Diversifying faculty recruitment in biomedical sciences

A wealth of data has consistently demonstrated that a diverse faculty maximizes productivity and innovation in the research enterprise and increases the persistence and success of groups that are underrepresented in STEM. While the diversity of students in graduate programs has steadily increased, faculty diversity, particularly in the biomedical sciences, continues to remain relatively flat. Several issues contribute to this mismatch between the pipeline and the professoriate including biases in search and hiring practices, lack of equity and equal opportunities for individuals from underrepresented backgrounds, and unwelcoming campus climates that lead to marginalization and isolation in academic life. A comprehensive approach that addresses these challenges is necessary for institutions of higher education to achieve their faculty diversity goals and create a climate where individuals from all groups feel welcomed and succeed. This article focuses on the first step in this approach–diversifying faculty recruitment through adopting search practices that generate an applicant pool that matches national availability, ensures equity in evaluation and hiring practices, and promotes inclusion and belonging in the hiring experience. These strategies have been recently used at the University of California, Irvine's School of Biological Sciences and while the long‐term impact remains unknown, short‐term outcomes in recruitment and hiring have demonstrated significant improvement over previous years.


| INTRODUCTION
Diversity provides the foundation for scientific productivity and academic success.A diverse workforce, campus, or laboratory can find unique solutions to problems, embrace individual strengths, overcome obstacles, stimulate innovation, and focus on collaboration rather than competition. 1A diverse faculty body improves the teaching and learning environments for all students 2 and provides role models that can minimize the negative impacts of imposter syndrome.Diversity and a favorable institutional climate increase faculty retention. 3Diversity in higher education is also associated with enhanced economic growth as universities graduate a workforce that is prepared to excel in a globalized economy. 4he late Katherine Phillips (1972-2020), a professor at Columbia University's Business School, argued that diverse teams have advantages over homogeneous teams because of the tendency to prepare more thoroughly and work harder in settings where individuals must work with others from different backgrounds and perspectives. 5Similarly, Scott Page, a professor of Complex Systems, Political Science, and Economics at the University of Michigan, presented numerous examples demonstrating that teams that include different kinds of thinkers outperform homogeneous groups on complex tasks, producing what he calls "diversity bonuses."These bonuses include improved problem-solving, increased innovation, and more accurate predictions, all of which lead to better results for individuals and for organizations. 6n the context of biomedical science, a wealth of evidence has reliably demonstrated that scientific workforce diversity is essential for discovery and innovation. 7Freeman and Huang reviewed 2.5 million scientific papers between 1985 and 2008 across 11 scientific fields, including biomedicine, and surveyed the surnames of co-authors as a proxy for ethnic diversity.Controlling for number of authors, population density, and other potential confounds, they found that papers written by diverse groups received more citations and were published in journals with higher impact factors. 8Campbell and colleagues similarly found that peer-reviewed publications with genderheterogeneous authorship teams received 34% more citations than publications produced by gender-uniform authorship teams. 9Consistent with this, there is evidence that mixed-gender teams produce more novel and impactful work. 10Overall, the data demonstrate that promoting diversity not only promotes fairness and justice but also leads to higher quality science.
Despite the wealth of data making the case for diversity's role in enhancing the quality of science, biomedical research faculty diversity continues to be limited, failing to reflect the diversity of the United States population and university students. 11,12Data from the NSF's 2021 report Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering suggest that while there have been modest improvements in recent years, we still have a long road ahead to achieve gender parity among academic positions and to recruit and retain individuals from historically underrepresented groups to match national availability. 13verall, diversity trends have been positive.For example, the share of academic doctoral positions held by women with science, engineering, and health doctoral degrees increased from 26.4% in 1999 to 38.5% in 2019. 14nderrepresented minorities (URM) (for this work, we define URM as the following racial/ethnic groups: Black/ African American, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian or Native American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander) also hold a larger share of these positions than they did in 1999, although their share remains small (8.9%) and is considerably less than their share of the population, which is about a third of the U.S. population ages 18-64. 13espite the modest gains over the last 10 years, attrition clearly remains higher for women and URMs at every stage of the academic pathway.
