1. 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

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

3. Outline
My background
A little on bias
Recruitment
Retention

4. 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–

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

6. Outline
My background
A little on bias
Recruitment
Retention

7. 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”

8. 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

9. 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)

10. Outline
My background
A little on bias
Recruitment
Retention

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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?

15. Outline
My background
A little on bias
Recruitment
Retention

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

17. Bob Gray

18. My Leadership Mentor,
Denice D. Denton

19. Richard Ladner

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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)

26. 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”

27. 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

28. 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

29. Strategy Be persistent—third time can be the charm.
PUT THE CANDIDATE TO WORK!
Take a 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

30. 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

31. Two Case Studies

32. 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?

33. 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?

34. Thank you!