LITERATURE REVIEW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Expanding Diverse Faculty Candidate Pool

1. 8 Practical, Sustainable Steps to a Diverse Faculty

a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article
2. Interrupting the Usual: Successful Strategies for Hiring Diverse Faculty
a. Practices
b. Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article
3. Questions to Ask to Help Create a Diverse Applicant Pool
a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article
4. Who wants to hire a more diverse faculty? A conjoint analysis of faculty and student preferences for
gender and racial/ethnic diversity
a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article
5. To diversify the faculty, start here: how one university is changing a sink-or-swim culture to broaden
the appeal of a Ph.D.
a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article
6. Hiring Diverse Faculty Members in Community Colleges: A Case study in Ethical Decision Making
a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article
7. “We Are All for Diversity, but . . .”: How Faculty Hiring Committees Reproduce Whiteness and
Practical Suggestions for How They Can Change
a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article
8. Diversifying the Engineering Workforce
a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article

2
 LITERATURE REVIEW
9. Attracting, Retaining, and Preparing a Diverse Academic Engineering Workforce: The AGEP Model
for Success
a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article
10. Effective Strategies to Diversify STEM Faculty
a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article

A Summary of Key Concepts

11. Significant Recruitment Practices
12. Primary Methods of Support for Committees
13. Ways Diversity Recruitment Can Fail

*Click on the “Literature Review” heading to return to the Table of Contents.

3
 LITERATURE REVIEW
1. 8 Practical, Sustainable Steps to a Diverse Faculty

Based on the unique convergence of principles from two Deans of Communications at distinct research
universities. Their diversity in location yields to the assumed divergence of their majority population and
preferences: one is a private, historically black university in the racially and ethnically diverse, densely
populated city of Washington, and the other is a public university in ethnically diverse yet lightly populated,
largely rural West Texas. Although the institutions are decidedly different, the two have converged on a
similar set of prescriptions for recruiting, hiring, and retention of faculty of color in academe.

Suggestions are based on the following shared principles:

1. The best practices for increasing faculty diversity are neither mysterious nor terrifically expensive.
2. It is common to say “listen to the voices demanding change.” But some of the solutions being proposed
challenge the traditional systems in place for faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure. Stop ignoring those
contradictions and settle them head on with reason and goodwill. Listening is good. Actions and timetables
are best.
3. Plans for increasing faculty diversity must be feasible and practical as well as idealistic and ethical.
Administrators are charged with making things work for the long term. If a problem occurs repeatedly, both
the system and the culture that has accepted it need alteration. Otherwise change is unsustainable.
4. Finally, and conversely, all administrators soon learn that every decision is a trade-off — often with each
competing constituency viewing its cherished goals as vital, and even inviolate. The pie is not infinitely
large; to gain one thing often means adjusting another. To create an equitable environment, the dynamics of
the power structure must shift.
a. PRACTICES | Guidelines to increase diversity and inclusion in faculty hiring practices
i. Identify prospects and build your inclusive brand ahead of time (before the positions
open)
ii. Know what's appealing about your institution, program and place. Ask. Show. Tell
iii. Encourage hiring committees to recruit, not just "open and advertise". There needs to
be active, friendly, strategic recruiting for candidates of color.
iv. Widen your assumptions about the meaning of "qualified". Be expansive. Not every
person needs to be a grant-winning researcher.
v. Enlist allies to promote your search. Use faculty of color to hire faculty of color and
"sell" the institution from their perspective.
vi. Rethink the role of students in searches. Beyond a non-voting seat at the table or
course evals.
vii. Redefine the notion of "fit". Applied lazily, this can be a prejudicial variable that
exclude people "not like us" or who "can't relate" to the majority white student body,
town or institution
viii. Lay out the path to long term success and not just the start-up package. Support
faculty after they are hired.

4
 LITERATURE REVIEW

b. KEEP IN MIND | Build human-bridges

i. Identify prospects and build your inclusive brand ahead of time | Don’t treat
diversity hiring as an afterthought rather than a long-term relationship.
1. What is your department doing to build its brand as a place welcoming to
people who don’t look like the current faculty, or research the same topics?
2. How are you trying to secure a reputation now in ways that will smooth the
path for recruiting in the years to come?
3. Who are you as an institution? What are your culture and goals? How are they
perceived externally?
4. How does your locale read to outsiders?
ii. Know what's appealing about your institution, program and place | Assume
nothing about where candidates of color prefer to work and live. Make the case for
why diverse faculty would be welcomed at the institution.
1. Create an awareness and comfort with your institution and your local region.
Diversity is a state of mind.
iii. Encourage hiring committees to recruit, not just "open and advertise" |
Dismantle “passive recruiting” of contacting personal friends or sending out emails to
people you already know. These ⇒ “We have a job open. You might think about it” ,
“Let me know if any names come to mind” ⇒ won’t cut the cheese.
1. Anyone worth hiring is worth wooing.
2. Real recruiting entails cold-calling, repeated attempts, studied persuasion, and
in-depth conversations.
3. Build a relationship of trust. It’s more work, but worth it.
iv. Widen your assumptions about the meaning of "qualified" | “Well, we tried, but
there are just not enough qualified candidates who are persons of color,” implies a
narrow application of the term “qualified”.
1. Full-time teaching positions can be starter places for diversifying your faculty.
2. Not everyone needs to be a grant-winning researcher
3. Engineering faculty members whose focus is on teaching, student
engagement, and service can bring in grant money, too.
v. Enlist allies to promote your search | Use faculty of color to recruit faculty of color,
but remember that it is not their obligation to do so just because of their
race/ethnicity/gender.
1. Think real-estate: Stage the home to appeal to buyers. This campus is meant to
be a place for candidates and their families to call home. It must be inviting
personally & professionally
vi. Rethink the role of students in searches | Grad students aren’t decorative
paperweights. They were admitted based on the potential value of their contribution
to their respective fields. Use their minds and insight both in the lab and on the search
committee.

5
 LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Student voices should be heard, as their quality of education may fluctuate
based on the hiring and promotion-and-tenure process
a. This may not be immediately applicable, but at least start a dialogue
about student contribution.
vii. Redefine the notion of "fit" | It’s ok to have standards that ensure the people who
are hired have similar values and academic goals in mind. Be mindful of those
standards bleeding over into phenotypes or racial composition
1. Applied lazily, this can be a prejudicial variable that exclude people "not like
us" or who "can't relate" to the majority white student body, town or
institution
2. New lines of research, new ways of teaching, and new perspectives on issues
may be exactly what your department should be looking for in a new hire
viii. Lay out the path to long term success and not just the start-up package | Getting
people in the door is great, but NOT what it is all about. Retention is a key element of
diversity. Don’t treat diversity hires as a “checked box” but provide a full job
description that answers the following questions:
1. What is your mentoring system?
2. What do you offer for faculty development?
3. What is your record of retention and promotion of faculty members from
underrepresented groups?
4. What protections do you have in place to prevent faculty of color, and women,
from being overburdened by service commitments?
5. What is the attitude of the tenured faculty toward the new hire’s area of
research and teaching?
c. LINK TO ARTICLE
8 Practical, Sustainable Steps to a Diverse Faculty. (n.d.). Retrieved August 11, 2021, from
https://advance-lexis-com.libproxy.berkeley.edu/document/?pdmfid=1516831&crid=fa8aa4a
d-84e1-4103-85fc-dfbfb68be8e9&pddocfullpath=%2Fshared%2Fdocument%2Fnews%2Fur
n%3AcontentItem%3A628S-DW71-JCBF-K0CY-00000-00&pdcontentcomponentid=17126
7&pdteaserkey=sr0&pditab=allpods&ecomp=ybvnk&earg=sr0&prid=2a2937bd-ecd1-45f4-a
774-891639d89c1d