In 2021, women comprised more than half of PhD graduates in biomedical research disciplines but represented 48% of assistant professors, and only 28% of full professors. 15Individuals from URM groups comprise 34% of the US population, but publicly available data indicate that they only comprise 14% of the PhD recipient pool in biomedical research fields, 14 12% of assistant professors, and 7% of full professors. 15Extrapolation of current trends indicates that it will take half a century to achieve gender parity and several centuries to achieve full representation of URM groups among full professors in academia. 13The low diversity of faculty compared to the available talent pool is thought to be primarily driven by institutional cultures that have perpetuated systemic inequities, the use of biased metrics as shortcuts to determine the impact of accomplishments and future potential, and a climate that has made it difficult for underrepresented groups to thrive in biomedical science. 16,17nother major cause for concern is evidence of structural racism in NIH funding patterns, which came under scrutiny recently and warranted an apology from NIH Director Francis Collins. 18The equity gap in funding has been known for some time.In 2011, Donna Ginther and colleagues reported that funding rates for Black scientists were 10% lower than for white scientists, after controlling for the applicant's educational background, country of origin, training, previous research awards, publication record, and employer characteristics. 19The NIH has recently unveiled a plan 20 to address this gap, which, given the importance of federal funding to positive tenure decisions in biomedicine, has serious implications on retention of Black faculty.Gender equity is also a problem.First-time principal investigators who are women receive smaller NIH awards than men, 21 and women and Black scientists are underrepresented among NIH investigators with three or more R01 grants even after adjusting for career stage. 22vidence of racism and sexism in citation patterns is just as alarming and has equally serious implications on hiring, merit, promotion, and tenure rates.For example, a recent study used data from the top five neuroscience journals to show that reference lists tend to include more papers with men as first and last authors than would be expected if gender were unrelated to referencing. 23They also show that this imbalance is largely driven by the citation practices of men and is increasing over time.Even more recently, work from the same group demonstrated similar evidence for a white bias in referencing.They found that reference lists tended to include more papers with white persons as first or last author and that this imbalance was primarily driven by the citation practices of white authors, and is, like the gender bias, increasing over time. 24he combination of non-inclusive climate in the academy, structural racism in federal funding patterns, and biases in publication and citation patterns conspire to create cultures in the academy that are unwelcoming of women and URMs.Moreover, the biases inherent in so many facets of the research enterprise have perpetuated the myth that there is a very small pool of candidates from underrepresented groups that meet rigorous standards for hiring.Understanding these background factors is critical before embarking on faculty recruitment efforts and debunking the myth that the only way to diversify our faculty is to lower standards of rigor.Understanding the systemic barriers that have significantly disadvantaged women and URMs allows us to develop more holistic methods of review that better capture the significance of an applicant's prior work and their potential to contribute to a collegial and collaborative environment in ways that will enhance the success of students, faculty colleagues, and the institution.Strategies that enrich the diversity of both the applicant pool and those selected to advance to the next level of review must be developed in collaboration with leadership and adopted by the faculty responsible for conducting the search.
Faculty hiring practices that aim to increase diversity in academic positions must be firmly grounded in an authentic commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).Attempts to fill quotas or check boxes due to administrative or political pressures without an effort to educate ourselves, departmental leadership, and search committees about systemic racism and sexism and the very real benefits of meeting diversity goals lead to tokenization and micro/macroaggressions that further reinforce unwelcoming climates that do not allow for scholars from underrepresented backgrounds to thrive.A firm, earnest commitment to authentic DEI goals across all levels of the institution is a crucial foundation for successful hiring and retention efforts.This commitment must stem from a shared understanding that practices promoting diversity are not only morally and ethically right, but they are essential for our collective excellence and that substantial effort is needed to ensure that women and minorities are well represented among our community at all levels, including our leadership.
Authentic DEI goals may include but are not limited to (1) creating fair and equitable research and learning spaces where all community members can achieve their maximum potential and have their contributions recognized and their accomplishments celebrated; (2) promoting psychological safety for people from all backgrounds to challenge each other's assumptions and bring fresh perspectives to the table ; (3) ensuring a climate in which everyone feels respected and heard; (4) upholding the values of accountability and transparency; (5) and making longterm sustainable change to become fully inclusive, antiracist, multicultural organizations.Regularly affirming such core values both to current and prospective faculty is a key step to successful faculty diversification efforts.Some proportion of faculty may not, at the outset, be in alignment with these goals.Scientists can be persuaded to change their beliefs in response to convincing evidence.As highlighted above, there is copious evidence of bias and inequities in the sciences that can be shared with resistant colleagues.Implementing equitable hiring practices is likely to create new diversity allies by confronting these individuals with this evidence of sexism and racism in the academy and by promoting discourse among search committee members, Equity Advisors, and department faculty around equity and inclusion.Implementing voluntary workshops and trainings outside of the search process can also help educate faculty and cultivate an inclusive climate.
