Introduction

Many demographics—such as women, Indigenous peoples, staff who report a disability, and various minorities—experience prejudice in the workplace.  These biases and prejudices are observed in tertiary education institutions as well.  For example, as Steinpreis et al. (1999) revealed, male academics as well as female academics are more inclined to hire a male colleague than a female colleague who is equally qualified.  To illustrate, in 2015, 75% of assistant professors, 77% of associate professors, and 83% of full professors in US universities were White rather than members of other racial communities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016)

 

Managers of tertiary education institutions often want to employ more diverse staff, especially in teaching and research.  Diverse academics often benefit institutions because

 

• diverse academics are more likely to adopt a distinct perspective and thus express insights that diverge from extant practices and thus promote innovation

• diverse academics may help institutions accommodate more diverse students as well

• institutions that can receive awards that recognize their support of diverse staff or diverse students

• managers are often motivated to redress inequities and injustice

 

Institutions can apply a range of initiatives to attract, to promote, and to retain more diverse academics and professional staff.  Since 2010, some universities have introduced a role—sometimes called equity advisors or equity advocates—in which individuals are trained to identify and to redress the impediments to the recruitment, selection, promotion, and retention of diverse staff.  Although initially developed to increase the prevalence of female academics (Stepan-Norris et al., 2011), this role has been extended to assist Indigenous peoples, staff who report a disability, and various minorities as well (e.g., Cahn et al., 2021; Liera, 2020)

 

Introduction: The biases that equity advisors could address

As Ridgeway and Correll (2004) observed, in workplaces or fields that men dominate, some of the practices that disadvantage women are tangible and explicit, manifesting in the rules, policies, and procedures.  For example, the rules might exclude managers from part-time roles, significantly disadvantaging parents, often women, who would like more time to dedicate to their children but still maintain their career.  

 

Other practices that disadvantage women, in contrast, are more subtle and embedded in the decisions and conversations of individuals.  These subtle practices or biases could manifest in job interviews or other important decisions.  To illustrate,

 

• when job advertisements utilize masculine terms, such as competitive and assertive, women are not as likely as men to apply (Gaucher et al., 2011).  Women feel these ads depict a setting in which they feel they do not belong

• when the selection criteria refer to masculine stereotypes, such as ambitious, self-confident, objective, direct, and bold, selection committees are more inclined to reject female applicants (Gorman, 2005)

• conversely, when the selection criteria refer to feminine stereotypes, such as gentle, sympathetic, and submissive, selection committees are less inclined to reject female applicants (Gorman, 2005)

    

Originally, researchers perceived equity advisors as individuals who could stem these practices that disadvantage women (Stepan-Norris et al., 2011; Stepan-Norris & Kerrissey, 2016).  Specifically

 

• workplaces that plan to eradicate rules, policies, or procedures that disadvantage women might not achieve this goal unless someone—like an equity advisor—is accountable (Stepan-Norris & Kerrissey, 2016)

• equity advisors could also identify, highlight, and then attempt to nullify, many of the biases the disadvantage female applicants—such as biases in the job advertisements or selection criteria (Stepan-Norris & Kerrissey, 2016)

 

Over time, researchers also recognized that equity advisors might not only eradicate the practices that disadvantage women but also eradicate practices that disadvantage minority staff, Indigenous staff, and other relevant demographics.  Equity advisors or advocates, thus, undergo training and development to become attuned to these biases.  They learn how to identify and eliminate these biases from job advertisements and selection criteria.

 

Case study: Equity advisors in the University of California, Irvine campus.

The notion of equity advisors primarily emanated from initiatives that were designed to promote gender equity in the recruitment and selection of researchers.  Stepan-Norris et al. (2011) delineated one significant example, first implemented in 2001 by the University of California, Irvine.  A program called ADVANCE, introduced by the National Science Foundation to improve gender equity in research, initially funded this initiative.

