What You Can Do (with little time and money) to Hire and Develop Outstanding Faculty: A Focus on Women Dr. Eve Riskin Associate Dean for Diversity and Access Faculty Director of UW ADVANCE Professor of Electrical Engineering University of Washington December 4, 2015

UW ADVANCE TEAM This is collaborative work with the UW ADVANCE team: Dr. Joyce Yen Alexis Nelson President Ana Mari Cauce

Outline My background A little on bias Recruitment Retention

My Background NJ native (Lawrence High School) Research in image and video compression (same as Dr. Farvardin) Twenty-five years in the UW Electrical Engineering Department Two stories of my 1st department chair Worked on UW ADVANCE since 2001 Associate Dean of Engineering, 2005–

Me (2) – Research Areas Image and video compression with HCI focus Technology for people with disabilities Diversity and Higher Education

Outline My background A little on bias Recruitment Retention

Educate Yourself About Bias Recognize that underrepresented candidates are subject to different expectations – “the bar goes up” Read the Wisconsin ADVANCE brochure: “Reviewing Applicants: Research on Bias and Assumptions”

Research on Bias in Evaluation Job Callbacks (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004) Teaching Evaluations (MacNell et al., 2014) Lab Manager Appl’n (Moss-Rascusin et al., 2012) Academic CV Evaluation (Steinpreis et al., 1999) Academic Rec. Letters (Madera et al., 2009) vs. Privileged identity (dominant group) received more positive evaluations, regardless of the identity of the evaluator Companies Students Faculty

Job Callbacks (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004) White vs. Black names, 2 skill levels each Whites: 50% more callbacks Highly skilled and avg. blacks virtually same number callbacks Avg. skilled whites more callbacks than highly skilled blacks Job Callbacks (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004) Academic CV Evaluation (Steinpreis et al., 1999) Same CV, different name Male applicant rated better in all categories, more likely hired Pattern holds for both men and women reviewers 624 recommendation letters for psychology faculty candidates Women: communal descriptors; Men: agentic descriptors Communal characteristics negatively correlated with hiring decisions Academic Rec. Letters (Madera et al., 2009) In each case, the identity that has historical and social significance (experienced discrimination, disadvantaged, not privileged) fared worse in each evaluation. Decision makers of all kinds reflected in these studies (students, faculty, companies). And that members of the dominate group (e.g. men) and non-dominant group (women) both provide more positive evaluation of the dominant social identity individuals. The key thing to note in each of these examples, whether it’s teaching evaluations, job call backs, faculty candidate evaluation, letters of recommendations, of other decision making situations is that in each case, the social identity who has been historically and socially disadvantaged in our group (i.e. not the dominate group or privileged group) – women, gay, black -- received a lower evaluation. For example, a “male” instructor received better ratings than a “female” instructor. The white candidates (both at the lower skill and higher skill levels) received more callbacks than black candidates (more than even the higher skilled black candidates). The pattern is that there is uneven evaluation. Lab Manager Appl’n (Moss-Rascusin et al., 2012) Same CV, different name – reviewed by science faculty at R1s Males rated significantly more competent and hireable Higher starting salary and more career mentoring offered to males Pattern holds for both male and female reviewers Online instructors, one male and one female, taught 2 courses each, one as a male and one as a female Students rated “male” teacher higher in both cases Students rated “female” teacher lower in both cases “Men get bonus points for showing up male” Teaching Evaluations (MacNell et al., 2014)

Outline My background A little on bias Recruitment Retention

Before candidates come to campus Have someone talk to your search committee about implicit bias Collect data on the candidate pool (ASEE is a good source if you’re in Engineering) If the proposed slate of candidates is all majority men, ask to see the files of the best woman candidate and the best URM candidate

During the interview Try to interview more than one woman/URM – you increase your chances of a diverse hire if you do Consider an all-women meal during interview (if candidate is open to it) Have someone from ADVANCE meet with female candidates to talk about ADVANCE No illegal or inappropriate questions No stupid assumptions

Things to remember (1) Always be recruiting The candidates are interviewing you too Create the best experience for the candidate If you make an offer, stay in touch frequently

Things to remember (2) Women may not negotiate as hard as men Don’t hold this against her Make sure she is set up to succeed Shortchanging her can cause a retention problem Track the women you didn’t interview or hire Are they doing well? Are there patterns? Can you do something differently next time?