Equitable hiring practices are expected to result in new faculty demographics that match the availability pool.It is also possible that placing increased emphasis on candidates' contributions to inclusive excellence and university climate will result in hiring those from underrepresented groups at higher frequency than their representation in the applicant pool independent of "affirmative action" policies.In the long term, programs and policies that affect many stages in the pipeline will be required to meet the aspirational goal that the applicant pool accurately reflects the diversity of the US population.
This paper builds on many ideas that have been championed by others, offering a "soup to nuts" approach to equitable faculty hiring in the biological sciences, divided into individual steps readily adopted in whole or in part by other campuses or disciplines and supported by metrics that suggest that these practices have been effective.A limitation of these metrics is that it is impossible to separate out the relative importance of each individual factor or practice in moving toward our inclusive excellence goals.Some practices and programs may be more impactful than others, but they are likely synergistic and thus most effective when deployed in parallel.

| Institutional strategies
Hiring within the State of California is subject to legal standards that are crucial to note here as they are relevant to our hiring experience at the University of California, Irvine.The California Proposition 209 (Prop 209) ballot initiative passed in 1996, effectively prohibiting academic institutions from using race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as a basis for preferential hiring decisions.The Anti-Affirmative Action law came under fire briefly in 2020 when Proposition 16 (the Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment) was on the ballot in California.Proposition 16 was defeated with a 57% "No" vote.In response to the vote, University of California Regents Chair John Perez said, "The failure of Proposition 16 means barriers will remain in place to the detriment of many students, families, and California at large.We will not accept inequality on our campuses and will continue addressing the inescapable effects of racial and gender inequity."Despite Prop 209, University of California campuses have become more and more diverse in recent years.With respect to faculty recruitment, there are several strategies that can effectively enhance diversity, while remaining compliant with Prop 209.These include: 1. using outreach programs to reach specific groups provided that the program's benefits are also available to other groups and the special efforts to reach the targeted groups are necessary, including efforts to level the informational landscape, 2. collecting data on the race, ethnicity, or gender of applicants to gauge the effectiveness of recruitment efforts, 3. using a broad range of hiring criteria not based on race, ethnicity, or gender, e.g., ability to contribute to a diverse educational environment, or the potential for leadership in increasing equitable access to higher education; 4. requiring faculty candidates to include a statement on "contributions to diversity" which can send an important message to candidates and may increase the diversity of the applicant pools; and 5. ensuring an application and interview process that levels the playing field by offering clear information and guidelines about the process to all candidates and structuring interviews to be inclusive and welcoming.
Our approach is fundamentally grounded in University of California guidance and informed by evidence-based best practices which reduce discrimination based on race, sex, or other federally protected characteristics that are based on experiments with diversifying the workforce in higher education. 25

| The Equity Advisor Model
Our equitable hiring practices are built on the foundation of the Equity Advisor program that was first established at the University of California, Irvine in 2001.Variants of the program were subsequently adopted by at least six other UC campuses.The primary goal of the Equity Advisor program is to leverage faculty peers with a commitment to DEI goals to help advance faculty diversity.We will describe the program as implemented at UC Irvine in the School of Biological Sciences.
The Equity Advisor is a tenured faculty member from the same school.Equity Advisors monitor the faculty search process and also ensure that once hired, faculty are treated and reviewed equitably.They meet with every search committee to inform the committee about the evidence that various forms of bias can impact the search process and help the committee develop strategies to actively address these biases to conduct an equitable search.Equity Advisors review and approve each search committee's search plan, shortlist, and the final search reports.Although their role in the approval process makes Equity Advisors gatekeepers, they are likely to be most effective when they are viewed as resources and allies for the committee rather than as judges or enforcers.Outside of the search process, Equity Advisor support for existing faculty plays an important role in recruitment by demonstrating the long-term institutional commitment to an inclusive climate that empowers underrepresented faculty to succeed.
1.2.1 | How does an Equity Advisor facilitate an inclusive search?
The Equity Advisor becomes involved in the search process once approval has been obtained to hire in a specific area.The Equity Advisor reviews the advertisement developed by the search committee chair and makes suggestions regarding the content.The Equity Advisor may provide example ads developed by other search committees.After the ad is posted, the search committee chair arranges a date and location for the Equity Advisor to meet with the committee to discuss the search process.Ideally, this meeting would be 1-2 months before the committee begins evaluating applicants to give them time to prepare and discuss rubrics, and implement outreach activities, but still have the information about bias fresh in their minds when they review files.This in-person meeting, which lasts for at least 60 min, includes a data-driven slide presentation by the Equity Advisor that is later provided to the committee for their reference.Meeting in person helps to ensure participant engagement.The presentation should be informative but not be a lecture.A discussion between the committee and the Equity Advisor about how to incorporate best practices into this specific search is most likely to engage committee members and create allies who will be committed to running an inclusive search.The Equity Advisor may also help the committee by sharing their evaluation of de-identified examples of candidate Diversity statements to help set expectations for strong statements.In sum, the goal of this meeting is for the Equity Advisor to help the committee members become effective DEI allies.
