Read on Twitter
I read two interesting 
s by @NeedhiBhalla & @mbeisen on outcomes of similar approaches to alter recruitment practices to reduce bias by the committee & increase diversity in the applicant pool. I won't recap, go read them. Instead, WHY should faculty hiring approaches change? https://twitter.com/jessicapolka/status/1317420442290966528
s by @NeedhiBhalla & @mbeisen on outcomes of similar approaches to alter recruitment practices to reduce bias by the committee & increase diversity in the applicant pool. I won't recap, go read them. Instead, WHY should faculty hiring approaches change? https://twitter.com/jessicapolka/status/1317420442290966528
First and foremost, academic science faculty ranks are NOT diverse by several metrics, including race/ethnicity, sex, socioeconomic background & intersections thereof. In particular, Black scientists are poorly represented in the faculty ranks.
This is not a 'pipeline' problem. Gibbs et al., 2016 reported that despite a 9.3x 
in URM PhD grads from 1980-2015, there was only a 2.6x in URM assistant professors. IOW, URM PhD grads are not transitioning into faculty positions at the rate that the numbers would predict.
in URM PhD grads from 1980-2015, there was only a 2.6x in URM assistant professors. IOW, URM PhD grads are not transitioning into faculty positions at the rate that the numbers would predict.
This, of course, is a multifaceted issue. One aspect of this is hiring committees (that are often not diverse in their make up), favor candidates that are like them, high ranking institutions, high profile papers & trained w/ prestigious advisors. This is where bias is a problem.
I have seen derision of the anonymity aspect, that it won't work. Names of institutions, journals, advisors quickly stand out & reviewers use these as proxies for 'quality' especially when reading MANY applications. W/o these, the research concepts/plans can take center stage.
Underscoring the power of training institution to drive academic faculty placement, see this in @ScienceAdvances looking at prestige hierarchy in faculty hiring networks - this is the network for computer science faculty but likely similar networks apply for the life sciences.
There is an aspect of the @YaleMBB application that hasn't been mentioned much, the 'Anonymized Statement of Contributions to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion'. The initial, anonymous review of applications in @UCBerkeley process used this to move candidates to the next round.
According to the doc @mbeisen shared, this resulted in a much higher proportion of Black, Latino and female candidates. If heavily weighted (as it should) in the @YaleMBB search, this could not only increase diversity in the applicant pool but recruit faculty that care about DEI
Obviously, TBD. Another critique is this process does not reflect competition for grants, where for early career faculty their pedigree and postdoc papers take center stage. @CSRpeerreview is (hopefully!) looking seriously at bias in peer review. ( https://public.csr.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/CSR_July_2020_Racial_Disparities_in_Funding_comment_summary.pdf)
We need change in faculty hiring practices to increase faculty diversity, I applaud @YaleMBB & @Yale for changing their approach to the faculty search. I hope they report their process outcomes publicly to help other depts. This, of course, is only one part of the solution.
And thank you @drstarbird for tagging me in your tweet! Between your message and a few harsh/negative tweets I saw about this new search approach, I felt motivated to put this together. 
https://twitter.com/drstarbird/status/1317466914394984449
together. https://twitter.com/drstarbird/status/1317466914394984449