 

Equity advisors were senior academics, appointed as assistants to the Dean of each school, and selected because of their commitment to gender equity and their capacity to interact and collaborate effectively.  These individuals committed 10% of their workload to this cause and receive compensation to fulfill this role (Stepan-Norris & Kerrissey, 2016).  The equity advisor helped search committees implement fair strategies to recruit academics—strategies that were not as likely to disadvantage women.  In most instances, these advisors either approved or did not approve the advertisement, the distribution of advertisements, and other features of the search approach.  They also participated in other activities, such as contributed to discussions on pay equity, promotion of women, mentoring of female academics, nominations of awards, and workshops to support female academics and graduate candidates.   

 

To develop their capacity to fulfill this role, these equity advisors received significant training, initially from the director of this program.  They also participated in meetings with other equity advisors, each month, to discuss their challenges and solutions, coupled with other seminars and conferences.    

 

To help these equity advisors fulfill their mission and limit bias in academic recruitment, the coordinators of this program developed three forms (Stepan-Norris & Kerrissey, 2016).  First, to recruit an academic, departments needed to complete a form that outlined their job advertisement and plan to attract candidates.  The equity advisor then reviewed the form to identify biases that might disadvantage women—such as outlets that men, rather than women, are more likely to use.  Departments could not proceed until the equity advisor both approved and signed this form.

 

Second, search committees needed to complete an Interim Search Activities Statement.  This form was designed to prompt these committees to determine, and then record, the percentage of individuals who belonged to each gender and ethnic community in the region as well as the percentage of applicants who belonged to each gender and ethnic community.  If the distribution of individuals in the region diverged appreciably from the distribution of applicants, the department was encouraged to intervene to redress this disparity somehow.  The equity advisor only approved and signed if this discrepancy was modest rather than pronounced. 

 

Finally, search committees needed to complete the Final Search Activities Statement. On this form, the department ranked the interviewed candidates and justified these ranks. If equity advisors believed the justifications were fair, rather than alluded to principles that might disadvantage one gender, they approved and signed this form.

 

Evidence suggested this program was beneficial.  Since the introduction of these equity advisors, relative to other campuses in the University of California, the proportion of female academics at the Irvine campus increased markedly.  The percentage of female academics rose appreciably from 28% around 2002 to 44% around 2009 in this campus.  In the other campuses—campuses in which equity advisors were not introduced—the percentage of female academics rose but only modestly.  However, the retention of female academics was not higher in the University of California, Irvine campus relative to the other campuses (Stepan-Norris & Kerrissey, 2016)

 

To explore other effects of this initiative, Stepan-Norris et al. (2011) interviewed 75 job candidates during the first five years after the equity advisors were introduced.  The vast majority of both male and female job candidates, from a range of ethnic backgrounds, rated their experience as either very good or excellent.  Candidates generally felt the staff were welcoming and informative.  The female candidates in particular were more likely to comment on the strong gender equity on campus.    

 

Stepan-Norris and Kerrissey (2016) extended this evaluation.  For example, these researchers analyzed written reports, submitted by ten equity advisors.  According to these reports, these advisors felt the academics and deans generally accepted their advice, and the mentoring program they introduced had been successful.  In addition, they often nominated female academics as potential recipients of awards and honors, recognizing that women were not as likely as men to nominate themselves.  Consequently, women became more likely to receive these awards or honors after the intervention of equity advisors.    

 

Stepan-Norris and Kerrissey (2016) also explored how the introduction of equity advisors influenced the degree to which the campus hired female academics.  For example, as the results indicated, relative to other University of California campuses that had not arranged an equity advisor, at the Irvine campus, the percentage of academics who were female was higher in all disciplines—from the sciences and mathematics to the humanities, social sciences, and education. This difference was observed even after controlling growth in the number of staff.  

 

Case study: MGH Institute of Health Professions

Cahn et al. (2021) outlined and evaluated a similar program, conducted at a health professions graduate school in Boston, although referred to the position as equity advocates rather than equity advisors.  At this university, equity advocates attempted to identify practices and assumptions that might compromise the fairness of job advertisements, recruitment, screening, interviews, reference checks.  These advocates received training online and in person, lasting eight hours. 

 

After the advocates received training, four search committees were informed about this role and told that an equity advocate would be included in this committee.  The equity advocates were assigned to committees outside their home department, primarily to diminish the possibility that previous relationships could stifle their advice

 

To evaluate this program, Cahn et al. (2021) organized focus groups with equity advocates and other members of search committees.  The focus groups revolved around the experiences of individuals before, during, and after the search.  The facilitator prompted the individuals to consider how the equity advocates might have affected decisions and prevented biases.  The equity advocates received additional questions about the impact and limitations of the training.