Scientists are more likely to be persuaded by data that they are able to evaluate themselves than by being provided with study conclusions or simply being told that something is true.Showing faculty data from their own institution can be particularly effective.It is also important to focus on solutions after defining the problem.The Equity Advisor can help search committee members see themselves as part of this solution, allies who can improve the status quo by creating and executing an equitable and fair search process.To meet these objectives, it is important that Equity Advisors commit to continuously educating themselves regarding the shapes these barriers can take and the best practices to overcome them.However, the Equity Advisor should not present themselves as the Equity Expert for the search, but rather as a supportive team member who can assist the committee in their efforts to develop and run an inclusive search.One strategy that can be helpful to "level the playing field" and demonstrate that implicit bias affects all of us is to share the results of an implicit bias test (https://www.projectimp licit.net/) taken by the Equity Advisor.All of us have implicit biases and that does not make us bad people, just human.The goal is to demonstrate our values by taking steps to recognize and overcome the effects of our subconscious biases.
In keeping with this overall philosophy, when a search committee member suggests a novel approach, their contribution should be valued and never rejected out of hand.Where these suggestions are impractical or unlikely to produce desirable outcomes, the Equity Advisor can help the committee refine the approach or suggest a slightly different alternative, explaining the rationale for the different tactics and recognizing the helpful intent of the speaker..2.2 | What other roles does the Equity Advisor play in the UC Irvine School of Biological Sciences?
The Equity Advisor meets on an ad hoc basis with faculty and potentially staff who encounter bias or inequity in their professional life on or off campus.The Equity Advisor can offer support and connect impacted individuals with school or campus resources that can directly address their concerns.Cultivating a campus-wide network can help Equity Advisors be effective in this role.At UC Irvine, Equity Advisors from 15 different schools meet once a month to facilitate networking and problem-solving.In addition to helping individual faculty address specific instances of bias or inequity, the Equity Advisor also serves as an advisor to the Dean, attending and participating in administrative meetings of School leadership.In the UCI School of Biological Sciences, academic review files are evaluated at the school level by a committee of senior faculty before advancing to campus-level review.The school committee provides a letter for the file summarizing their collective recommendation to the Dean and the reasoning behind their decision.The Equity Advisor and the Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are voting members of this review committee.Their participation helps ensure that performance reviews are conducted equitably and fairly.The Equity Advisor also works with the Associate Dean of Academic Personnel to promote best practices in faculty mentoring and ensure that non-tenured faculty have access to mentors that meet their needs..2.3 | How would a department or institution select and recruit an Equity Advisor?
The Equity Advisor should be a tenured faculty member with a sincere commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.An Equity Advisor with a vibrant research program who is well connected on campus is likely to be the most persuasive advocate for the value of inclusive practices and ally for those who experience bias and seek help.This individual should be willing to use their influence to help others at the institution who have less power.Untenured assistant professors, particularly those from underrepresented groups, should not be asked to function as Equity Advisors.Equity Advisors need to confront difficult situations and stand up to senior faculty members whose actions or language are inconsistent with promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.Even when handled with tact and politeness, these interactions may create hard feelings that could have an outsized impact on untenured faculty.Serving as Equity Advisor is also a significant service commitment that should not be placed on the shoulders of assistant professors who need to focus on establishing their independent research programs.The Equity Advisor should be a good listener as well as a persuasive advocate.A growth mindset is a valuable asset.Mistakes will be made by the Equity Advisor and by the allies they cultivate, and these should be viewed as opportunities to learn and grow..2.4 | How are Equity Advisors compensated?
At UC Irvine, Equity Advisors receive an annual stipend of $15 000 that can be used to pay for summary salary or directed toward their research programs.Teaching release is also available; ALE received release from about 10 h of formal graduate teaching but continued to teach a graduate seminar and an undergraduate core course.For merit and promotion reviews, the Equity Advisor role is recognized as a major service commitment..2.5 | How long do Equity Advisors serve?At UC Irvine, the standard term is 3 years.Turnover helps to grow the ranks of diversity allies in the school and brings new ideas and approaches although circumstances may justify reappointment for a second term..2.6 | Are the roles of the Equity Advisor and the Associate Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion redundant?