6
 LITERATURE REVIEW
2. Interrupting the Usual: Successful Strategies for Hiring Diverse Faculty
Despite years of affirmative action policies, faculty of color continue to be underrepresented in higher
education. In response to this reality, the current literature offers numerous explanations for the low
representation of faculty of color in the academy, coupled with suggestions for improving this condition. While
increasing attention is being paid to the condition of Asian-American faculty, the bulk of the research today has
focused on historically underrepresented African-American, Latino/a, and American Indian faculty. However,
few studies to date stem from empirical work that considers the conditions under which appointments are made
that contribute to a diverse faculty. Given the significance of hiring processes and practices in achieving a
diverse faculty, this study examines the departmental search committee process and those conditions that lead to
hiring diverse faculty in terms of race/ethnicity and gender.

Specifically, this study examines whether specific interventions account for the hiring of diverse faculty
above and beyond hiring done in academic areas specifically focused on race and ethnicity. Using data from
approximately 700 searches, we investigate the hypothesis that at institutions with predominantly White
populations, hiring of faculty from underrepresented groups (African-Americans, Latina/os, and American
Indians) occurs when at least one of the following three designated conditions are met: (1) The job description
used to recruit faculty members explicitly engages diversity at the department or subfield level: (2) An
institutional “special hire” strategy, such as waiver of a search, target of opportunity hire, or spousal hire, is
used; (3) The search is conducted by an ethnically/racially diverse search committee
a. PRACTICES | A willingness and intentionality must be present before any expectation of
success can be had.
i. Intentional hiring strategies will be required to promote success in the hiring of most
underrepresented faculty outside of ethnic studies departments.
1. Exceptional hires
2. Search Waivers: also referred to as a waiver of open recruitment, is formal
approval to hire an individual directly into a specific academic appointment in
lieu of a search or open recruitment.
3. Spousal Hires: When a hired employee negotiates a position for their spouse
at the institution.
4. Special-hire Intervention: Any intervention strategies that bypassed normal
search processes (e.g., spousal hires, targeted hires for fields, and incentive
funds)
5. Expanded Job Descriptions
6. Modification of usual search requirements to meet program needs
7. Shortened search process (truncated process)
8. Cluster hiring: Job applicants being split into random groups to craft research
proposals for the employer — with those showing the most promise earning
the final roles.
9. Out-of-Cycle Hiring: Any hiring that takes place outside of the normal
recruiting process

7
 LITERATURE REVIEW
ii. The use of diversity indicators or special-hiring interventions will explain the bulk of
the hiring to the faculty of underrepresented faculty of color.
1. Successful hires of underrepresented faculty of color are most likely to occur
a. When a job description contains an educational or scholarly link to the
study of race or ethnicity.
b. When an institutional intervention strategy that bypasses or enhances
the traditional search process is used.
2. In science searches, adding an explicit criterion in the job description for
experience and success in working with diverse groups of students has
significant potential to broaden the qualities being considered.
iii. Job descriptions were classified according to whether they contained requirements
related to diversity in the subject matter or expertise of the faculty member. Job
descriptions that contained requirements relating to diversity were categorized
according to how the association to diversity was made.
1. Department indicates diversity refers to Ethnic Studies programs, i.e.,
African-American Studies, Asian-American Studies, American Indian
Studies, and Chicano/Latino/a Studies;
2. Subfield within a department indicates diversity covers areas such as
African-American literature within an English department or race relations
within a sociology department;
3. Other salient job qualification indicates diversity is exemplified by a call
for applicants, for example, who “engender a climate that values and uses
diversity in all its forms to enliven and make more inclusive the work of the
organization” and with “experience in community outreach in multicultural
settings.”
4. The discipline. Positions were classified by disciplines and fields.
Interdisciplinary hires and joint appointments were also noted.
5. The composition of the search committee. The racial/ethnic and gender
composition of the search committee was described and then categorized
according to whether at least one member of the search committee was from
an underrepresented group.
6. Special hire. Any intervention strategies that bypassed normal search
processes were indicated. These included spousal hires, targeted hires for
fields, and incentive funds of some sort.
7. Race/ethnicity and gender of the faculty hire. Ethnic and gender categories
were used for this study according to the classification used by the campus.
While the focus of the study was on historically underrepresented
African-American, Latino/a, and American Indian faculty, patterns for
Asian-American and White faculty along with gender were also investigated.
8. Institution from which the person came. The name and pre-2001 Carnegie
classification of the Ph.D. granting institution and, where available and
applicable, the prior institution of hires were noted.
8
 LITERATURE REVIEW
9. Flexibility. Job descriptions were coded according to whether they had some
flexibility in the areas of specialty sought.
10. Diversity in the final pool. Where available, we coded the data to indicate
whether there was diversity in the final pool, that is, whether an
underrepresented faculty candidate (an African American, Latino/a, American
Indian), or an Asian-American candidate was included.

b. KEEP IN MIND | The Search Committee must be committed to diversity. They must share
the vision.
i. The absence of aggressive hiring strategies may contribute to the underrepresentation
of faculty of color.
1. Department heads and senior faculty develop recruitment plans and decide
what constitutes “quality,” including how “scholarly productivity” is
measured, how publications and research are credited, and the areas of
scholarship to be emphasized.
a. The data from this paper reveals no notable difference between the
qualifications of those from URM groups vs. White with respect to
degrees and pedigrees
2. “The qualifications of minorities alone are almost irrelevant [in the hiring
process]; instead, personal and political preferences, prejudices and fears of
majority faculty and inaction of administrators play a larger role in the final
decisions reached”.
3. Lack of presence in aggressive hiring strategies may be due to both attitudinal
and structural barriers.
a. Involve administrators in maintaining a stronger institutional
commitment to diversity
b. Urge faculty to become involved in programs that address diversity
issues
c. Strengthen the support for scholars of color who are prepared to enter
the faculty ranks.
ii. Diversity on the search committee may increase the likelihood of a diverse hire.
iii. Most diversity hiring took place in fields directly related to diversity.
1. The emphasis of Asian American hiring in science and business, mostly
quantitative fields, and the lack of hiring of African Americans in these fields
is apparent.
a. Intentional hires in the form of diversity indicators or interventions do
make a difference. Regular searches in fields unrelated to diversity
[STEM] will not yield diverse hires.
b. Pay close attention to the diversity of faculty throughout fields and
disaggregate by racial/ethnic group.
i. Overall numbers of faculty of color might well increase
because of the addition of Asian-American faculty in specified

9
 LITERATURE REVIEW
fields. Underrepresented faculty of color could well be
declining at the same time.
iv. Modifications in search practices can be explored to expand the applicant pool, to
require active recruiting, and to link job descriptions to educational requirements
c. LINK TO ARTICLE | Smith, D. G., Turner, C. S., & Osei-Kofi, N. (2004). Interrupting the
Usual: Successful Strategies for Hiring Diverse Faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 75(2),
133–160. https://doi.org/10.1353/jhe.2004.0006

