INSTITuTIONAL POLICIES FOR INCREASING THE. DIVERSITY OF APPLICANT POOLS

Our findings suggest that once women apply to a position at a research­intensive institution, the chances that they will be invited to an interview and be offered a position are disproportionately high for many of the disciplines we surveyed. Yet the proportion of women in faculty positions continues to be low despite increasing numbers of women receiving doctorates in the sciences and engineering. In this light, and given that the percentage of women applying for positions is apparently lower than the percentage of women receiving Ph. D.s in the six target disciplines, it appears that the only strategy to increase female representation in the faculty ranks is to increase the percentage of women in the applicant pool.

The NRC’s To Recruit and Advance: Women Students and Faculty in Science and Engineering (2006) identified institutional characteristics, culture, and poli­cies that may have an impact on the percentage of females who choose to apply to academic positions in science and engineering. Some of these include:

• Increased institutional efforts in signaling the importance of a gender — diverse faculty. This might be accomplished by increasing the frequency of positive declarative institutional statements, by establishing a commit­tee on women, by exercising close oversight over the hiring process, or by devoting additional resources to hiring women.

• Modified and expanded faculty recruiting programs. Consider, for exam­ple, creating special faculty lines earmarked for female or minority candidates, ensuring search committees are diverse, encouraging inter-

Reputation of department or university

Opportunities for research collaboration

Desire to build or lead a new program or area of research

Quality of research facilities Start-up package Access to research facilities Family-related reasons Promotion opportunities Funding opportunities Pay Benefits

□ Male □ Female

vention by deans when applicant or interview pools lack diversity, and systematically assessing past hiring efforts.

• Improved institutional policies and practices. These might include insert­ing some flexibility into the tenure clock, providing child care facilities on campus, establishing policies for faculty leave for family or per­sonal reasons, significantly stepping up efforts to accommodate dual career couples, and continuing to offer training at all levels to combat harassment and discrimination and to raise the awareness of all campus citizens.[54]

• Improved position of candidates through career advising, networking, and enhancing qualifications.

While all the strategies above might have an impact on the proportion of women in applicant pools, it appears that only the last two might actually encour­age more women to choose academia for their professional activity. The issue is not whether female applicants are treated fairly in the interviewing and hiring process; by several indications, they are. Where progress can still be made is in attracting more women to academia by encouraging more of them to apply for faculty positions at Research I institutions. It seems that refocusing resources to develop strategies to encourage female graduate students to pursue a career in academia has the potential for enormous impact.

Written policies and handbooks for faculty searches frequently note spe­cific steps that can be taken to improve the diversity of applicant pools. These include:

• Defining searches broadly to encourage a more diverse applicant pool;

• Posting the job advertisement in a wide range of outlets;

• Contacting professional associations that represent women (e. g., the Caucus for Women in Statistics, Society of Women Engineers, Associa­tion for Women in Science, etc.); and

• Evaluating the applicant pool during the search to determine if sufficient numbers of women are applying.

Departments reported a variety of actions in response to our survey question, “What steps (if any) has your department or institution taken to increase the gen­der diversity of your candidate pool?” This was an open-ended question, and the most frequent responses are shown in Table 3-9. Four hundred seventeen depart­ments responded. Departments wrote in with answers ranging from zero to 6 steps and citing anywhere from having zero to 15 policies in place. Targeted or special

TABLE 3-9 Steps Taken to Increase the Gender Diversity of the Candidate Pool

Number of

Departments

Step Reporting

Targeted or special advertising 80

Other 71

General advertising 58

Recruiting at conferences, contacting women directly, using personal contacts 47

Help from diversity/EEO office or coordinator 47

Contacting colleagues and other universities 42

Special language used in advertising 34

Special consideration to females (e. g., making extra effort to interview females) 34 Informal networks 25

Grants or special funds for hiring women 19

Target of opportunity 19

Use of special databases or directories 18

Having a diverse search committee 17

Broadening searches 11

TABLE 3-10 Number of Policy Steps Taken by Departments Number of Departments Number of Steps Reported Taken 96 (23) 0 178 (43) 1 98 (24) 2 34 (8) 3 10 (2) 4 0 (0) 5 1 (0) 6 NOTES: Numbers in parentheses are the percentage of all responding depart­ments; 417 departments responded. Of these, 98 (24 percent) took two policy steps to increase the gender diversity of the candidate pool. SOURCE: Survey of departments carried out by the Committee on Gender Differences in Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty.