LITERATURE REVIEW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Rubrics for Faculty Searches

1. In Search of a New Equilibrium: Economic Aspects of Higher Education’s Changing Faculty

Composition
a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article
2. Best Practices for Faculty Search Committees
a. Practices
b. Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article
3. The Academic Job Search Handbook: Hiring from the Institution’s Point of View
a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article
4. The Facade of Fit in Faculty Search Processes
a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article
5. Before the Ad: How Departments Generate Hiring Priorities that Support or Avert Faculty Diversity
a. Practices
b. What to Keep in Mind
c. Link to Article

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

2
 LITERATURE REVIEW
1. In Search of New Equilibrium: Economic Aspects of Higher Education’s Changing Faculty
Composition

This article examines the interconnected phenomena of recruitment, retention, and utilization
of faculty at research universities, with special emphasis on the changing mix of tenure track and
contingent (i.e., fixed term) faculty members. The authors argue, based upon both national data and
detailed information from a particular institution, that powerful economic forces are prompting
research universities to rethink fundamental strategies about the core academic workforce.

a. PRACTICES | University-wide and/or departmental shift towards hiring contingent

(non-tenured) faculty to offset economic constraints. A strategy to reduce cost and display
job transparency.
i. It may be beneficial to deploy a steady movement towards greater use of contingent
faculty.
1. Contingent faculty is another way of saying faculty that are non-tenured.
2. This methodology:
a. Broadens the search for available prospective faculty
b. Provides the student body with professors with extensive teaching
responsibilities over research. This suggests more available time to
commit to student development which may enhance faculty interest
and future Ph.D candidacy.
c. Requires less grant and contract writing experience, which may weigh
heavy against otherwise qualified candidates.
d. An influx of non-tenured faculty allows for a multitude of faculty
personnel to be hired and accommodated, as opposed to a select few
with higher salaries.
e. Eases the toll of department budget constraints while aiming to
maximize faculty hiring and, by proxy, faculty diversity in moments of
financial uncertainty.
f. Releases more tenured track professors from their teaching
responsibilities and gives way to an influx of grant funding, greater
research production, greater research quality, and frees up resources
for alternative instructional personnel
g. Provides a multitude of contractual timelines that may garner the
appeal of new (especially younger) faculty hires
i. Part-time instruction teaching regularly scheduled courses
ii. Full-time, with increments of 12 additional months
iii. Full-time, five year commitments, allowing hires to engage in
scholarly research-- without hindering teaching commitments.

3
 LITERATURE REVIEW
b. KEEP IN MIND | Faculty Development & Economic Impact
i. There has been a decline in state support for core academic enterprises over the past
several decades that places universities in a struggle with tightening costs and scarce
resources for staff and faculty personnel.
1. Offsetting this financial constriction is difficult, as endowments aren’t
matching the combined impacts of the rate of inflation and financial
constriction
2. Generating donations is solely based on the wealth of private university peers
a. This generates a wealth gap between institutions that affects their
ability to hire faculty.
ii. Faculty represent the greatest asset in the process of teaching, research and
service.
1. Faculty typically account for ~70% of an institution’s budget
iii. Faculty cost is variable, specifically in the case of nontenured faculty.
iv. When deployed abruptly without proper conscience or care, the transition from
tenured to non-tenured/full-time to part-time professors can be detrimental to the
quality of education provided.
1. Part-time/non-tenured faculty are still a great resource for students, as they
bring practical workplace skills to the institution

c. LINK TO ARTICLE | Monk, D. H., Dooris, M. J., & Erickson, R. A. (2009). In Search of a
New Equilibrium: Economic Aspects of Higher Education’s Changing Faculty Composition.
Education Finance and Policy, 4(3), 300–318.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/educfinapoli.4.3.300

4
 LITERATURE REVIEW
2. Best Practices for Faculty Search Committees: How to Review Applications & Interview Candidates

A faculty search can be hit-or-miss. Sometimes everything seems to fall into place, and the search
committee ends up hiring a wonderful new faculty member who becomes not only an important
colleague but also a person who brings a new Vitality to the discipline. At other times, the applicant who
seemed so perfect on paper and during the interview ends up being a very different type of person once
the hiring process is complete, and the program as a whole suffers as a result. This brief guide book is
intended to help make faculty search committees more effective and to make the work of serving on one
if not easy then at least a little easier than it otherwise might have been. This book is written for the busy
college professor, keeping what they need to know clear, concise and above all practical.