No. In the UC Irvine School of Biological Sciences, the Equity Advisor and the Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion have overlapping, but not identical, roles in promoting an inclusive climate.The roles of the Equity Advisor are described above.The Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion also serves the Dean in an advisory role.However, the Associate Dean has a broader and larger role in the School than the Equity Advisor with responsibilities that include developing and executing a strategic plan for promoting DEI goals in the school, supervising the Minority Science Programs, developing new programs to support the success of faculty, staff, and students, and developing and strengthening relationships with other programs and campus offices that support inclusive excellence.There is clearly sufficient work to justify two separate positions.In our School, the Associate Dean does not directly engage with each search committee.The Associate Dean is an ally in the search process, helps to shape the policies of the School regarding searches, and plays a key role in requesting Inclusive Excellence Supplements from campus administration.Both the Associate Dean and the Equity Advisor are available to meet with candidates who visit the campus.Working together, the Equity Advisor and Associate Dean can function synergistically.In addition, they can offer each other support during and after challenging or emotionally charged situations.In UCI Schools where there is not an Associate Dean for DEI, two Equity Advisors may be appointed to share the workload and obtain some of the benefits highlighted above.
Additional information on how Equity Advisors function at different UC campuses can be found here: https:// inclu sion.uci.edu/event/compa ring-relev ant-equit y-advis or-tools -to-empow er-creat e/#mater ials.Additional information on the role of the Associate Dean for DEI in the School of Biological Sciences can be found here: https:// inclu sion.bio.uci.edu/.

| Outcomes
Examining the hiring outcomes in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of California, Irvine demonstrates a positive trajectory over the past 8 years.From 2014 to 2022, 49 new faculty were hired in the School.The number of faculty hired varied dramatically from year to year according to the availability of positions and specific hiring initiatives.Thus, we broke up the hires into two roughly equal clusters, which mapped onto hiring in 2014-2019 academic years (n = 25 faculty) versus hiring during 2019-2022 academic years (n = 24 faculty).Since the groups are matched in size, comparing the two groups allows us to address the question: Has faculty diversity improved in hiring in Biological Sciences?
One of the six faculty members hired in Biological Sciences in 2021-2022 was supported through the Inclusive Excellence Supplement Program (IESP), a UC mechanism that helps recruit faculty who contribute significantly to the goals of inclusive excellence as explained in their diversity statements.If the two top candidates in the same faculty search have both demonstrated outstanding commitment to DEI goals, the IESP allows hiring units to receive central funds for an additional position allowing both candidates to be hired rather than only one.The success of the IESP has grown from just six (two in STEM) hires made during the first 2 years, to 10 (four in STEM) in 2017-18, 12 (six in STEM) in 2018-19, and a remarkable 18 (eight in STEM) faculty in 2019-20.Overall, the program successfully recruited 60% women faculty and nearly 60% URM faculty and has improved campus climate by recruiting faculty with a demonstrated commitment to DEI.
Two of the six faculty hired in Biological Sciences in 2021-2022 were participants in the UC President's Postdoctoral Fellowship Program (UC-PPFP, https://ppfp.ucop.edu/info/).The UC-PPFP was established in 1984 as a specialized hiring program that encourages outstanding women and URM PhD recipients to pursue academic careers at the University of California.The PPFP also provides hiring incentives.UC Irvine remains the leader across the 10 UC campuses in hiring from this pool, with a total of 36 faculty hires (86% women and 57% URM), as part of a larger ongoing strategy to diversify our STEM professoriate. 26Combining the recruitment and hiring strategies discussed here with programs and initiatives focused on advancing faculty diversity such as the UC-PPFP and the IESP significantly enhances overall outcomes.
It is not possible for us to attribute these positive trends to individual practices or programs.Some of the policies described here were in place during both evaluation periods.These include the Equity Advisor program, the UC Presidential Postdoctoral Fellow program, and the Inclusive Excellence Supplement program.However, how the Equity Advisor interacts with faculty changed and the utilization of the hiring incentives increased over time.The rate of hiring was also different; in 2016, the campus announced a new strategic plan that included a plan to hire 250 new faculty in 5 years.The School of Biological Sciences' 5-year strategic plan, announced in parallel with campus plan in 2016, included a strong commitment to Inclusive Excellence and specifically the active recruitment of outstanding new faculty from groups that are underrepresented among biological sciences faculty nationwide and in our School.In 2019, the campus named Professor Doug Haynes the first Vice Chancellor for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion at UCI, elevating his role from vice provost and providing additional resources to support UCI's inclusive excellence goals.The national and campus climate was also different.The Me Too and Black Lives Matter movements may also have had an impact on search committee's awareness of bias, sexism, and racism.It is likely that the improved outcomes in 2019-2022 are the product of synergy between the revised search practices described in this publication and other factors.
