recruitment and Retention (in the case of academic spouses) or the Regional Recruitment
Network (in the case of nonacademic or academic spouses not in the same department or
college). Rest assured that the best candidates are quite aware of the importance of comparing
their job offers based on the efficiency and success of the university Office of Dual Career
Recruitment and Retention.
When is the time to talk about dual-career, marital, or reproductive issues? When the
candidate raises the issue. Not before.
One way to be equitable to all candidates is to give all interviewed applicants information
explaining policies and assistance available for dual career couples, child care, partner benefits,
relocation benefits and other family situations included within the benefits packet that is given to
all interviewees. (NSF ADVANCE, University of Michigan; Scott-Scurry).
Section 8 References:
Bombardieri, M. 2007. Dual careers worry academia. The Boston Globe. June 11, 2007.
Clayman Institute for Gender Research, Stanford University. Dual career academic couples.
Higher Education Recruitment Consortium (HERC). 2008. National portal page.
Mid-Atlantic Higher Education Recruitment Consortium (MA-HERC). 2008. Frequently asked
questions.
NSF ADVANCE, Columbia University. 2005. A proposal for recruiting and retaining dualcareer couples. The Earth Institute ADVANCE Working Group on Science & Technology
Recruiting to Increase Diversity (STRIDE).
NSF ADVANCE, University of Michigan. Handbook for faculty searches and hiring, 20072008.
Office of Dual Career Recruitment, Human Resources, University of Virginia.
Scott-Scurry, D. 2008. Personal communication. Director of UVa's Office of Equal Opportunity
Programs.
Wolf-Wendel, L., S.B. Twombly and S. Rice. 2003. The two body-problem: Dual-career couple
hiring policies in higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
25
Programs and awards listed below will provide Lehigh University faculty with contacts for
expanding their recruitment networks:
a. The Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering
Mentoring (PAESMEM) program identifies outstanding mentoring efforts/programs designed
to enhance the participation of groups underrepresented in science, mathematics and engineering.
Awardees are usually highly respected well-funded members of the professoriate who mentor top
graduate students–perfect contacts for departments wishing to expand their pool of potential
candidates for current or possible future positions.
b. Accenture American Indian Graduate Scholarship. This program selects "the very
brightest American Indian and Alaska Native students seeking degrees and careers in all fields of
study including high technology and business fields." This scholarship is funded by Accenture
and administered by AIGC (American Indian Graduate Center).
c. "The Ford Foundation Diversity Fellowships seek to increase the diversity of the nation's
college and university faculties by increasing their ethnic and racial diversity, to maximize the
educational benefits of diversity, and to increase the number of professors who can and will use
diversity as a resource for enriching the education of all students. To facilitate this goal the
Fellowship grants awards at the Predoctoral, Dissertation and, Postdoctoral levels to students
who demonstrate excellence, a commitment to diversity and a desire to enter the professoriate"
(National Academies, 2007b). Ford Foundation Fellowships are awarded in the following fields:
Education, Engineering, Math and Physical Sciences; History; Philosophy;
Language/Literature/Humanities; Life Sciences; Psychology; and Social Sciences.
d. "The Meyerhoff Fellows Program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County
(UMBC), focuses on promoting cultural diversity in the biomedical sciences at the graduate
level. Funded by an NIH - MBRS - Initiative for Minority Student Development (IMSD) grant,
students are supported while receiving their Ph.D. in one of the following areas: Biochemistry,
Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Chemistry-Biology
Interface, Mechanical Engineering, Molecular and Cell Biology, Neuroscience and Cognitive
Science, Psychology, and Toxicology" (The Meyerhoff Fellowship Program, 2007a).
e. Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS)
Postdoc Programs. "SACNAS sustains a vibrant and active community of postdoctoral
scientists. Resources and initiatives of the SACNAS Postdoc Programs aim to assist members to
flourish during the transition from student to professional researcher, educator, administrator
and/or policy leader" (SACNAS).
f. Summer Research Internship Program (SRIP). "The University of Virginia School of
Medicine offers summer research internship opportunities to qualified undergraduates who are
considering a possible career in biomedical research. The program targets, but is not limited to,
racially and ethnically diverse students in their junior and senior college undergraduate
years....The goals of the program are to expose undergraduate students to laboratory research, to
familiarize them with the opportunities that exist for careers in biomedical research....The
Summer Research Internship Program provides an outstanding environment to learn first hand
about a career in biomedical research....Many... former SRIP participants have matriculated into
M.D./Ph.D. and Ph.D. programs, including several at UVa" (Summer Research Internship
Program, 2007). A past SRIP participant and University of Virginia graduate student in
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology and Genetics commented, "The SRIP program was a great
program in that it exposed me to the many other types of research being conducted here at the
26
university. All of the interactions that I had with faculty and students were positive and that
played a major role in why I chose to come here for graduate school" (Maki, 2006).
g. IGERT and AGEP programs, funded by the National Science Foundation "focus on
diversifying the graduate student population and provide cutting-edge graduate education" (NSF
ADVANCE, University of Washington).
"The Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program seeks to
train scientists and engineers to address the global questions of the future. Through the use of
innovative curricula and internships, and by focusing on problem-centered training, these
programs give their graduates the edge needed to become leaders in their chosen fields....we seek
to increase the participation of underrepresented groups, including women and minorities, in
doctorate programs in the engineering, science, and mathematics fields, by helping Minority
Serving Institutions (MSIs) and their constituencies tap into a bountiful resource opportunity"
(IGERT 2007a).
h. "The Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) seeks to join
together universities and colleges in the common mission of increasing the number of
underrepresented minority students earning Ph.D.s and positioning them to become leaders in
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields" (Alliance for Graduate
Education and the Professoriate, 2007b).
27
PLEASE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR FEEDBACK
Please help us improve this document by answering a few questions. We welcome any additional
feedback.
1) Roughly what percentage of this material was new to you?
2) How long did it take to read the document?
3) How do you suggest this document be best utilized? As an online tutorial? As a foundation for
workshops for search committee members? As a document for discussion at the beginning of all
searches?
4) What other strategies do you suggest for increasing the excellence and diversity of our
faculty?
28