a. PRACTICES | Holistic overview of the best practices outlined in the book, categorized by
action and principle(s).
i. The Problem with Unnecessary Specialization
1. Many advertisements describe a position as requiring a PhD when other kinds
of doctorates may suffice (e.g...
a. DA: Doctor of Arts
b. PsyD: Doctor of Psychology
c. EdD: Doctor of Education
ii. Support from Institutional Leadership
1. Concrete actions that Administration can take in advancing the school's
diversity goals include:
a. Finding travel by the search chair or members of the committee to
conferences in disciplines that attract diverse audiences
b. Posting job notices
c. Pre-screening possible candidate
d. Talking about the position with conference attendees
e. Establishing support groups and contacts within the
academic/surrounding community who can help new hires feel more at
home in the institution
iii. Advertising the Position
1. Decide what information the most desirable and qualified candidates need to
know in order to be encouraged to apply for the position.
a. Who is my audience?
i. What are the best qualified applicants for this position likely to
already know or assume about the job itself, my institution, or
the area in which this institution is located?
ii. How much experience do we expect our leading candidates to
have?

5
 LITERATURE REVIEW
iii. Are there likely to be other factors that are most desirable
candidates might share?
iv. By shifting our focus in some way, might we have success in
reaching a broader audience of competitive candidates who
otherwise might not know or care about this position?
b. What is the outcome I'd like to receive from an audience?
i. Is there a website with more information you'd like the reader
of the ad to examine?
ii. Are there printed materials you would like to send the potential
applicants in order to provide more information about the
position, school, or region?
iii. Is the position so specialized that it is better for a potential
candidate to speak with a representative of the program to
determine whether it is even worthwhile to apply for the job?
c. What type of message is most likely to result in that sort of outcome
from that sort of audience?
i. Before drafting a position announcement or job advertisement
put yourself in the place of the most competitive applicants you
can imagine for the position
1. what will they need to know about the area, institution,
program, and position in order to find it attractive
2. Decide on the most appropriate venues for disseminating that information.
a. Key questions a search committee needs to ask at this point is:
i. Which sources of information is my target audience likely to
use the most?
ii. In what format is my target audience likely to use them?
iii. What are the most expeditious ways of getting that information
to my target audience in that format?
b. When creating advertisements for academic positions think about the
position holistically
i. What else might the faculty member be doing in addition to
teaching and research?
1. These additional duties Maidenform where you should
place your advertisements and what should be included
in them
3. Tailor the information to the specific venue.
a. Professional journals have certain requirements and guidelines that
differ from online sites. be aware of these differences and structure the
information as needed.
i. Is this a permanent position?

6
 LITERATURE REVIEW
ii. Does it offer the possibility of tenure or a multi-year contract?
iii. Will research be supported in a way that receiving tenure or a
multi-year contract becomes more likely?
iv. Is promotion possible and, if so, after how many years?
v. Is the institution family friendly?
vi. If candidates have an existing research team, can they bring
them with them for this position?
vii. Will existing facilities be renovated if that's necessary for the
research?
viii. Are Bridge grants from the institution possible if candidates
find themselves between grants and a few years?
ix. What portion of indirect cost recovery on grants does the
institution return to principal investigators?
x. What are the special benefits and privileges that the institution
provides its distinguished research professors?
b. Don't bury the lede. it is important to place the most significant details
at the beginning of a job announcement
4. Track success rates of each venue and advertisement format to improve future
searches.
a. Include a reply survey card to each applicant in the letter that states
that his or her application has been received. This could be virtual or a
physical card.
i. Survey cards have the applicants check a few boxes indicating
how they learned about the position.
b. Trace the links that take potential candidates to job applications and
identify where the applicant found the listing.
c. Google Analytics can be used to perform A/ B testing of different ads
or emails. It can:
i. Determine where your applicants tend to be located
ii. Determine what times of day and days of the week bring you
the best responses
iii. Determine what pages on your school's website potential
applicants tend to visit
iv. Determine how long people remain on your website
v. Determine who visits and revisit the site frequently
5. Adjust the strategy as needed if the desired results aren't being obtained.
a. Track results as the search unfolds rather than looking at the pool only
after the deadline has passed
i. This helps the search committee make the best use of its efforts
and pivot necessarily