This report summarizes knowledge accumulated over many years and refined in the 6 years following 2016 to eventually become the best practices for faculty hiring in the UC Irvine School of Biological Sciences in 2022.

| Search committee
The composition of the search committees should be diverse with respect to gender and race/ethnicity as well as broad with respect to representing expertise across topics, methods, and approaches.An appropriately diverse search committee composition can send positive cues of belonging to potential applicants.At the same time, it is important to be cognizant of the "diversity tax" when assigning women and URMs to committees; often women and individuals from underrepresented groups are asked to do more service which can compromise their research productivity.It is beneficial to include faculty of different ranks and seniority on the committee.Recently hired faculty can provide useful insights into how the search process was perceived from the other side and offer examples of good and detrimental practices they observed at other universities.One search committee member should be from outside of the department.Having an outside member can facilitate the dissemination of effective search strategies across departments, and this individual may feel more comfortable raising concerns about the conduct of the search with the Equity Advisor or department chair should they arise.This can also add to the diversity of the committee if the hiring unit has a limited number of women or URM faculty who are frequently tapped for service.Adding a graduate student and/or postdoctoral fellow to the search committee can also provide a trainee perspective and offer insight into the search process for trainees who are interested in an academic career.
Ideally, all those serving on the committee should be committed to the campus mission of inclusive excellence.The Equity Advisor will provide the committee with evidence of bias and best practices in hiring, but ideally, committee members would have already demonstrated some awareness of the barriers faced by underrepresented groups, for example, how implicit biases affect decisionmaking in hiring decisions at all steps of the process including letters of recommendation. 27,28Minimally, the chair of the search committee should have an authentic commitment to evidence-based DEI goals given that this individual plays an outsized role in setting the tone of the search and determining the details of its execution.The presence of at least two members with a demonstrated commitment to diversity goals can facilitate the implementation of best practices.All committee members must be receptive to knowledge shared by the Equity Advisor, search committee chair, or other group members and willing to confront and manage their own biases.If a committee member exhibits disrespectful behavior during discussions around DEI or otherwise displays an unwillingness to comply with best practices, a conversation with the search committee chair or department chair reinforcing the commitment to inclusive excellence and inclusive search practices should follow.
In some departments or schools, it may prove challenging to identify a search committee chair with the appropriate discipline-specific expertise and seniority to lead the search who has also demonstrated a commitment to DEI goals.In our school, leadership from the dean and transparent discussions with the department chairs were instrumental in communicating clear expectations that equitable hiring practices would be followed.In cases where search committees are less aligned with these goals or had less pre-existing awareness of sources of bias or microaggressions, the Equity Advisor could play a larger role in the development of materials used during the search process.The Equity Advisor and Associate Dean for DEI also provided advice and consultations, for example, helping to score diversity statements for candidates considered for the short list.In some cases, the Equity Advisor asked committees whose short list did not reflect the diversity of their pool of candidates to reconsider the statements on contributions to diversity of those on their long short list.In some cases, the Equity Advisor was able to clarify how candidates with very strong commitments to inclusive excellence as demonstrated by their diversity statements would enhance our community and promote excellent teaching and mentoring.Accepting that change may be more gradual than you might wish may be necessary while you build a community of DEI allies.

| Equity Advisor meeting and implicit bias training
As highlighted above, the full search committee is required to meet with the Equity Advisor as a unit before the search process begins.The Equity Advisor meeting facilitates information sharing and a committee discussion about best practices for job ad language, advertising, proactive solicitation of applications, selection, and interviewing, developing an individualized search plan that ensures that there will be a diverse applicant pool, and an equitable and fair evaluation process.A key goal of this meeting is to reinforce the perception that every member of the faculty is responsible for helping us meet our collective DEI goals and that the committee and Equity Advisor are allies with aligned goals.For this reason, it is important that the meeting include all members of the committee and be conducted in person rather than via Zoom if possible.If a committee member is unable to attend, rescheduling the meeting for the whole group is recommended.