 

As the focus groups revealed, members of the search committee indicated that, after the equity advocates were introduced, they become more attuned to the possibility of biases and the experience of biases in previous search committees.  In the past, members felt that decisions were haphazard, and their operations were not scrutinized.  After the introduction of equity advisors, committee members were more conscious of their questions and choices—both during hiring decisions but also during other activities, such as teaching and marking.  These members also approved the decision to deploy equity advocates from outside the department. 

 

The members also revealed more specific changes the equity advocates had promoted.  For example

 

• the equity advocates encouraged more standardized questions across candidates—to prevent the possibility that committees might vary their questions across demographics and, thus, potentially disadvantage one community or group

• the equity advocates checked that all questions in interviews corresponded to a selection criterion; consequently, if the selection criteria are fair, the questions are likely to be fair as well

 

Some members, however, referred to a few complications.  For example, these individuals alluded to the tension between careful evaluation, as advocated by the equity advocates, and rapid decisions, often necessary to override the rampant shortfalls in teaching staff.

 

The equity advocates felt that, initially, selection committees were often suspicious of this role.  That is, some committees felt equity advocates might be evaluating their operations and reporting these evaluations to the managers.  The ambiguity of their role may have amplified this concern.   Equity advocates, thus, had to explicitly address this concern and clarify the boundaries of their role. 

 

The equity advocates reported some interesting biases they could address. To illustrate

 

• some job descriptions referred to a PhD in a relevant field; because this term was vague, individuals who are not as inclined to inflate their capabilities may be less inclined to apply

• equity advocates often encouraged members to challenge personal assumptions about the effects of age—or at least to question their confidence in these assumptions. 

• equity advocates uncovered the concern that committee members often referred to whether candidates were likeable, potentially increasing the susceptibility of decisions to bias

 

Case study: An anonymous West Coast University

Liera (2020) also delineated and evaluated a program that revolved around 17 equity advocates, all of whom were professors, training in their role.  The purpose of this position was to facilitate the recruitment and retention of African American, Latinx, and Native American academics.  These equity advocates

 

• promulgated information about the value of diversity in hiring and support

• learned how to recognize instances of bias or microaggression during the search to locate applicants

• helped search committees develop and implement strategies that diminish biases

• helped the committee write job advertisements and plan strategies that do not disadvantage specific communities or demographics

• helped the committee construct fair interview questions and evaluation rubrics

• gathered enough data to assess the fairness of these procedures

 

Interviews of equity advocates, from a critical narrative perspective, uncovered some vital insights.  To legitimize their role, these advocates learned to describe this position carefully.  They indicated their goal was to apply the knowledge they have learned to help the selection committees hire the most qualified candidate—while attempting to fulfill the values of this institution around racial equity and student-centeredness.  When equity advocates were positioned as helpful specialists, supported by the Provost, members of selection committees were not as likely to perceive these individuals as mere tokens.

 

To facilitate this role, these equity advocates developed and utilized a range of templates to guide selection committees.  For example, to attract diverse candidates, equity advocates utilized a template of principles that job advertisements should include.  For example

 

• job advertisements should specify the proportion of diverse staff in the institution—and encourage candidates who value cultural, ethnic, and racial diversity to apply

• when completing their job applicants, candidates were instructed to delineate times in which they mentored Latinx, African American, and Native American students and to clarify their philosophy on how to engage these students

 

Other templates shaped the selection criteria.  For example, one criterion revolved around the capacity of candidates to support the students who belong to under-represented communities. According to the rubric, candidates fulfill this criterion only if they reveal evidence of this behavior in two or more activities. 