10
 LITERATURE REVIEW
3. Questions to Ask to Help Create a Diverse Applicant Pool

Anne Gillies runs a professional-development program at Oregon State University that supports diversity in
hiring. Here is an edited list of questions she compiled, at The Chronicle's request, that search committees can ask
in designing a more inclusive recruitment process.

a. PRACTICES | Thorough inquisition and departmental reflection throughout the hiring

pipeline.
i. Before Beginning the Search
1. Where do we want our department to be in 10 or 20 years?
2. What new fields are emerging in this discipline?
3. What perspectives and experiences are we missing?
4. How will this position contribute to our goals of diversity, inclusion, and
justice?
5. Do we have resources to mentor faculty members who demonstrate potential
but still need experience?
ii. Writing the Job Advertisement
1. What qualifications must the person have to succeed in this role?
2. What qualifications might enhance their success and impact?
3. Are there people who could succeed in this role but who wouldn't meet our
qualifications?
4. Are we reflecting a range of interests, backgrounds, and experiences in our
description of the position, unit, and institution?
5. Have we described the position's role, its impact, and how it contributes to
diversity, inclusion, and justice?
iii. When Recruiting
1. What groups do we tend to miss attracting to our applicant pool, and where
might we find them?
2. Whom can we ask to recommend strong potential candidates interested in
advancing diversity in research and teaching?
3. Will each committee member contact colleagues seeking recommendations,
and then personally invite those potential candidates to apply?
4. Will we reach colleagues and candidates from demographically diverse
institutions this way?
iv. Before Initial Review of Candidates
1. Does our applicant pool match the nationally available pool of recent Ph.D.s
from underrepresented groups? If not, where or how can we reach those we've
missed? Should we extend our deadline?
2. Have we agreed on screening criteria for each qualification?
3. Have we budgeted enough time to discuss each applicant thoroughly?
4. Do we require factual job-related reasons when we reject a candidate?

11
 LITERATURE REVIEW
5. Have we agreed to build the case for advancing each qualified candidate
before identifying deficits?
v. After Initial Review of Candidates
1. What facts support our decisions to include or exclude a candidate? Where
might we be speculating?
2. How do the demographics of our shortlist compare with our qualified pool,
and with the national pool of recent Ph.D.s?
3. Have we generated an interview list with more than one minority finalist?
4. If a high percentage of underrepresented candidates were weeded out, do we
know why? Can we reconsider our pool with a more inclusive lens, or extend
the search?
b. KEEP IN MIND | The aforementioned questionnaire makes an effort to ask a plethora of
closed-ended questions to engage department heads and faculty to consider areas of
improvement and develop concrete actionable solutions for them.
i. It is imperative to dissect loaded terminology used in faculty searches (e.g, “qualified,
minority, strong”) as these have historically informed decisions to remove
underrepresented groups from the candidacy pool
c. LINK TO ARTICLE | (September 11, 2016 Sunday). Questions to Ask to Help Create a
Diverse Applicant Pool. The Chronicle of Higher Education .
https://advance-lexis-com.libproxy.berkeley.edu/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:cont
entItem:5KPC-2PR1-DYTH-93TK-00000-00&context=1516831.

12
 LITERATURE REVIEW
4. Who wants to hire a more diverse faculty? A conjoint analysis of faculty and student preferences for
gender and racial/ethnic diversity
What explains the scarcity of women and under-represented minorities among university faculty relative to their
share of Ph.D. recipients? Among many potential explanations, we focus on the “demand” side of faculty
diversity. Using fully randomized conjoint analysis, we explore patterns of support for, and resistance to, the
hiring of faculty candidates from different social groups at two large public universities in the U.S. We find that
faculty are strongly supportive of diversity: holding other attributes of (hypothetical) candidates constant, for
example, faculty at both universities are between 11 and 21 percentage points more likely to prefer a Hispanic,
black, or Native American candidate to a white one. Furthermore, preferences for diversity in faculty hiring are
stronger among faculty than among students. These results suggest that the primary reason for the lack of
diversity among faculty is not a lack of desire to hire them, but the accumulation of implicit and
institutionalized biases, and their related consequences, at later stages in the pipeline.
a. PRACTICES | Advocates no longer need to make educating people about diversity a priority.
Closing the representation gap involves efforts that focus on behavior, not beliefs
i. Instead, engage faculty directly in activities that induce:
1. Gradual behavior modification
2. Promote inclusion
3. Improve climates
a. Mentoring programs
b. Recruitment trips
c. Bystander intervention workshops
d. Task forces.
b. KEEP IN MIND | Claims that faculty simply “do not want” women and minorities in their
ranks are too simplistic.
i. This study shows that faculty do not harbor explicit preferences against members of
certain groups; on the contrary, faculty actively prefer candidates from historically
excluded groups, especially URMs.
ii. In practice, search committee dynamics may change preferences and impede actual
decisions that would produce job offers for URM candidates.
1. One large study revealed that the presence of more women on academic
evaluation committees made gender stereotypes more salient and male
committee members rated women candidates more harshly.
iii. In particular, faculty resist modifying entrenched habits and curbing the
self-interested behavior that the inclusion and recognition of diverse colleagues would
actually require.
iv. Managers do not like being told what to do.
1. Study shows that the policies and programs most commonly adopted to
promote diversity in organizations – such as mandatory diversity training, job
tests, performance evaluations, and grievance procedures – tend to result in
fewer women and minorities making it into leadership positions. Rather than
reducing bias, they may activate or trigger it

13
 LITERATURE REVIEW
c. LINK TO ARTICLE | John M. Carey, Kevin R. Carman, Katherine P. Clayton, Yusaku Horiuchi,
MalaHtun & Brittany Ortiz (2020) Who wants to hire a more diverse faculty? A conjoint analysis of
faculty and student preferences for gender and racial/ethnic diversity, Politics, Groups, and Identities,
8:3, 535-553, DOI: 10.1080/21565503.2018.1491866

