You are here: Home Resources for: Search Committees Search Toolkit

Faculty Search Committee Toolkit

This toolkit contains information that you will need to conduct a Faculty Search. Inside you will find a chart that explains the forms you need to complete, as well as a Faculty Recruitment Administrative Checklist. In addition, other information is provided, including job posting resources, legal interview guidelines, and Academic Personnel Manual policies that may be of interest to the search committee or candidates.

Search Toolkit Cover

Complete Faculty Search Committee Toolkit
(Updated February 2014)



The Search Committee

Advertising your Position

Handling Applications


Evaluation Process

Legal Aspects

After the Search Process


Brochure thumbnail

"Search Committee Practices to Enable Equity"
(Updated November 2013)



Recruitment Brochure Thumbnail

Faculty Recruitment Brochure
(update February 2014)



Form 1: Ladder Faculty Initiation of Search & Recruitment Plan

Form 1: Instructions

Form 3: Ladder Faculty Selection Compliance Form

Form 3: Instructions

Ladder Academic Appointment Compliance Form

Non-Ladder Academic Recruitment and Appointment Compliance Form

Non-Ladder Compliance Form: Instructions

Form to Request Posting on HERC

Non-Ladder Academic Recruitment and Compliance– Guidelines Regarding Full Search vs. No Search Required


Useful Templates

Sample Candidate Evaluation Tool

Policies of Interest

APM 760 - Benefits and Privileges

APM 210 - Appointment and Promotion

APM 240 - Appointment and Promotion: Deans and Provosts

APM 245 Appendix A - Appointment and Promotion: Chairs


Bertrand, M. & Mullainathan, S. (2003). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 991-1013.

Biernat, M., Manis, M. & Nelson, T. (1991). Stereotypes and standards of judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 495-502.

Correll, D., Benard, S. & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1297-1338.

Georgi, H. (2000). Is there an unconscious discrimination against women in science? The American Physical Societ,. 9(4), 27-30.

Ginther, D.K., Schaffer, W.T., Schnell, J., Masimore, B., Liu, F., Haak, L.L. & Kington, R. (2011). Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards. Science, 333:1015-1019.

Goldin, C. & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of 'blind' auditions on female musicians. The American Economic Review, 90(4), 715-741.

Norton, M. & Vandello, J. & Darley, J. (2004). Casuistry and social category bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(17), 817-831.

Page, Scott E. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 456.

Reviewing Applicants: Research on Bias and Assumptions, Women in Science & Engineering Leadership Institute (WISELI) University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2006.

Schiebinger, P., Davies Henderson, A. & Gilmartin, S.K. (2008). Dual-Career Academic Couples: What Universities Need to Know. Stanford University.

Smith, D. (2000). How to diversify the faculty. Academe, 86(5), 48-52.

Smith, D., Turner, C., Osei-Kofi, N., & Richards, S. (2004) Interrupting the usual: Successful strategies for hiring diverse faculty. The Journal of Higher Education, 75(2), 133-160.

Steinpreis, R., Anders, K. & 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 (7/8), 509-528.

Trix, F. & Psenka, C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society, 14(2), 191-202.

Valian, V. (1999). Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Valian, V. (2005). Beyond Gender Schemas: Improving the Advancement of Women in Academia. Hypatia20(3), 198-213.

Vedantam, S. (2005). The Bias Test: You May Be More Prejudiced than You Think.

Wenneras, C. & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review. Nature. 387: 341-343.

Project Implicit at Harvard

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures attitudes and beliefs that people may be unwilling or unable to report. The IAT may be especially interesting if it shows that you have an implicit attitude that you did not know about. For example, you may believe that women and men should be equally associated with science, but your automatic associations could show that you (like many others) associate men with science more than you associate women with science.

The IAT measures the strength of associations between concepts (e.g., black people, gay people) and evaluations (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic, clumsy). The main idea is that making a response is easier when closely related items share the same response key.