In addition to the Equity Advisor meeting, search committee members are strongly encouraged to complete additional training in managing implicit bias.The University of California offers online, modular training to all faculty and staff but there are numerous other courses and modules available online.Recognizing one's own bias is a crucial step in the process that can be facilitated by taking the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (See https://impli cit.harva rd.edu/impli cit/takea test.html). 29In our experience, revealing that the "diversity expert" (e.g., Equity Advisor) also has biases that are revealed by this test can help faculty to accept biases as something natural that needs to be managed rather than something shameful that must remain hidden, unacknowledged, and unaddressed.

| Creating the job ad
Job ads should include inclusive language that will make a diverse audience feel that they should apply.Ads should be reviewed by the full committee and the Equity Advisor.There are several important considerations for writing a job ad.First, it is important that some women and candidates from URM backgrounds do not conclude "I'm not what they're looking for."Contributing to the underapplication of women to faculty job ads may be the tendency for some women to underestimate their skills. 30Search committees should strive to avoid unnecessary specialization in the language used both to describe qualifications and in the research foci of the position.Along the same lines, although the committee may be seeking experts whose independent research programs will be internationally recognized in a competitive field, it may be best to leave this kind of language out of the ad as it may discourage candidates fighting imposter syndrome from applying.
Second, job ads should provide cues of belonging by using the broadest terms that are accurate, using inclusive language that has been vetted by the Equity Advisor and avoiding the use of gendered language such as "dominant" or "capable."Prior research has shown that job ads with masculine-coded language were less appealing to women and provided cues that they belonged less in those occupations.For men, feminine-coded ads were only slightly less appealing and there was no effect on how much men felt they belonged in those roles. 31Ads can be evaluated for gendered language using publicly available websites such as Gender Decoder.Similarly, indicating in the text of the ad that collaborative, interdisciplinary research is valued and rewarded at your institution sends a message that may be more appealing to women and others from underrepresented groups than language focused on independence and superiority. 32,33eginning in 2016, we revised our job ads for research track positions to more explicitly convey an institutional commitment to work-life balance and that mentoring and collaboration were valued and rewarded on our campus.Equal opportunity and anti-discrimination statements have been included for decades, but by themselves may fail to convey an authentic commitment to a culture that supports a climate where faculty can thrive.Ads were lengthened to describe programs that demonstrate UCI's commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as the availability of career partner programs, family-friendly policies, and opportunities for professional development and support.To reinforce DEI values, job ads could also use language such as "We seek candidates whose research, teaching or service has prepared them to contribute to our commitment to diversity and inclusion in higher education."Other types of statements that can send additional cues of belonging include "We welcome applications from individuals who have had nontraditional career paths" or "Our institution is responsive to the needs of dual career couples." While the ad posted online and in print should contain all of the above facets, it may be valuable to also direct applicants to a School website that includes more complete information about why the School, campus, and community are great places for new hires to build a laboratory, contribute to teaching and service, and maintain work-life harmony.Directing applicants to a School website can also allow the committee to provide more detailed guidance about what should be in the various elements of the application materials and information about the criteria that will be used to evaluate these materials.

| Building a diverse applicant pool
Posting job ads in the standard journals and on key job boards is not sufficient to ensure a diverse applicant pool.The entire search committee should utilize active strategies and targeted outreach.Outreach may include colleagues at other institutions who have track records of mentoring students and postdocs from diverse backgrounds, colleagues at minority-serving institutions, including Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs) as well as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) that train doctoral students, as well as colleagues at institutions that are recipients of Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Awards (IRACDA).
Search committees should also consult databases of current and past recipients of the Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Program, individuals awarded NIH fellowships through their specialized diversity programs, such as the NIH Maximizing Opportunities for Scientific and Academic Independent Careers (MOSAIC) K99/R00 Program, job seeker databases and professional organizations that feature women, and URM scientists (the University of Chicago Human Resources website has a comprehensive listing of these organizations).Recent BlackinX grassroots efforts including BlackinCancer, BlackinNeuro, Black-inImmuno, and others are excellent venues for targeted recruitment.Finally, search committees within the University of California system should directly engage with UC President's Postdoctoral Fellows and UC Chancellor's Postdoctoral Fellows, all of whom are eligible for a hiring incentive program for faculty appointments at any of the 10 University of California campuses.
When contacting individuals identified through these databases or who are affiliated with training programs, it is important to be cognizant of how your email will be received.Focusing on how their research program connects to the strengths of your institution or how the climate of your institution will allow newly hired faculty to thrive is a good strategy.Reading up on microaggressions and tokenism and having a colleague or the Equity Advisor review the email with these concerns in mind before you send it are important to ensure that your email communicates the intended message and values to these potential applicants.