14
 LITERATURE REVIEW
5. To diversify the faculty, start here: how one university is changing a sink-or-swim culture to broaden
the appeal of a Ph.D.
People who are from groups underrepresented in Ph.D. programs and in faculty ranks too often lose their way or
achieve less than they are able. Duke's School of Medicine sought to bolster its support systems to mitigate this factf.
Taking an unusually holistic and aggressive approach, the university has created an Office of Biomedical Graduate
Diversity to get more minority students in the door and through to a doctorate as active participants in the
community. The office has broadened recruiting strategies, sought to demystify the graduate experience, and created
a web of support to reduce feelings of isolation and inadequacy. "The larger issue was not that they were not
academically prepared," says Ms. Black. "It was that they needed an environment they could thrive in, where the
cohorts were not so small that they felt they were losing their identity. When we created support systems around the
students, the performance was great."
a. PRACTICES | Cultivate an environment that is genuinely supportive of faculty diversity
candidates by showcasing care and attentiveness towards minority Ph.D candidates
i. The feeling of isolation and tokenism transcend faculty discourse and may emanate
from their experiences from graduate school. It may be best to search for candidates
that come from universities that have robust, holistic and comprehensive diversity
programming in their graduate departments. Some examples include:
1. Duke | BioCoRE | Biosciences Collaborative for Research Engagement |
2. Duke | The Office of Biomedical Graduate Diversity
3. UC Berkeley | Research University Alliance
4. University of Maryland - Baltimore County | Maryland’s Alliance for
Graduate Education and Professoriate
ii. Schools that bode well for thriving diverse candidates have taken action in the
following ways:
1. Grant proposals dedicated to the diversification and retention of minorities in
STEM
2. Community of professors championing diversity advocation within their own
departments
3. Rotation System for students to try out a variety of labs upon admission
a. Mitigates some of the anxiety of applying to grad school, esp. for
minorities
b. Integrates them within a community of people in their first year
4. Designated diversity office with strategies and resources aimed to foster
holistic wellness in students
5. Preliminary Preparation community: a student-run program that begins
months before the preliminary qualifying exam.
6. Student-Faculty Mentorship Programs
iii. On the recruiting side, it may be beneficial to look for faculty candidates who have
experience:
1. Handling conflict in a lab
2. Managing their time
3. Making an impression on their adviser
15
 LITERATURE REVIEW
4. Detailing the aspects of their desired career trajectory
b. KEEP IN MIND | Cultivating/finding great faculty often starts with cultivating qualified
graduate candidates into faculty applicants. They have to want to be faculty before they can
be hired.
i. Many Ph.D. students, regardless of race or ethnicity, find graduate school isolating,
experience impostor syndrome--the feeling of being a fraud despite a record of high
achievement--or conclude that academic life is unappealing.
1. Compared with white and Asian men, scholars from underrepresented
minority groups were substantially less likely to say they were highly
interested in an academic career at a research university
ii. Some students, just like some faculty candidates, may feel like they are a “diversity
hire” in that their contribution is intimately linked to obtaining grant money or lab
funding for the department, as opposed to being seen as an equal contributor to the
field.
1. Make it plain why a minority faculty candidate’s addition to the university is
beneficial beyond the realms of financing.
2. Work with current professors to train them why such thinking is detrimental to
facilitating a welcoming environment for new faculty.
a. Intent vs. Impact Training
b. Microaggression Training
c. Conflict Mediation Training
iii. Graduate and Professoriate Programs tend to be off-putting when they don’t promote
a feasible/realistic work-life balance (e.g., 80 hour work weeks)
iv. Make sure to connect with candidates about aspects of their identity beyond their
work or , more desirably, how they intend to find social value in their work.
v. For a diversity program to succeed, professors must focus more on the idea that "life
experience sets you up for success rather than perfect GREs, GPAs, pedigrees or
research.
1. If you want to attract students/postdocs to academia, there has to be a full
culture shift where the environments are inclusive, engaging, and embracing.
A diversity program alone is not enough.
c. LINK TO ARTICLE | To diversify the faculty, start here: How one university is changing a
sink-or-swim culture to broaden the appeal of a Ph.D. - Document—Gale OneFile: CPI.Q.
(n.d.). Retrieved August 19, 2021, from
https://go-gale-com.libproxy.berkeley.edu/ps/i.do?p=CPI&u=ucberkeley&id=GALE%7CA45
9000228&v=2.1&it=r

16
 LITERATURE REVIEW
6. Hiring Diverse Faculty Members in Community Colleges: A Case study in Ethical Decision Making
This case study examines why 2-year colleges struggle to increase the racial diversity of their faculty. Through
interrogating hiring procedures and identifying reasonable expectations for diversity within a college faculty,
ethical dilemmas and practical implications of efforts to increase the hiring of faculty members of color emerge.
a. PRACTICES | The necessary changes in diversification of faculty are greatly aided when
there is race-conscious ethical leadership and commitment from the top levels of the
university. The following recommendations have the potential to lead to ethical,
race-conscious, mission-based decision making:
i. Train administrators and hiring committees on hiring process, affirmative action, and
equal employment opportunity (AA/EEO) principles and the roles of committee
chairs and members.
ii. Appoint AA/EEO representatives to serve on all hiring committees.
iii. Update position descriptions to remove obstacles to AA/EEO principles and include
diversity-related language and responsibilities in relevant areas.
iv. Use appropriate data on the availability of qualified minority candidates to determine
faculty hiring goals.
v. Advertise and reach out early in the hiring cycle to maximize quality and diversity.
vi. Ensure that preferred qualifications are not used as minimum qualifications.
vii. Integrate diversity in interview questions and anticipated responses.
viii. Require gender and racial diversity in committee composition.
ix. Integrate AA/EEO checkpoints at all stages of the process.

b. KEEP IN MIND | Studies indicate that decision makers use an initial ethical screening
process to determine how to proceed in regards to faculty searches.
i. Be mindful of different types of absolutist approaches to ethical theory & decision
making.
1. Teleological: The prioritization of consequences/outcomes of a decision as a
way of assessing its ethical viability (e.g., utilitarianism-- high value for
decisions that result in the most good for the majority of those affected by the
situation)
a. Limitations of Utilitarianism: (1) A lack of attention to the needs of the
minority populations. (2) Confusing the “greatest good” with selfish
interests.
2. Deontological:
a. (Categorical Imperative) There are universal moral laws that hold hold
true regardless of context, and should be therefore always be abided by
i. Limitations of Categorical Imperative: It fails to address the
diversity of opinion concerning what constitutes moral law
b. (Justice as Fairness) Argues that decisions should not be utilitarian in
nature, for this leaves the numerical and disadvantaged minority in
severe straits. Therefore advocates for rational decisions of equal

17
 LITERATURE REVIEW
liberty and equal rights, with the greatest benefit for the least
advantaged members of society-- those whose “rights, liberties, and
opportunities, and income and wealth” are compromised.
i. Limitations of Justice as Fairness: (1) Perhaps incorrectly
assumes that people would not only share the same view of
“justice and fairness” but would also act on the basis of that
common view. (2) It may be too idealistic and fails to address
the political realities of ethical decision making.
3. Character-based: Acts are determined to be ethical depending on whether they
display virtuous character traits or not. Ergo, judgment of the person
performing the act and his or her ethical character.
a. Virtuous Traits :
i. Prudence (discernment, discretion)
ii. Justice (righteousness, integrity)
iii. Courage (strength in face of adversity)
iv. Self Restraint (temperance)
ii. There have always been exceptions to the rules and standards of minimum
qualifications. At times, the specificity of the filters used to highlight eligible
candidates may be the cause of eliminating a plethora of applicants of color.
1. Review your standards, filters and eligibility criteria and see if there may be
some possible adjustments that widen the scope of potential applicants
without compromising on quality
iii. Ethical complexities of hiring decisions are not devoid of sociopolitical and cultural
influences.
1. American conservatism has led to a so-called color-blind value system that
fails to recognize the social, economic, and racial inequities that have
historically existed and continue to persist.
a. Color-blindness is a process of racial and cultural homogenization that
leads toward a middle-class Whiteness. Emanating from
color-blindness, principle- or value-based “ethical” decisions can
become those that maintain a status quo of inequality.
iv. Race and Racism are not “deviations” but, rather, are normative, core components of
the historical and contemporary development of “the way society is structured, the
way the government functions, and people’s moral psychology”.
1. This concept then highlights Whiteness denoting a kind of race privilege that
is largely unspoken by Whites yet largely understood by people of color. This
racial dominance by Whites is seen as a sine qua non for the “Racial Contract”
between Whites, with some as “signatories,” and all Whites as “beneficiaries”.
c. LINK TO ARTICLE | Fujimoto, E. O. (2012). Hiring Diverse Faculty Members in Community
Colleges: A Case study in Ethical Decision Making. Community College Review, 40(3), 255–274.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552112450069

