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.

BEFORE BEGINNING THE SEARCH

• Where do we want our department to be in 10 or 20 years?
• What new fields are emerging in this discipline?
• What perspectives and experiences are we missing?
• How will this position contribute to our goals of diversity, inclusion, and justice?
• Do we have resources to mentor faculty members who demonstrate potential but still need experience?

WRITING THE JOB AD

• What qualifications must the person have to succeed in this role?
• What qualifications might enhance their success and impact?
• Are there people who could succeed in this role but who wouldn’t meet our qualifications?
• Are we reflecting a range of interests, backgrounds, and experiences in our description of the position, unit, and institution?
• Have we described the position’s role, its impact, and how it contributes to diversity, inclusion, and justice?

WHEN RECRUITING

• What groups do we tend to miss attracting to our applicant pool, and where might we find them?
• Whom can we ask to recommend strong potential candidates interested in advancing diversity in research and teaching?
• Will each committee member contact colleagues seeking recommendations, and then personally invite those potential candidates to apply?
• Will we reach colleagues and candidates from demographically diverse institutions this way?

BEFORE INITIAL REVIEW OF CANDIDATES

• 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?
• Have we agreed on screening criteria for each qualification?
• Have we budgeted enough time to discuss each applicant thoroughly?
• Do we require factual job-related reasons when we reject a candidate?
• Have we agreed to build the case for advancing each qualified candidate before identifying deficits?

AFTER INITIAL REVIEW OF CANDIDATES

• What facts support our decisions to include or exclude a candidate? Where might we be speculating?
• How do the demographics of our shortlist compare with our qualified pool, and with the national pool of recent Ph.D.s?
• Have we generated an interview list with more than one minority finalist?
• 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?