Outline My background A little on bias Recruitment Retention

Mentoring Having the right mentor can be critically important for underrepresented people Most women I know had a mentor who “made all the difference”

Bob Gray

My Leadership Mentor, Denice D. Denton

Richard Ladner

Mentoring – Developing Faculty Measure your unit’s (and your own) success on your faculty’s success Have some element of regularity of checking in with your faculty It’s not just the chair’s job – it’s the job of the entire faculty – but the weight falls on you Adapted from David Notkin’s LEAD presentation on mentoring faculty, 2008. Probably the most important thing about mentoring is to be explicit about it — not giving it lip service, but identifying it as a genuine and essential part of the future of your department Your department will be heavily limited in where it can go if you don’t mentor your people well This applies not only to faculty, but to students and staff as well

Be honest “I can make an offer to Sally Jones this year at a higher salary than yours. I think this is a good thing for the department in many ways. I promise to fix this inversion as soon as I can.” “This year we’re nominating Jane and Michael for Sloan Fellowships, but not you. We think you’re a strong candidate but would benefit from waiting for a year. Barring major changes, we expect to nominate you next year.” “We’ve decided to pass on moving your promotion forward this year. We’re thrilled with your research, but you haven’t been showing sufficient effectiveness at teaching. We’ll work with you by (a) sitting down for an extensive discussion of what we perceive isn’t going right, (b) helping you get help, and (c) working with you to hand-pick teaching assignments for next year that will let you focus on teaching and show improvement.” Adapted from David Notkin’s LEAD presentation on mentoring faculty, 2008. Probably the most important thing about mentoring is to be explicit about it — not giving it lip service, but identifying it as a genuine and essential part of the future of your department Your department will be heavily limited in where it can go if you don’t mentor your people well This applies not only to faculty, but to students and staff as well

Mid-Career Faculty Some get “stuck” at associate professor They may have little funding or no students They may get discouraged and give up Their field may have dried up and they could not transition to a new hot area What is the role of the chair? Adapted from David Notkin’s LEAD presentation on mentoring faculty, 2008. Probably the most important thing about mentoring is to be explicit about it — not giving it lip service, but identifying it as a genuine and essential part of the future of your department Your department will be heavily limited in where it can go if you don’t mentor your people well This applies not only to faculty, but to students and staff as well

Some Ideas Seed money to encourage risk, allowing people to transform their focus (and maybe their approach) Teach them how to compete with different organizations (NIH vs. NSF, etc.) Match stalled faculty with people who have failed at getting grants, but then hit a bunch in a row Work with them on presentation of their ideas Encourage a focus on education for a while Internal sabbaticals Adapted from David Notkin’s LEAD presentation on mentoring faculty, 2008. Probably the most important thing about mentoring is to be explicit about it — not giving it lip service, but identifying it as a genuine and essential part of the future of your department Your department will be heavily limited in where it can go if you don’t mentor your people well This applies not only to faculty, but to students and staff as well

David’s High-Level Advice When someone gets tenure, talk to them about what their path to Professor will be They will know you are supportive and therefore will be open to advice from you While it may be tempting to pay less attention, don’t ease up at this point Every person who remains active is good for your department Adapted from David Notkin’s LEAD presentation on mentoring faculty, 2008. Probably the most important thing about mentoring is to be explicit about it — not giving it lip service, but identifying it as a genuine and essential part of the future of your department Your department will be heavily limited in where it can go if you don’t mentor your people well This applies not only to faculty, but to students and staff as well

In Nature (1997), Wenneras & Wold showed that in order for a female scientist to be awarded the same competence score as a male, she had to have 3 extra papers in Science or Nature (i.e., high impact journals) or 20 extra journal papers (e.g., good specialist journals) OR know someone on the panel. “A female applicant needed to be 2.5 times more productive than the average male applicant to receive the same competence score.” Wenneras & Wold (1997) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v387/n6631/pdf/387341a0.pdf

More Bias Research Studies 2007 meta-analysis shows men have 7% higher chance of getting grants (NSF, Wellcome Trust, NIH, Australian, Germany, …) 2014 study finds women are 55% less likely to get tenure in Computer Science when controlling for research productivity RateMyProfessors.com study, 2015 Men are “brilliant,” “intelligent,” and “smart” Women are “mean,” “unfair,” and “annoying”

Recognition Publicly acknowledge women for their ideas Ensure their accomplishments don’t get attributed to others Spotlight their research Introduce them to collaborators Nominate them for awards

But nominations take lots of time and my candidate might not win! Look for good fits Find under-tapped or obscure awards Distinguished alumni awards can be easier Avoid nominations that are too competitive, e.g., Waterman Prize

Strategy Be persistent—third time can be the charm. PUT THE CANDIDATE TO WORK! Take a 20-30 minute first pass at the nomination Then hand it off to the candidate They know their qualifications best Recycle award nominations Tenure case letters Grad school recommendation letters Other nominations

Women may feel less comfortable promoting their accomplishments My Final Advice Women may feel less comfortable promoting their accomplishments Make sure their successes are being profiled Tell them you want to hear about successes Make sure you consider them carefully for promotion to Professor – they may not feel comfortable requesting to be promoted

Two Case Studies

Case Study – Recruiting During discussions of the faculty candidates, a faculty member in your department consistently finds a way to discredit female candidates. What do you do?

Case Study – Retention An associate professor who has been in rank for a very long time, received lower-than-average salary increases over a number of years, and thus has a lower salary than their peers. Then, after this lull, the associate professor rallies, becomes productive again, and is finally promoted to full professor. If the faculty member had a number of years of low or no productivity before revamping their research program, should all of that now be forgiven? Or should the faculty member continue to earn less than peers, even though their research program is now up and running again? Does a period of low productivity affect a faculty member in perpetuity?

Thank you!