18
 LITERATURE REVIEW
7. “We Are All for Diversity, but . . .”: How Faculty Hiring Committees Reproduce Whiteness and
Practical Suggestions for How They Can Change
Despite stated commitments to diversity, predominantly White academic institutions still have not increased
racial diversity among their faculty. In this article Robin DiAngelo and Özlem Sensoy focus on one entry point for
doing so—the faculty hiring process. They analyze a typical faculty hiring scenario and identify the most common
practices that block the hiring of diverse faculty and protect Whiteness and offer constructive alternative practices
to guide hiring committees in their work to realize the institution’s commitment to diversity.
a. PRACTICE | Ways to diversify our faculty carefully considering the overall hiring process
i. The Job Description | Be forward thinking in how the disciplines have evolved and
reclassify the position to demonstrate that understanding this evolution is central to
the position.
1. Operationalize diversity: The committee needs to decide what explicit
evidence you will use to determine that the candidate has promoted (rather
than simply values) diversity.
2. Politicize traditional canonic fields: Candidates must demonstrate an ability to
situate knowledge in their field in a social (cultural, historical) context (e.g.,
must be able to speak to how knowledge is validated and institutionalized in
their field).
3. Avoid coded language: Avoid language that signals an uncritical ideological
paradigm, such as “urban,” “inner city,” “disadvantaged,” or racializes all
students.
4. Understand that dominant groups are always overrepresented in body and/or
in ideology, particularly in disciplines seen as nonpolitical: Given that the
default of most HWCUs is an overrepresentation of the dominant groups, use
every job description as an opportunity to name and correct the imbalance.
ii. The Committee Composition | When putting together the search committee, consider
the following:
1. Think about committee balance in terms of bodies as well as perspectives: (1)
Ensure that the search committee tilts to redress the racial imbalance by
having members of color as the majority. (2) Ensure colleagues who are
asked to serve—including White colleagues—bring expertise in racial equity.
If you can’t find any, keep looking in other departments.
2. Develop a response to stand by decisions that will be read by some faculty as
biased: Be prepared to clearly articulate how your committee composition
today is in line with the institution’s professed diversity goals
3. Don’t underestimate the role of the committee chair: The chair should have
the facilitation skills needed to redirect problematic tangents and arguments
against diversity during committee discussions.
4. Draw on expertise in your faculty and account for their extra service load:
Ensure that those assessing job applicants have a demonstrated critical
understanding of, not just a “belief in” or “commitment to,” diversity.

19
 LITERATURE REVIEW
a. Use measures such as committee members’ published work, research
projects, community involvement, and professional development
efforts as specific evidence of their commitment and expertise, rather
than their warmth, friendliness, professed interest in the issues, or
international travels.
iii. CV Review | Think through the following when reviewing candidate CVs:
1. No CV is race-neutral: Be weary of the committee tending to neutralize the
CV of candidates who do not address race and to racialize those who do.
2. Count input, not just output, in research: Consider other research evidence,
such as relationships with communities and activism/advocacy work, and ask
for this type of evidence to be included with the application materials for all
candidates.
3. Count multilingualism as a strength, not a barrier: If monolingual committee
members are having trouble understanding accented English, that should be
considered a deficit on the part of the monolinguist, not the speaker.
4. Be aware that not all publications appear in Western indexes: Does our
assessment of publications consider the languages in which the candidate
publishes?
5. Expect evidence of diversity literacy from every applicant, regardless of the
field: Is every candidate able to demonstrate a degree of diversity literacy?
Consider what coursework candidates have taken. What are they writing about
and who are they citing? In the end, if your long list does not include
minoritized candidates, consider it a failed list and be willing to start over.
iv. The Interview | In order to improve critical consciousness within the committee,
consider strategies such as the following:
1. Integrate diversity into every question in a meaningful way: listen closely for
complexity and nuance, critical reflection, humility, and self-awareness.
a. What are some of the techniques you use to teach in a culturally
responsive way?
b. Can you trace the history and key politics of your field? How has it
responded to calls to move away from “great white men” and toward
more inclusive/diverse scholarship?
c. How do you recruit and support racially diverse graduate students?
What success have you had? Challenges?
d. What role models are there in your field for nontraditional students
(e.g., female students, LGBTQ+ students, Indigenous students,
students of color, and students with disabilities)?
e. More and more students are demanding faculty accountability on
issues of race and equity. How have you responded? What areas of
growth do you see for yourself?
f. A group of students comes to you and says that there is racial inequity
in the classroom’s dynamics. How might you respond to its concerns?

20
 LITERATURE REVIEW
2. View less formalized parts of the day as further opportunities to communicate
your diversity literacy
a. Ask about dietary restrictions
b. Is your interview occurring during an important period of faith (e.g.,
Ramadan, Yom Kippur)?
c. Has there been an acknowledgment of unceded Indigenous territories
to start the day and meaningful address of local protocols?
d. What consideration has been given to accessibility within a potentially
noisy space (such as a pub or large cafeteria) for candidates who might
be hard of hearing, or have mobility limitations?
3. Consider which students you put in front of which candidates: Have minority
students connect with faculty candidates to press their
comprehension/demonstration of multiculturalism, historical impacts and lack
thereof in STEM diversification, etc.
4. Challenge your response to affect: The affects (body language, facial
expression, tone)
a. Consider whether your response to a candidate is based on descriptive
observations (“He didn’t smile”) versus evaluations (“He’s not a team
player”)
v. The Decision | Committees need to develop their stamina and skills in talking about
identity at every hiring decision.
1. Avoid coded discourses, such as “adding diversity”: These discourses fetishize
and commodify non-White bodies.
2. Attend to the reality of implicit bias: If, as a hiring committee, you are all (or
predominantly) White and are excited about a White candidate, ask yourselves
if there might be something going on that should be grappled with.
a. Revisit how much of a White candidate’s case if based on descriptive
qualifications (“integrates multiple perspectives in their research as
evidenced by…) vs. evaluative qualifications (friendly, relaxed, great
sense of humor, cool style, fits in…)
3. Revisit the institutional mission and vision statements: Ask whether your
practices and outcomes are in line with the institution’s professed values.
4. Acknowledge and address power dynamics on committees: Junior faculty are
most vulnerable in their positions on committees. Talk openly about your
positions and plan how you will mediate the power differentials
b. KEEP IN MIND | Essential Mindsets to exercise in each section of the process
i. The Job Description | Acknowledge that everything someone teaches is from a
particularly disciplinary perspective.
1. It is people of color who “have” race (are racialized) and whose identities are
hyphenated and marked (e.g., Black-Canadian, Chinese-American) as
compared to “regular” (White settler) identities that remain unnamed.

