Guidelines for Departmental Policy: Creating an Effective Faculty

August, 2016

Berkeley

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Office for Faculty Equity & Welfare

Page | 1

Guidelines for Departmental Policy:

Creating an Effective Faculty Search Process

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance on a range of considerations for

conducting effective faculty searches, including authority during the search, the role of

participants not on the search committee, efforts to attract a broad and inclusive applicant

pool, and fair and equitable evaluation processes. Most of these topics should be discussed

prior to launching a search, and ideally departments will develop a set of standard

practices that reflect core values and agreed upon goals.

Authority during the search process

There are a number of points during the faculty search process where it is important for

departments/schools to have pre-established practices for the level of autonomy given to

the search committee, and for the level and timing of inclusion of the department chair and

the department/school faculty during the search process.

 Agreement on the purpose and scope of the search: An important role of the search

chair is to ensure that the committee has a shared understanding and agreement on

how the position is conceptualized and defined. Any differences of opinion should be

examined and managed prior to evaluating any candidates. A disagreement regarding

the focus of the search is a common reason that searches fail.

 Search description in the advertisement: Typically, the search committee has the

authority to write the description of the position consistent with the approved language

in the FTE allocation. This authority may also be given to the department chair per

department policy. In some units, the description is shared for discussion with the full

department prior to the search. It is important that the advertisement description

clearly reflect the goals of the search in terms of area, scope of the position, and desired

qualifications.

 Consideration of applicants by faculty not on the search committee: Each

department should have a process that specifies who can give input and at which stages

of the search. It is strongly advised that the search committee not accept input on

candidates until a long list of candidates for serious consideration has been established.

Faculty who are not on the search committee often want to advocate for a candidate

known to them, or conversely to highlight a candidate they feel is not well qualified. But

unless faculty members have reviewed all candidates at that stage and used the criteria

established by the search committee, input of this type might give an unfair advantage

or disadvantage for certain candidates.

August, 2016

Berkeley

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Office for Faculty Equity & Welfare

Page | 2

 Creating the “long list”: It is typical for the search committee to have the autonomy to

create the long list (those under Serious Consideration). If the long list is presented to

the full faculty for discussion, it is expected that each department faculty member will

review the complete files for all the long list candidates using the same criteria as the

search committee before offering feedback on any candidate. A process for gathering

input for selecting candidates to be invited for an interview should be determined in

advance.

 Creating the “short list”: The practices regarding generation of the short list are more

varied. In some units, the search committee is given this authority, and sometimes their

deliberations are confidential. In other units, there is extensive discussion with the full

faculty, and sometimes a vote is taken. The practice should be determined in advance,

and common selection criteria used.

 After campus visits by candidates on the short list: It is necessary to be clear how

feedback will be gathered from all faculty who participated in the candidate visits. In

many departments, the faculty convene to discuss the candidates, while in others a

rating tool such as a survey is used to gather input from all faculty. It is important that

faculty who participate in discussions attend all candidate interviews, and that remarks

focus on evidence related to the established selection and evaluation criteria rather

than general impressions or hearsay.

 Voting: It is important that there are transparent voting policies and procedures. In

some units the search committee makes a clear recommendation for a first choice

candidate (sometimes with an alternate), while in other departments, the faculty

discuss the pros and cons of each finalist and then vote. If the faculty meet to discuss

more than one candidate, there should be two separate considerations. First, each

candidate should be considered independently to determine if she/he meets Berkeley’s

standards for appointment. For those that do, there needs to be further discussion and

voting regarding the top choice.

Other roles in the search process

It is important to consider the extent to which department chairs, departmental Equity

Advisors, and graduate students will be involved in the faculty search process, and what

specific role they will play.

 Department chair: The rights and responsibilities of the department chair should be

clear. It is advisable that the chair moderate the full faculty discussion of candidates

without stating his/her opinion. The chair’s letter on the case should express the

sentiment of the faculty; faculty members are entitled to review the letter the chair

writes. If the chair has a different opinion from that of the faculty, he or she may write a

personal letter.

August, 2016

Berkeley

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Office for Faculty Equity & Welfare

Page | 3

 Equity advisors: Departmental Equity Advisors may or may not serve on the search

committee. If the Equity Advisor is not a search committee member, one member of the

committee should be appointed as the “equity liaison” for the search, and communicate

with the Equity Advisor throughout the search process. At a minimum, Equity Advisors

must sign off on Search Plans, applicant pools, short lists, and Search Reports; ideally

they are consulted throughout the search process. Proactive discussion with the search

committee about unconscious bias and fair search practices should be standard

practice. When evaluating applicant pools and shortlists, Equity Advisors should

consider if sufficient effort was made to attract a diverse pool of candidates, especially

for the long list.

 Graduate students: Graduate students are involved to some extent in the majority of

faculty searches at Berkeley. It is recommended that one or more graduate students

serve on the committee. Practices vary as to whether or not the graduate student is a

voting member of the committee (if committee votes are taken) and if he/she has

access to letters of recommendation. A common practice is for the graduate student to

poll the full graduate student population in the department/school and present

summary results to the committee. It is advisable that a graduate student serving on the

committee not be an advisee of one of the search committee members.

Efforts to attract a broad and diverse applicant pool

Women and underrepresented minorities under-apply for most of our faculty positions

relative to their national availability. Proactive efforts are necessary to achieve a

representative pool of highly qualified candidates.

 Advertisement: There are a number of federal requirements that must be included in

the ad; there are advertisement templates with these requirements (department AP

analysts can assist with this). It is recommended that the advertisement include

statements about Berkeley’s commitment to diversity near the beginning of the

advertisement, and in addition, many searches are now requesting a statement from

applicants on their past and future plans for contributions to diversity. These

statements provide useful information for the search committee, while also

communicating clearly the search committee’s commitment to these values (see

http://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/contributions-diversity for more information and

examples).

 Cultivating a diverse pool of applicants: It is not easy to cultivate a diverse applicant

pool of qualified candidates. Search committees that are successful typically employ

multiple active strategies such as personally inviting promising women and

underrepresented minorities to apply for the position. Sending an advertisement and

marketing email to peer institutions will likely be insufficient. A practice that often

works well to diversify the applicant pool is to generate a list of promising candidates

(e.g., by contacting colleagues at other institutions to ask for recommendations,

August, 2016

Berkeley

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Office for Faculty Equity & Welfare

Page | 4

identifying candidates at conferences, using fellowship directories such as the

President’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program, expanding the list of institutions to

contact beyond the top tier, and identifying individuals who may be excelling at less

prestigious institutions), and then sending a personalized message to candidates on the

list inviting an application. Federal affirmative action law expressly allows for outreach

that targets women and minority candidates (however, California State Proposition 209

does not allow for selection of a finalist on the basis of identity characteristics).

 Demographics of the applicant pool: Search committees should evaluate the

applicant pool initially to determine if it meets the benchmark availability for

demographic groups and if there is a sufficient number of strong candidates. An initial

evaluation of the pool for demographics and other marker categories can help the

committee determine if the application deadline should be extended to conduct

additional efforts to encourage applications from women and minority candidates.

Fair and equitable evaluation processes

Once applicants have applied to our faculty positions, there are a number of important

considerations to ensure that all are fairly evaluated. By federal law and University policy

we must ensure that our employment processes are fair and equitable, and offer equal

employment opportunity. We also have a vested interest in hiring outstanding faculty who

will make extraordinary contributions in their research, teaching, and service while sharing

our University values of equity and inclusion, and our public mandate to serve a diverse

student body. There is little that is of greater importance for Berkeley’s future than careful

selection of new colleagues.

 Unconscious bias: It is important that those involved in the selection of a new

colleague reflect on stereotypic preconceptions, unrelated to quality and talent, which

might play a role in choosing one individual over another. Most faculty work hard to

overcome such preconceptions.

 Conflicts of interest: It is important to establish a standard protocol for handling

consideration of an applicant who was a recent graduate student or postdoc in the

department or who has been a close collaborator of one of more departmental faculty.