 

Alternatives to equity advisors: Pipelines

Rather than introduce equity advisors, previous researchers had suggested other approaches to increase the diversity of academics.  For example, one approach is predicated on the metaphor of a pipeline (e.g., Justice, 2009). According to this metaphor, to increase the proportion of academics who are female or members of minorities,

 

• institutions should increase the proportion of graduate researchers who are female or members of minorities—analogous to pumping more water in the pipeline

• institutions should offer mentoring or other provisions to increase the retention of these graduate researchers—analogous to repairing leaks in the pipeline

 

Nevertheless, these approaches have not overcome inequalities.  To illustrate, even when the proportion of graduate students who are female or members of minorities increases substantially, the proportion of academics who are female or members of minorities increases only marginally in comparison (Gibbs et al., 2016)

 

Alternatives to equity advocates: Training in unconscious bias

Rather than attempt to identify and redress the biases of selection committees and other bodies—the main role of equity advisors—institutions could attempt to prevent these biases instead.  In short, many researchers have revealed that individuals develop implicit or unconscious biases against specific demographics.  That is, they tend to associate particular demographics with unfavorable adjectives.  For example, they might associate females with unassertive or African Americans with aggressive.  These unconscious biases may shape their decisions and, for example, diminish the likelihood they will employ individuals from these demographics or communities.  Purportedly, organizations can introduce training or other programs that are designed to curb these biases and thus promote fairer decisions.

 

Researchers have indeed revealed that individuals develop these unconscious biases—that is, biases in which they might be unaware.  Specifically, to measure these unconscious biases, researchers often administer a procedure called the implicit association test (Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz, 1998).  When participants complete this task, various words appear on the screen, such as Elijah, Shane, flowers, and coffin.   These individuals need to press one of two buttons, depending on which terms appear.  For example, they might need to press the left button whenever the word is an African American name or an unpleasant word.  And they might need to press the right button whenever the word is a European American name or a pleasant word. 

 

Some individuals, especially European American participants, tend to perform this task better when the African American names and unpleasant words correspond to the same button than when the African American names and unpleasant words correspond to different buttons (Ziegert & Hanges, 2005).  This pattern is assumed to reveal a bias.  That is, this pattern indicates that some people associate African American communities with unpleasant concepts.  That is, they tend to perceive African American communities unfavorably.  Indeed, as Ziegert and Hanges (2005), individuals who exhibit this pattern are less inclined to hire African Americans.

 

To override this problem, researchers have attempted to design workshops that either stem these biases or minimize the effect of these biases on the decisions of selection committees or other bodies.  For example, Sekaquaptewa et al. (2019) discussed a workshop, delivered to selection committees at one university, designed to curb these implicit biases.  During the workshop, participants learned about the research around the prevalence of implicit biases, the effects of these biases on decisions, and the importance of diversity to the university.  The participants also engaged in tasks or exercises that were designed to demonstrate these biases.  They were encouraged to

 

• be attuned to the possibility of unconscious biases in their decisions

• develop a more diverse pool of applicants

• apply more precise and objective evaluate criteria, before commencing the search, that might not be as susceptible to biases

• refrain from questions that are not relevant to the selection criteria, such as their personal life

• prevent cues in the environment that could diminish the extent to which people feel they belong

• increase the diversity of selection committees or the other individuals whom candidates meet.

 

As Sekaquaptewa et al. (2019) revealed, these workshops seemed to be effective.  To illustrate, if academics of this university has either attended the workshop—or worked in departments in which other colleagues had attended the workshop—they expressed more favorable attitudes to fair and equitable search strategies.

 

Shea et al. (2019) also reported a program that was designed to increase the proportion of underrepresented communities in academia at the University of New Hampshire, revolving around an interactive theater, called GEAR UP workshops, designed to simulate typical scenarios in which biases might compromise the fairness of interviews.  The workshop commenced with an initial play, lasting 20 minutes, comprising five scenes, called the Search, about five members of an academic search committee.  The members included a tenured professor who is reluctant to change, a progressive junior academic who does not want to offend anyone, two colleagues who disagree about the future direction of this department, and the chair of this committee, striving to foster harmony.   During this play

 

• the individuals first volunteered to join this search committee

• during the first meeting, an animated conversation unfolded about the possibility the job advertisement is gender biased

• the tenured professor believed that hiring one of the under-represented candidates would compromise the department

• the five committee members discussed the effects of the two last candidates: the under-represented candidate and the other candidate

• after the under-represented candidate was chosen, the tenured professor had to reluctantly welcome this person, because the department chair was away

 

The play demonstrated some implicit or unconscious biases.  To illustrate

 

• committee members sometimes referred to the male candidates as Dr or Professor but the female candidate by her first name

• one committee member assumed, erroneously, the female candidate was not the first author of a paper

• a male committee member later accosted a female committee member privately, asking “why can’t you just be nice?”