21
 LITERATURE REVIEW
2. When beginning a hiring process, mark the invisible aspects of dominance
that are embedded yet go unnamed in the position description.
a. There is a default of privileging a presumed neutral generalist that will
position them as able to teach more courses in the program
3. An open job description may allow for a wider range of candidates, it also
reinforces the idea that some aspects of the job are core, foundational, and
thus presumed neutral, while other aspects are additional, extra, and
specialized. Because specializations are necessarily more focused, they can
also seem narrower and limited.
ii. The Committee Composition |
1. Interrupting status quo procedures is a critical entry point for challenging the
reproduction of inequity. This includes unexamined assumptions when putting
hiring committees together.
2. When universities strive for committees that are balanced in terms of
diversity, they must consider a different set of parameters than simple equal
numbers of tenured versus pretenure faculty, faculty versus students, people of
color versus White people.
3. Do not continuously task a person of color with the responsibility of
diversifying the hiring committee. This could lead to tokenization, burnout
and ongoing microaggressions in the deliberation process
a. The token member eventually refuses to endure any more committees
(and is seen as “difficult”) or, and especially if pretenure, learns to go
along to get along (which guarantees that they will continue to be
tapped to provide cover rather than critique).
b. Common and Problematic Dynamics:
i. Members (except for token members) are presumed to be
objective and neutral (well-intentioned = objective =
supportive of a “balanced” approach to diversity).
ii. By positioning the token member as the one to bring the racial
perspective, that member is continually racialized.
iii. The token member is presumed to have expertise on race and
racial issues (such as racism, tracking, profiling), but only on
these issues.
iv. White members do not recognize that the burden on this token
member to bring race perspective is occurring in a hostile
(White) workplace.
v. The White assumption of a universal experience is that if the
committee (or indeed, the academic unit) feels welcoming to
the White members, it must feel equally welcoming to
everyone.
vi. If the token member actually does call out racism in a
discussion, they are often met with resistance and dismissal.

22
 LITERATURE REVIEW
iii. The “Objective” Scrutiny of the CV
1. Research on implicit bias shows that there is a large-scale social belief that
peoples of color are inherently less qualified, yet implicit bias and its impact
on an applicant’s materials (such as teaching evaluations) are rarely ever
addressed by hiring committees.
a. Ergo, the qualifications of candidates of color are often over
scrutinized.
b. The extra workload that faculty of color typically take on may not be
“countable” on the CV.
i. Mentoring students of color
ii. Helping students of color navigate HWCUs
iii. Supporting student activist organizations and community
groups
iv. Mentoring junior faculty
v. Consulting with administrators on issues pertaining to
particular minoritized populations.
iv. The Interview | The interview layout serves as the most intensive interaction between
a candidate and the institutional committee.
1. Whiteness, too, is embodied by a hiring committee or how it bears on
racialized others who interact with the committee.
a. To continually mark the bodies of some candidates as diverse is to
reify the normative power inscribed on the bodies perceived as White.
This can be mitigated via attention and consciousness
b. Be cognizant of a committee’s doubts (about a candidate’s
specialization or interest on race issues solely) & expectations (a
candidate’s ability to function as a representative of diversity for the
institution) of a candidate.
2. During these interviews, candidates of color must navigate “double
consciousness”, which is the dual track mind of White normativity and
personal racialized experiences.
a. The stress on candidates can therefore be multilayered
b. Committees need to recognize their own embodiment as well as each
candidate’s and understand that every interaction occurs within a
sociocultural and political context, no matter how benign it may
appear.
3. Committees should be weary of how they categorize candidates, as there will
be implicit bias at play
a. A candidate who is of color but does not challenge racism and
Whiteness will more likely be seen as an asset, as unbiased and
relatable. Such candidates can be seen as assets for the diversity goals
of the institution. They will be implicitly racialized, while at the same

23
 LITERATURE REVIEW
time positioned as unbiased and “naturally” competent on issues of
diversity.
b. However, a racialized candidate who also conducts diversity-related
research must manage the committee’s perception that they have a
single focus expertise.
v. The Decision | When a committee is ready to meet to vote and recommend a
candidate for a position, two dominant discourses tend to emerge: fit and merit
1. “Candidate fit” actually means their ability to keep White people racially
comfortable and their likelihood of leaving Whiteness (or the status quo)
undisturbed.
2. Be aware of “Yeah, but…” narratives of resistance and ask yourselves if
you really want to open the gates to greeted faculty diversity
a. Everything in the institution was set up to reproduce the existing order.
If the committee is committed to diversity, then they should be
prepared to do everything differently.
b. Won’t putting diversity ahead of subject-matter expertise bring down
the quality of our institution’s research profile?
i. Diversity literacy and subject-matter expertise are not mutually
exclusive. Challenge the implicit bias that continually positions
them as such.
ii. Challenge definition of quality based on tier of publication, as
it only supports mainstream work of White middle-class males.
c. You’re just advocating for diversity because it’s your area of
scholarship. Why not make math education a mandatory subject for all
candidates to demonstrate expertise on?
i. False. We are not advocating that diversity be put ahead of
subject matter expertise. We are advocating for an
understanding that one cannot be considered to have
subject-matter expertise if one cannot position their field within
a sociopolitical context.
d. We are all for diversity, but isn’t privileging candidates of color over
White applicants just reverse racism?
i. Racism is different from racial bias. While all people have
racial biases, racism refers to the collective impact of that bias
when it is backed by the weight of history, legal authority, and
institutional control. By definition, racism is not fluid and
cannot be wielded by individuals regardless of their racial
positions; thus, reverse racism does not exist
ii. Unfounded beliefs that diversity goals require unqualified
peoples of color to be hired over Whites are insulting because
they are based on the assumption that a person of color could
not possibly have been the most qualified.

24
 LITERATURE REVIEW
e. Aren’t we setting up new hires to fail if we bring them into a hostile
workplace?
i. If we are aware enough of the racial hostility that we can make
this statement, why is it being allowed to continue?
f. There just aren’t qualified diverse candidates out there.
i. We tend to make excuses and put up roadblocks for inaction
rather than take risks, be innovative, and be accountable to
diversity goals no matter what challenges may emerge.
g. These are really good suggestions and thank you for raising them, but
the job description was approved by senior administration and it
cannot be changed. Besides, if we ask them for changes, we risk losing
the position altogether
i. This is not true; institutions can and do change policies all the
time. But we must have the will. Centuries of exclusionary
policies will not shift without commitment and the courage to
fight resistance. If we cannot demonstrate that we have this
commitment through our actions and their outcomes, in good
conscience we should stop making the claim that we are
campus communities that promote diversity, respect, and
inclusion.
c. LINK TO ARTICLE | Sensoy, Ö., & DiANGELO, R. (2017). “We Are All for Diversity,
but . . .”: How Faculty Hiring Committees Reproduce Whiteness and Practical Suggestions
for How They Can Change. Harvard Educational Review, 87(4), 557–580.
https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-87.4.557

25
 LITERATURE REVIEW
8. Diversifying the Engineering Workforce
Engineering education in the workplace is not just about technical knowledge. Rather, who becomes an
engineer and why says much about the profession. Engineering has a “diversity” problem. Like all professions,
it must narrow the gap between practitioners on the one hand, and their clientele on the other; it must become
“culturally competent.” Given the current composition of the engineering faculty and the profession’s workforce
more generally, it behooves engineering education to diversify while assisting current and future practitioners in
becoming culturally competent. Programs that work to diversify engineering are reviewed, with research and
evaluation-based findings applied to education and workforce practice.
a. PRACTICE | Engineering, in addition to increasing its capacity to support the academic
success of its students, must replace an aging faculty with a more culturally competent
generation. Such change would be the most welcoming advertisement for engineering
careers.
i. Campus working groups that are charged with facilitating minority faculty
recruitment and retention issues at peer institutions.
1. Consists primarily of faculty members
2. Conduct on-site visits at peer institutions
a. Acquiring information and discussing strategies for increasing the
minority faculty on their campuses.
b. Meet with minority graduate students to design a pipeline to recruit
neophyte Ph.Ds beyond their institution
ii. Formalizing underrepresented faculty and postdoctoral recruiting exchange activities
with small groups of peer schools.
iii. Establishing endowed professorships for outstanding underrepresented junior and
mid-career faculty.
iv. Encouraging departments to carefully consider the hiring of outstanding doctoral
graduates of their own programs.
v. Providing incentives (such as subsidized or partially subsidized faculty lines) for
schools able to recruit outstanding underrepresented minority faculty.
vi. Including the recruitment of underrepresented faculty in the annual evaluation process
for department chairs
vii. Institutional Leadership: Commitment to inclusiveness across campus community
viii. Target Recruitment: Investing in and executing a feeder a system
ix. Engaged faculty: Developing student talent as a rewarded faculty outcome
x. Personal attention: Addressing through mentoring and tutoring, the learning needs
of each student
xi. Peer support: Student interaction opportunities that build support across cohorts and
allegiance to institution, discipline, and profession
xii. Enriched research experience: Beyond-the-classroom hands-on opportunities and
summer internships that connect to the world of work
xiii. Bridging to the next level: Institutional relationships that help students and faculty to
envision pathways to milestones and career development