7
 LITERATURE REVIEW
b. It may be best to track applicants as they come in only in the following
terms:
i. Is the application complete? Did the candidates submit all the
materials that were requested?
ii. Is the candidate qualified? Do they meet every criterion
publicly described as a requirement?
iii. Is the candidate highly competitive? Do they meet one or more
criterion that are publicly described as a preference?
iv. Reviewing the Application
1. Include language regarding deadlines that communicate clarity (e.g...
a. In order to be eligible for consideration, all materials required for the
application must be postmarked (or received or electronically
submitted) by [date].
b. Review of applications will begin on [ date], but applications will
continue to be received and reviewed until the position is filled.
2. Giving applicants every opportunity to make their strongest possible case
helps yield the most competitive and diverse pool of candidates

b. KEEP IN MIND | Holistic overview of the best practices outlined in the book, categorized
by action and principle(s).
i. The Problem with Unnecessary Specialization
1. A highly desirable candidate may not even apply to the position if he or she
has a different type of degree
2. In most cases a narrow focus of a position stems from the preferences of the
people in the program, not genuine needs or curricular requirements.
ii. Achieving Diversity Goals.
1. A diverse staff, administration, and student body is important at colleges and
universities to correct past injustices
2. Committees should consider matters of diversity when building faculty
positions and conducting searches because it adds significant pedagogical
value to a program.
a. Students may become more Adept at negotiating their way through a
diverse World by being exposed to a diverse educational environment.
i. This includes political views
3. Diversity needs to be considered in matters of Faculty recruitment because it
provides students with a broader range of role models.
iii. A holistic way to gauge faculty diversity is to look at the following groups:
1. The Faculty of the department or program has a hole
2. The Faculty of the college or Division
3. the students at the institution

8
 LITERATURE REVIEW
4. The Faculty, staff, and administration of the institution
5. the general population of the city or region in which the institution is located
a. take an inventory of each of these groups in terms of their breakdown
of protected classes (race, gender, etc.)
b. Look for the outliers in which the distribution of protected classes is
noticeably different from others
c. Use this to inform your position hiring
iv. Don't end job announcements or advertisements with shallow statements of diversity
and inclusion such as “ women and minorities encouraged to apply”.
1. This may give off the impression that the institution is simply going through
the motions of claiming that diversity is important in faculty searches
2. It is always better to include a statement about why faculty diversity is
important at your school then one that's simply claims it is important
v. “Illegal” Questions
1. It may be often discussed that certain interview questions are illegal.
a. As in if anyone asks one of these questions during an interview the
process will be immediately compromised, the search aborted, and the
position possibly lost.
2. It should be stated that there are no such things as illegal interview questions
and no questions can automatically cause a search to be invalid.
3. We should rather call these questions inadvisable interview questions because
asking them can cause a search's legitimacy to be challenged or place the
outcome of the search in jeopardy. (e.g...
a. If an interviewer appears to be trying to determine whether a candidate
falls into a protected class. Protected classes include:
i. Age
ii. Gender
iii. Sexual orientation
iv. Marital status
v. Family status
vi. Race
vii. National origin
viii. Religion
ix. Physical challenges
x. Medical history
xi. Veteran status
xii. Criminal history
vi. More information on best practices can be found in Chapters 3-5 of the text.
c. LINK TO BOOK | Buller, Jeffrey L. Best Practices for Faculty Search Committees: How to
Review Applications and Interview Candidates. Jossey-Bass, 2017.