Information on likely applicants should be taken into account when establishing the

membership of the search committee. In an ideal process, a candidate’s formal advisor,

or other faculty members who have worked closely with a candidate should not serve

on the search committee for the period during which the candidate is under

consideration. When departmental discussions of finalists occur, those who have

worked closely with a candidate should not attend or participate in voting for any

candidates. Should there be appropriate reasons for a different process, the Office for

Faculty Equity & Welfare is available to consult on appropriate modifications consistent

with the goals of conducting a process that is fair to all applicants, and approve any such

modifications as part of the Search Plan or as situations arise during the process.

August, 2016

Berkeley

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Office for Faculty Equity & Welfare

Page | 5

 Personal characteristics: Faculty should not ask candidates for certain types of

personal information, especially such questions that might be perceived as a criterion

for appointment (gender, marital status, race, ethnicity, family status, religion, national

origin, age, etc.), including during informal conversations such as those that often take

place at candidate dinners or other gatherings. Nor should they use information they

know about individuals’ personal characteristics in any deliberations or assessments.

For example, potential spousal/partner issues should not enter into the decision to put

forward a candidate for appointment.

 Selection criteria and evidence: It is important to apply a set of specific criteria and

gather evidence systematically to evaluate applicants. A holistic approach – “we know

the best when we see it” – ignores consideration of a nuanced and complex set of values

and candidate characteristics that will truly add distinction to Berkeley. If applicants

applying will be at different career levels (e.g., starting the first assistant professor

position versus being a current assistant or associate professor), it is important to

create a clear plan for how to evaluate candidates with such different experience (for

suggestions about how to set up an open-rank recruitment in AP Recruit, see

http://ofew.berkeley.edu/recruitment/senate-searches). It is also important to consider the

relative weighting of the established criteria, and whether the weighting will change at

the different stages of evaluation.

General questions for selection criteria consideration include:

o What kind of questions is the candidate asking in his/her research?

o Has the candidate adopted a distinctive approach?

o What would the impact be if the candidate is successful?

o How wide-ranging is the impact? Does the impact span the subfield, field, and/or

bridge into other fields?

o What are the qualities of mind revealed by written and oral presentations by the

candidate? What is the evidence for creativity, rigor, leadership, defining new

research, etc.

o What evidence is there that the candidate will engage in productive research

collaborations within or beyond the Department?

o What is the evidence that the candidate will engage productively with

undergraduate and graduate students in lecture sections, seminars, and as

research mentors?

o Is there evidence that the individual will work well with a diverse group of

students and make contributions to the university mission of access and

inclusion?

o Is there the promise that the candidate will work effectively to build and sustain

Berkeley as a strong institution. For example, Berkeley is strong when it

supports academic excellence through faculty leadership, promotes a diverse

August, 2016

Berkeley

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Office for Faculty Equity & Welfare

Page | 6

range of scholarly inquiries, and creates equal opportunities for faculty

colleagues and students.

 Implementation of the selection criteria: It is important to determine at the outset

how the established criteria will be used and candidates evaluated, including providing

enough time to evaluate each applicant without rushing, ensuring that strong

candidates are not overlooked, particularly if their work falls between more than one

discipline (we recommend at least two reviewers for each application), and considering

what criteria need to be met to move candidates onto the long list and the short list. It is

especially important to use evidence to support assessments of candidates, and to avoid

generalities such as “poor fit.”

 Informal information: It is nearly impossible to avoid receiving informal information

about candidates outside of materials submitted by candidates with their application.

Indeed, certain types of informal information are quite valuable in identifying

promising candidates, or following up on identified concerns. There are a few important

guidelines for consideration of such information:

o Some types of information should not be shared, especially hearsay.

o Every effort should be made to gather similar information for all candidates at a

given stage.

o If references are contacted, there should be a consistent set of questions asked

for all candidates.

o If additional letters are obtained, the committee should obtain consent from the

candidate.

 Confidentiality: Candidates have the expectation that their application is shared on a

need-to-know basis. This means that faculty members who have access to applications

should not be discussing candidate information outside of the faculty in the

department/school, and especially not with colleagues at other institutions. In addition,

search committee members have an expectation of confidentiality during committee

deliberations.