26
 LITERATURE REVIEW
xiv. Continuous Evaluation: Ongoing monitoring of process and outcomes that guide
program adjustments to heighten impact
xv. Interrupt the usual
1. Consider more than research productivity as the only coin of the academic
realm.
b. KEEP IN MIND | How to grow and nurture a culturally competent faculty
i. NSF data show that women Ph.D. scientists and engineers employed in educational
institutions were less likely than men to hold the rank of full professor or to be
tenured, even after adjusting for chronological age (36 years) or years since the
doctorate.
ii. Doctoral faculty who are minority are barely visible, regardless of field—less
represented at the highest ranks and less likely to be tenured
1. The exception--Examining the engineering workforce by race/ethnicity and
gender reveals an unexpected finding: women, and African American women
in particular, are much more represented than are whites.
iii. In engineering, U.S. universities currently award fewer than 150 doctoral degrees to
minorities each year
1. Because of this fact, there is no reason that every one of these individuals
cannot be tracked and recruited to potentially pursue an academic career.
iv. The lack of faculty diversity by race, ethnicity, and gender is a university problem,
not one of engineering alone.
1. What will help is a willingness to structure searches to compete for the
available talent while developing more minority and women talent in the pool
of new doctorate
v. This is a long term commitment.
1. Such change is essential if the faculty and the profession are to grow a cadre
of practitioners and consumers that reflects the multiculturalism of the U.S.
population.
vi. To establish a long-term climate of success for diverse students and integrate them
into the professorial pipeline, establish a baseline of cultural sensitivity and then test
the assertion that faculty are willing to become culturally competent.
1. An education that values gender, ethnicity, and geography yields more
supportive, collaborative, and creative engineers.
c. LINK TO ARTICLE | Chubin, D. E., May, G. S., & Babco, E. L. (2005). Diversifying the
Engineering Workforce. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 73–86.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00830.x

27
 LITERATURE REVIEW
9. Attracting, Retaining, and Preparing a Diverse Academic Engineering Workforce: The AGEP Model
for Success
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has recognized that the Nation’s need for a technical workforce is in
conflict with the changing demographics facing the nation. Our nation is rapidly becoming more diverse due to
growth in groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in technical fields. Nowhere is this
underrepresentation more evident than in academia. It was determined that one potential way to attract more
underrepresented students to pursue engineering careers was to increase the diversity of the engineering faculty,
proving powerful role models to potential technical students.

Therefore, over 10 years ago, NSF began a program that sought to diversify the Nation’s faculty in engineering,
science and mathematics fields, called the Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP). The
AGEP Program is now a national network of multi-institution alliances. Nationally, the AGEP program has
recorded significant gains in doctoral degrees awarded to underrepresented minorities in engineering. The
Southeast Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (SEAGEP) Program includes the University of
Florida, Clemson University, and the University of South Carolina. SEAGEP is the top producer of Hispanic
PhDs in the country and is third in the production of African American PhDs in engineering. Best practices in
recruiting, retention, and preparation for the professoriate are detailed.
i. Identify & understand how empirical knowledge & theory have advanced since the
last comprehensive review
ii. Identify & provide clarity about the characteristics that serve to meaningfully
distinguish mentoring relationships & programmatic efforts
iii. Integrate theory & research in a way that could provide tentative hypotheses
regarding the relationship between the various characteristics & outcomes of
mentoring
iv. Offer evidence-based practices for the administration of formal mentoring programs
a. PRACTICES | Cultivate the graduate student population in order to develop faculty
diversity
i. Support from top university administrators
ii. Established accountability structure: a policy whereby graduate program reviews will
include a diversity dimension; i.e., a department’s record of awarding degrees to
underrepresented minority students will, in part, determine allocation of resources
from the Graduate School.
iii. A successful diversity program has comprehensive data collection capabilities
1. Collect and report the following numbers annually:
a. applications, admissions, new enrollees, total enrollees, admit to
candidacy, and degrees awarded.
b. These are disaggregated by field (engineering, chemistry, physics,
mathematics, computer science, biological and agricultural, earth,
atmospheric, and ocean science), race, ethnicity, and gender for a total
picture of the graduate student population.

28
 LITERATURE REVIEW
iv. Design an active recruiting program based on personal connections with peer
institutions & programs that support underrepresented minority students
1. Including current underrepresented minority graduate students as recruiters is
a powerful tool
v. Outline a robust retention program built on top of human and financial resources
1. Provide funding for postdoctoral positions and recruit within them both
internally and externally.
b. KEEP IN MIND | Recruiting for diversity
i. Graduate admission is a decentralized, often faculty-driven activity. At large
institutions, some faculty do not actively recruit, but rely on students who contact
them or who are already admitted into the department
1. Tends to exclude those outside of traditional engineering groups
ii. Make the “outcome of Ph.D candidate placement” a significant part of a
committees/institutions measure of success.
c. LINK TO ARTICLE | Donnelly, A. E., & Jacobi, J. (2010). Attracting, retaining, and
preparing a diverse academic engineering workforce: The AGEP model for success. IEEE
EDUCON 2010 Conference, 1841–1847. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2010.5492427

29
 LITERATURE REVIEW
10. Effective Strategies to Diversify STEM Faculty
If our 21st Century science and engineering workforce is not representative of our citizenry, we as a nation will
miss the most promising opportunity for continued U.S. success. The loss will cut two ways – it will rob worthy
individuals of the chance to enrich their lives and to contribute to the engine of our economy and culture, and it
will undermine the ability of our nation to prosper within an increasingly competitive world. Faculty,
administrators and diversity experts from 7 universities worked as teams to evaluate and propose strategies for
use in STEM departments
a. PRACTICES | How to Promote Diversity
i. Establish clear and transparent written guidelines and procedures that minimize
cognitive errors.
ii. Promote diversity and ensure an equitable workplace at every level of the institution.
iii. Acknowledge that effective hiring and retention will attract individuals that will
provide diversity for competitive advantage.
iv. Diversity in Recruitment | Recruit all the time.
v. Invite diverse speakers to departmental seminar series (who may become future
recruits).
vi. Be proactive in recruiting –- don’t wait to search.
1. Develop professional contacts with women and URM.
2. Develop professional contacts with doctoral students at professional and
society meetings.
vii. The Search Process | Cast a wide net
1. Craft an advertisement
a. Broad position description.
b. Emphasis on flexible work/family balance policies.
c. Emphasis on institutional commitment to diversity
2. Post ads on appropriate websites.
3. Contact national organizations and alumni lists.
4. Create a diverse search committee.
5. Be consistent in the interview process.
6. Use phone interviews to create a longer “short list”.
7. Have women and URM candidates meet with other women and URM faculty
regardless of discipline
viii. Faculty Actions During File Review |
1. Make the process transparent and minimize cognitive errors.
a. Use a matrix.
b. Insist on concrete evidence in each dimension.
c. Have each applicant’s file presented to the committee by a committee
member
2. Look at multiple dimensions of the job.
a. Productivity/fundability.
b. Teaching needs.