• committee members incorrectly referred to the problems of diversity.

 

After individuals watched they play, they participated in a facilitated discussion about the sources of tension and could ask questions to the characters—sometimes as if the other characters could hear their response and sometimes as if the other characters could not hear their response.  The characters could thus disclose their motivations, sometimes revealing their biases.  Finally, audience members could suggest how characters should have responded, and scenes in the play are repeated.  All members of search committees attended these workshops.

 

The workshop was effective.  After this program was implemented, the proportion of academics who were female increased.  Over 90% of participants agreed or strongly agreed the workshops enhanced their understanding of how gender can affect the selection of candidates. Interviews indicated that participants valued the experience.  Participants felt they could more effectively raise concerns about equity during selection committee meetings, because they developed a vocabulary and set of insights they could invoke to justify their concerns.

 

Despite the benefits of these interventions, as studies indicate, attempts to nullify these biases do not tend to change the decisions and choices of individuals significantly.  As Forscher et al. (2019) revealed, in a meta-analysis of almost 500 studies, attempts to diminish implicit or unconscious biases do not significantly affect the actual behaviors or choices of individuals. 

 

References

• Burroughs, E. A. (2017). Reducing bias in faculty searches. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 64(11), 1304–1307.

• Cahn, P. S., Gona, C. M., Naidoo, K., & Truong, K. A. (2022). Disrupting bias without trainings: The effect of equity advocates on faculty search committees. Innovative Higher Education, 47(2), 253-272.

• De Welde, K. (2017). Moving the needle on equity and inclusion. Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, 39, 192-211.

• Forscher, P. S., Lai, C. K., Axt, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., Herman, M., Devine, P. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2019). A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 522–559.

• Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 101(1), 109-128.

• Gibbs, K. D., Basson, J., Xierali, I. M., & Broniatowski, D. A. (2016). Decoupling of the minority PhD talent pool and assistant professor hiring in medical school basic science departments in the US. eLife, 5(e21393)

• Gorman, E. H. (2005). Gender stereotypes, same-gender preferences, and organizational variation in the hiring of women: Evidence from law firms. American Sociological Review, 70(4), 702-728.

• Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.

• Johnson, K. A., Warr, D. J., Hegarty, K., & Guillemin, M. (2015). Small wins: an initiative to promote gender equity in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(6), 689-701.

• Justice, A. C. (2009). Leaky pipes, Faustian dilemmas, and a room of one’s own: Can we build a more flexible pipeline to academic success? Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(11), 818–819.

• Liera, R. (2020). Equity advocates using equity-mindedness to interrupt faculty hiring’s racial structure. Teachers College Record, 122(9)

• McMurtrie, B. (2016). How to do a better job of searching for diversity. Chronicle of Higher Education, A20–A25.

• Ridgeway, C. L., & Correll, S. J. (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society, 18(4), 510-531.

• Sekaquaptewa, D., Takahashi, K., Malley, J., Herzog, K., & Bliss, S. (2019). An evidence-based faculty recruitment workshop influences departmental hiring practice perceptions among university faculty. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 38(2), 188–210.

• Shea, C. M., Malone, M. F. F. T., Young, J. R., & Graham, K. J. (2019). Interactive theater: An effective tool to reduce gender bias in faculty searches. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 38(2), 178–187.

• Steinpreis, R. E., Anders, K. A., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex roles, 41(7), 509-528.

• Stepan-Norris, J., & Kerrissey, J. (2016). Enhancing gender equity in academia: Lessons from the ADVANCE program. Sociological Perspectives, 59(2), 225-245.

• Stepan-Norris, J., Kerrissey, J., & Lind, B. (2011). Gender equity in faculty recruitment experiences under the NSF advance program: A case study. Journal of Academic Administration in Higher Education, 7(2).

• Ziegert, J. C., & Hanges, P. J. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes, motivation, and a climate for racial bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 553-562.