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. Here 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.

FORMS

Form to Request Posting on HERC

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

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

REFERENCES

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.

Martell, R. F. (1991). Sex bias at work: The effects of attentional and memory demands on performance ratings of men and women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(23), 1939-1960.

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.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCE

Implicit Association Test, developed by Project Implicit, measures the strength of associations between concepts (for example, black people, gay people) and evaluations (for example, good, bad) or stereotypes (for example, athletic, clumsy). The main idea is that making a response is easier when closely related items share the same response key.