9
 LITERATURE REVIEW
3. The Academic Job Search Handbook: Hiring From the Institution’s Point of View

Just as your CV presents the public face of your qualifications in a simple, organized form,
without revealing the full complexity of your individual life, an advertised position is the public
presentation of an outcome of complex negotiations within a department and possibly within an
institution. It will generally be impossible for you, as a job candidate, to have a full understanding of
what goes on behind the scenes. Even if you are fortunate enough to have an inside contact who can
give you additional perspective, it is still extremely unlikely that you will know everything about the
hiring decision. Thus, throughout the job search process, you will need to present yourself in the
strongest fashion possible without tying yourself into knots trying to second guess the institution that
has advertised the position. However, here are some of the factors that might be in play and the
implications for candidates.

a. PRACTICES | Departmental Perspectives within Hiring Pipeline

i. Defining and Advertising a Position
1. Due to today's financially stringent climate, approval to fill a position that has been
vacated is not granted routinely
2. Departments that have lost faculty members must defend to its Dean the necessity of
replacing the position
a. This puts them in competition with other departments for limited resources
3. Departments have a tendency to advertise positions simultaneously at the assistant
and associate professor levels
a. This leaves the area of specialization open, which may frighten new Ph.Ds
unnecessarily.
ii. Screening Candidates
1. It is of the utmost importance that the members of the screening committee
are dedicated and invested in the hiring process.
2. While reviewing candidate materials, an imbalance of investment can lead to
poor screening since hiring groups aren't yet wedded to candidates they prefer
3. It is good practice to appoint someone in the group to pay special attention to
candidates at this stage end request participants to view specific elements of
the application
a. E.g. Dr. L. is the best student the department has had in the last five
years and she is seriously interested in this job. Can you be sure to
look at her application carefully?
iii. Interviewing
1. Most departments have their own histories of hiring successes and mistakes, with one
common mistake being high turnover
2. It may be important to vet a candidate with previous mistakes in mind, as a way of
repeating them in the future.
a. This does not mean it is permissible to be overly critical of a candidate's
personality, style , or interests.
10
 LITERATURE REVIEW
b. Gauge where the department went wrong in previous hires, and pivot
accordingly during the interview stage without being inflexible
iv. Decision Making
1. It is important to take a candidates holistic impression on the department into
consideration when making a decision
a. Although some candidates may lean towards ideal on paper, bear
witness to how they interact with department staff in person
b. There will always be trade-offs when making decisions as no
candidate will fit the ideal specifications completely
i. Ensure that those trade-offs balance competing priorities of the
department (Which should be a known set of criteria by all
committee members)
v. Offers and Negotiation
1. Be prepared for the period of negotiation after the position is offered
a. What is the financial capacity to update research facilities?
b. How many classes should the candidate expect to teach in the first
year? Beyond?
c. Please be transparent about the department timetable and communicate
that clearly to prospective candidates.
d. When a final decision is made to hire a potential applicant it may be
good practice to notify non alternative personnel that they did not
receive the position
i. Non alternative personnel are candidates who would not be
considered as alternatives to fill the position in case the first
choice candidate does not accept.
vi. Hiring and “Inside Candidates”
1. It's understandable that a position that is advertised publicly may still go to a
candidate that is already within the department
a. Be sure that the choice to hire said person is one of satisfying
competing departmental priorities as opposed to ease of search end
laziness

b. KEEP IN MIND | Candidate Implications as a Result of Department Perspectives

i. Defining and Advertising a Position
1. Give candidates an opportunity to highlight the aspects of their background that
connect with the position
a. Try to stay away from vague job descriptions, however if a detailed
description cannot be generated allow candidates to emphasize a broader
sense of fit within the department and the institution as a whole
b. Give candidates a legitimate chance to communicate what they have to offer