30
 LITERATURE REVIEW
c. Possible collaborations.
d. Record on diversity.
e. Evidence of good citizenship/leadership potential.
3. Avoid ranking early in the applicant review process.
ix. Department Chair Actions to Increase Diversity in Recruitment
1. Verbalize how diverse faculty strengthen the institution, department, and
program.
2. Construct a search committee to maximize diversity.
3. Ensure that search committee members are appropriately informed about
diversity and aware of unconscious bias.
4. Involve all faculty in broadening the pool of applicants.
a. If possible, use advertising language that will attract the broadest
possible pool.
b. Look for the best person rather than a carbon-copy of the person who
previously held the position.
c. Use the search to broaden the expertise of your department/program.
5. Maintain a timely search.
x. The Search Committee
1. Invite members from other departments or programs.
2. Members should
a. Recognize the significance of diversity as it contributes to the
institution’s goals and competitiveness.
b. Have diverse points of view.
c. Come from diverse backgrounds.
3. Identify non-committee members or representatives from program offices to
meet with candidates during campus visits to provide more information about
your university and community
xi. Department Chair Actions During Candidate Review
1. Promote the department and the university to the candidates.
a. Demystify P & T and performance evaluation process.
b. Describe support given to junior faculty.
2. Insist upon equal and respectful treatment during:
a. Review of applicants’ packets.
b. Phone and campus interviews.
3. Maintain contact with candidates on the short list.
4. Work aggressively on dual career or partner-accommodation packages
xii. Dean’s Actions to Increase Diversity in Recruitment
1. Meet with search committees.
a. Emphasize institutional priorities, including diversity.
b. Stress importance of best practices.
2. Post relevant work/family policies on the college webpage or include in a
brochure.

31
 LITERATURE REVIEW
3. Incorporate diversity into the college’s strategic goals and objectives.
xiii. Dean’s Resource Allocation Actions
1. Facilitate institutional support.
2. Ensure that search committees have adequate funding and administrative
support by offering:
a. Timely letters.
b. Competitive and equitable start-up packages.
c. Dual career accommodations.
3. Reward chairs/heads who use “best practices” in searching.
b. KEEP IN MIND | Faculty Experience
i. Women and URM students are often lost along the academic pipeline (High School to
Ph.D).
1. The environment/cultural climate as it is now may be seen as hostile to those
who exist on the margins of society
2. Their may be demands of family responsibilities
3. Lack of role models in faculty positions
4. Likely the first generation to attend college, so the roadmap is unclear
ii. Objectivity is Compromised by Unconscious Bias
1. The committee/peer review process is assumed to be objective, but there is no
such thing.
2. First impressions
3. Negative/positive stereotyping
4. Elitism
5. Raising the bar
6. Cloning: Committee members overwhelmingly nominated candidates whose
careers were essentially identical to their own
7. Good “fit”/bad “fit”
8. Provincialism: Categorizing others outside their own race/gender/field of
study as unsophisticated or narrow-minded.
9. Self-fulfilling prophecy
10. Premature ranking/digging in
11. Wishful thinking: opinions not facts
12. Character over context
iii. Best Practices for Retention
1. Value diversity in the department.
2. Resolve conflict and harassment rapidly.
3. Be transparent in operations, including fair and open P&T guidelines
4. Mentor faculty.
a. Facilitate and monitor carefully.
b. Volunteer to review colleagues’ work.
c. Enhance research collaborations.
5. Hold orientation sessions for new faculty.

32
 LITERATURE REVIEW
6. Institute flexible and accommodating work/family policies and practices.
a. Dual career hires.
b. Family/personal leave.
c. Tenure clock.
d. On-site daycare.
7. Support career development.
a. Use the annual review process as an opportunity to plan and support.
b. Support at junior and mid-career levels
iv. Mid-Career Retention
1. Ensure equity in job assignments and rewards for job performance.
2. Create a collegial work environment.
3. Provide opportunities to obtain seed money for new professional directions.
4. Accommodate family and health needs.
5. Encourage leadership.
a. Endorse women and minorities as leaders.
6. Ensure competitive salaries.
c. LINK ARTICLE | Frehill, Lisa M., et al. Effective Strategies to Diversify STEM Faculty,
NMSU Board of Regents, 2006,
www.brown.edu/research/projects/advance/sites/brown.edu.research.projects.advance/files/u
ploads/Frehill%20-%20Effective%20Strategies%20to%20Diversify%20STEM%20Faculty.p
df.

33
 LITERATURE REVIEW
KEY CONCEPTS
Reminder: Recruiting diverse faculty is a matrimony between exceptional candidates of color combined with a
search committee’s commitment to an active consciousness and desire to hire them. If a committee, especially the
chair of such an entity, is not willing to restructure their strategies to hire a diversity of candidates, then the
disparities in representation will continue.

A. Significant Recruitment Practices (Review Article 7 & Article 10)

B. Primary Methods of Support for Committees: Taken from Article 10

a. Dean’s Actions to Increase Diversity in Recruitment
i. Meet with search committees.
1. Emphasize institutional priorities, including diversity.
2. Stress importance of best practices.
ii. Post relevant work/family policies on the college webpage or include in a brochure.
iii. Incorporate diversity into the college’s strategic goals and objectives.
b. Dean’s Resource Allocation Actions
i. Facilitate institutional support.
ii. Ensure that search committees have adequate funding and administrative support by offering:
1. Timely letters.
2. Competitive and equitable start-up packages.
3. Dual career accommodations.
iii. Reward chairs/heads who use “best practices” in searching.

C. Ways Diversity Recruitment Can Fail:

a. Predominantly white committee demographics
b. Overcritical attitudes towards POC candidates’ portfolio/qualifications
i. Data suggests there aren’t notable differences between qualifications of URM vs. White
candidates, however the former are passed over at alarming rates.
c. Centralizing whiteness as the neutral standard of faculty hires and seeing all others as “other”
i. Categorizing people of color as “diversity hires” immediately racializes them reinforces the
notion of Whiteness as the standard. Move away from that mentality
d. Dismissive behavior/demeanor that belittles the intellectual contribution of diverse faculty on search
committees
e. Pressuring Junior faculty to be a part of search committees without taking their contributions into
consideration. Rather appointing them to meet “diversity standards” without changing the outcome
of diversity hires.
f. Lazy recruitment strategies
i. Relying on committee members’ friends, colleagues, or inner circles to fill the positions as
opposed to broadening the scope of recruitment to encompass fresh faces with new
perspectives.

34
 LITERATURE REVIEW
g. Not preparing to sell the university for all it can do for a candidate. Do not rely on the prowess of
UC Berkeley to do the heavy lifting. Consider the quality of life a person of color and their family
could have in the community and ways the university can support their transition.

It is the responsibility of both the committee and the candidate to invest in the relationship via effective
communication--discussing employer/employee expectations and identifying how the work presented by the
candidate will further the diversity efforts of the university.

35