11
 LITERATURE REVIEW
ii. Screening Candidates
1. Look for key accomplishments in various ways throughout the application
review
2. Materials should be clear and accessible even to someone who is not a
specialist in the area of study
3. Does their cover letter sound intentional and directed?
4. Is their language specific between documents or is it just copy and paste?
5. Has there been any informal connections made on behalf of the candidate?
iii. Interviewing
1. Candidates may be trying to learn about department dynamics & culture
during this interview.
a. Keep an eye out for clear communication of interest in the institution
and location of the institution
iv. Decision Making
1. Negotiating competing department priorities will inherently be a political
process
2. The best candidate, in turn, won't be somebody that matches all of what each
faculty member was looking for
3. If you find it hard to lobby for a candidate, take a moment and ask why?
4. Keep a record of the people with whom you speak during each interview
a. Even if they are not chosen, you can keep in touch with them, send
papers to them, and cultivate a relationship with them over years.
v. Offers and Negotiation
1. Delays are inevitable
a. As the committee is negotiating which candidate best fits the position,
keep an eye out for alternative candidates who take other positions in
the interim.
2. Candidates who are not chosen to fill the position may ask for constructive
feedback. Be prepared to give it to them, including strategies on how to
improve their candidacy in future interviews.
vi. Hiring and “Inside Candidates”
1. Simply because the department itself may have a front-runner, does not
conclude that that person will accept the position
a. It is imperative to give each candidate a fair and equitable level of
consideration throughout the interview process.
c. LINK TO BOOK | Vick, J. M., Furlong, J. S., & Lurie, R. (2016). The Academic Job Search
Handbook. University of Pennsylvania Press.
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/berkeley-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4540334

12
 LITERATURE REVIEW
4. The Facade of Fit in Faculty Search Processes

Various concerns regarding the vitality and racial/ethnic composition of the academic profession
have prompted new study of faculty search committees and hiring paradigms, most notably examining
the term “fit” in candidate appraisals. Yet no study utilizes a candidate evaluation framework to
investigate whether or not faculty members truly assess for fit, or if these assessments stifle
diversification processes, especially in light of pervasive institutional efforts to reform faculty hiring.
This study uses a critical person-environment fit framework and multiple case study methods to
investigate how faculty search committee members individually evaluate and collectively select
prospective early-career faculty. Results indicate that fit, as a system of assumptions, practices, and
tactics designed to evaluate and select candidates based on organizational needs, was minimal in faculty
searches. Instead, faculty relied heavily on idiosyncratic preferences to evaluate research, teaching, and
service credentials, which also contained criterion that directly and indirectly averted diversity. Findings
reveal how the review and selection of candidates is as much, if not more, about individual committee
preferences than organizational demands or congruence.

a. PRACTICES | Inappropriate perspectives and actions regarding departmental “fit” that impose
on a committee’s ability to give legitimate consideration to diversity faculty. WATCH OUT FOR
SOME OF THESE.
i. Compared to the normative model of selection, screening for fit in faculty
searches—whether for the job or the organization—was significantly limited.
1. Faculty’s espoused evaluative frameworks were far more driven by
idiosyncratic preferences than actual perceived fit assessments.
ii. Faculty first screened for minimum qualification by determining the candidate's
subject expertise alignment with the position description—a form of person-job fit
(Good).
1. Minimal qualification meant that candidates’ research and teaching materials
reflected the subject expertise requested in the job call
2. After, participants attempted to maximize status and candidate credentials by
using their own devised preferences
3. Emphasizing research activity and grappling with diversity statements
a. Led to minimal measurement or consensus to solidify the short-list.
iii. During interviews, faculty first screened for subject expertise alignment within the
department’s existing research infrastructure—a form of person-organization fit.
(Good).
1. Committee members used a combination of individual preferences related to
research expertise (and some consideration for teaching expertise), and unique
departmental criterion to inform final candidate selection
iv. Definitions of “impactful research” & “identity” are arbitrary lead to different
evaluation standards between faculty
13
 LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Impactful research should have an agreed upon set of criteria by the
committee
a. What communities does the research support?
b. What scale does the application of the research have commercially,
environmentally, ethically, demographically, politically?
c. Is there a system of quantitative measurements of faculty opinions
regarding research proposals of candidates upon consideration?
i. Look out for candidates that can situate their research in larger
contexts of significance and timeliness
ii. This activates a sense of importance and urgency
v. Some research was considered too narrow if any aspect of the study or research
agenda—topic, sample, theory, or implications—was purposefully constricted to
attune to a certain population, region, or form of identity
1. In the life sciences committee, a candidate conducting research on anti-gay
bias was critiqued for not being “as much of a scientist as some of the others
[conducting] basic science”.

b. KEEP IN MIND | Inappropriate perspectives and actions regarding departmental “fit” that
impose on a committee’s ability to give legitimate consideration to diversity faculty.
i. Idiosyncratic preferences largely governed the evaluative stages of faculty searches,
whereas empirically supported fit assessments were limited to subject expertise
agreement in small aspects of the search.
ii. Fit evaluations roughly explained 20% to 25% of candidate eliminations,
1. Individual faculty preferences regarding predominantly research and few
teaching parameters constituted the remaining 75% to 80%
iii. Idiosyncratic preferences were masqueraded as fit assessments
1. This both directly and indirectly disadvantaged minoritized candidates in the
hiring process
iv. Participants primarily espoused a “color-convenience” perspective, different from
complete color-blindness, rooted in ideals of administrative compliance and
egalitarianism.
v. Considering identity was convenient and widely seen as permissible at the start of the
search
1. “Casting the widest net possible” complied with administrative oversight,
evaded search delay, and propagated the egalitarian principles of equality of
opportunity.
2. Yet, social identity transformed from a competitive advantage to a non factor
when reviewing candidates, with many faculty having different—albeit still
color-blind—perspectives on considering identity.

14
 LITERATURE REVIEW
c. LINK TO ARTICLE | White-Lewis, D. K. (2020). The Facade of Fit in Faculty Search
Processes. The Journal of Higher Education, 91(6), 833–857.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2020.1775058

15
 LITERATURE REVIEW
5. Before the Ad: How Departments Generate Hiring Priorities That Support or Avert Faculty Diversity

Although academic departments have more tools to advance faculty diversity than ever before, many still
downplay their own responsibility throughout the hiring process. This results in a cycle of apathy that
activates once searches are already under way, and structural change is out of reach. Yet few studies
empirically outline what structural change entails so that departments can play a more active role in
improving search processes before hiring begins. This study materializes the underlying mechanics of
academic hiring by describing the process of departmental hiring priorities, and identifies how adjusting
them can create the optimal conditions for supporting faculty diversity. Participants were 23 academic
personnel spanning four academic departments, including deans, department chairs, equity administrators,
and faculty search committee members.
This qualitative study uses a blend of multiple case study and grounded theory designs. The multiple case
study method guided the site, case, participant selection, and data collection procedures. Grounded theory
was employed primarily in the data coding and analysis phases. Data were collected and findings reveal the
primary determinants of departmental hiring priorities that bred subfield conservatism, or the hesitancy to
expand the department in new and different hiring directions based on resource constraint and subfield
reproduction. This was a realistic yet troubling organizational response that inhibited opportunities for
diversity before searches even began. Results also document the steps that departments took to thwart
subfield conservatism in order to more aptly attract and elevate racially minoritized candidates

a. PRACTICES | Several practical recommendations for deans, department chairs, search

committee chairs, and faculty
i. In relation to hiring equity:
1. Deans and department chairs should carefully consider their department’s
representation of scholarly foci, history, and hiring procedures before
instituting interventions
2. Divisive and contentious hiring decisions (e.g., departmental votes for hiring
priorities, new faculty hires) may be related to how faculty members are
organized.
a. Any diversification intervention without context may unintentionally
clump faculty of color in select subfields if there is no attention to the
overall department
ii. Consider the procedural elements of the hiring process
1. Strategic plans
2. Broad input systems
3. Explicit ties to diversity disrupted subfield conservatism
a. All increased transparency, and spread resources across the department
b. Alleviated pressures and led to greater levels of departmental
consensus

16
 LITERATURE REVIEW
iii. Whenever possible, deans and department chairs should operationalize scholarly
emergence and the best ways to identify it.
1. Achievable by tracking paper topics across national conferences, reading
discipline-specific periodicals, or sending faculty to graduate student
workshops and events
iv. Faculty can identity emerging research trends by
1. Taking stock of emergent journal publications, reports, and areas of practice.

b. KEEP IN MIND |
i. Be intentional about examining trends in the field, so that when it comes time to name
the field for hire, faculty members are not merely replicating what has been there
previously— which may or may not be where the field is currently

c. LINK TO ARTICLE | White-Lewis, Damani K. “Before the Ad: How Departments

Generate Hiring Priorities That Support or Avert Faculty Diversity.” Teachers College
Record: The Voice of Scholarship and Education, vol. 123, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1–36.,
www.tcrecord.org/library/.

17