In-person outreach is possible at specialized minorityserving conferences that attract a diverse community of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows including the Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students (ABRCMS) and Advancing Chicanos/Hispanics and Native Americans in Science (SACNAS), the American Association of Blacks in Higher Education (AABHE), the American Association of Hispanics in Higher Education (AAHHE), the Association for Women in Science (AWIS), and the American Indian Science and Engineering Society (AISES).Posting job ads on diversity-focused sites and in publications such as Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, Hispanic Outlook on Education Magazine, INSIGHT into Diversity, the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, Latinos in Higher Ed, Winds of Change, and Women in Higher Ed may be helpful.Posting with the Higher Education Recruitment Consortium (HERC) aims to help member institutions work together to strategically address top recruitment priorities, including attracting and retaining diverse and talented faculty and staff and assisting dual-career couples could be valuable.HERC maintains a regional search engine that includes listings for faculty positions at member institutions.However, placing ads in these venues should never be the only form of outreach to underrepresented groups as, in isolation, it is not likely to be effective.
We assessed whether instituting these practices increased the diversity of the applicants who apply for our research track Assistant professor positions.Historically, these applicant pools have fallen short of national availability statistics; women and Black applicants are underrepresented (Figure 2).With the gradual implementation of the policies and practices described here beginning in 2016, there is a clear trend toward more female applicants while the national pool of qualified female applicants remained relatively constant.A trend toward an increased percentage of Black applicants may be present, but parity with the diversity of the national applicant pool was not achieved.For most of the searches conducted over the period analyzed (2011-2022), the number of Hispanic applicants exceeded national availability statistics.This finding may be linked to our student demographics; UC Irvine attained Hispanic-serving institution status in 2017, the second institution in the Association of American Universities to do so.Notably, only individual characteristics are analyzed as the data are not reported in a manner that reveals intersectionality.In sum, increased attention to the language used in advertisements and increased outreach efforts initiated in 2016 seem to have had a significant impact on women but appear to have been slightly less effective in encouraging applications from Black candidates.

| Monitoring the applicant pool
The search committee chair should monitor the applicant pool at multiple points during the application period to F I G U R E 2 Analysis of applicants for research track assistant professor positions in the UC Irvine School of Biological Sciences from 2011 to 2022.The data reflect self-reporting by applicants; up to 5% of applicants did not indicate their race.National availability statistics depend on the discipline-specific title codes supplied for each search and are supplied by the campus.(A, B) For each search conducted in the review period, the percent availability in the national pool of qualified individuals is subtracted from the percentage of job applicants identifying with the indicated group.Thus, positive values mean that the representation of our applicants exceeded their representation in the national pool.(C) The average percent availability in the national pool for all the searches in a given year is plotted with the range shown for each category; note that national availability was relatively constant over the period of review.The number of applicants that applied to each search ranged from 51 to 219 (mean = 98, median = 106).Hiring departments are shown to provide some insight into discipline.DCB, Developmental and Cell Biology; EEB, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology; MBB, Molecular Biology and Biochemistry; NBB, Neurobiology and Behavior; SoBS, School of Biological Sciences (cross-departmental hire).

(C) (B) (A)
make sure its composition matches national availability in terms of minority representation while there is time to increase outreach.If there are discrepancies, the committee should work with the Equity Advisor and others to develop new strategies to recruit a diverse pool before the search closes.

| Reviewing the applications
Before reviewing the applications, the search committee chair and the committee should work with the Equity Advisor to develop an evaluation plan that incorporates the best practices to ensure fairness and minimize the impact of bias throughout the process as this approach will increase the likelihood of selecting the best applicant.Important steps in the evaluation process include documenting the search plan and evaluation procedures and sharing this information with the committee, Equity Advisor, and leadership, educating everyone involved in candidate selection on hiring biases and how to minimize their impact, establishing holistic evaluation criteria, educating committee members about common cognitive errors like elitism and shifting standards based on stereotypes, avoiding premature ranking and fixed judgments that are not responsive to discussion and new information (e.g., from virtual pre-interviews), spending sufficient time reviewing each application, ensuring that more than one person evaluates every file, and using a rubric-based process that can create multiple rankings based on different criteria.
The search committee should agree on objective evaluation criteria (including evaluation of the contribution of the diversity statement) and how they will be prioritized prior to reviewing candidates.A good time to generate this rubric is after the discussion with the Equity Advisor as best practices and methods to promote unbiased evaluations will be fresh in the committee's minds.We provide a sample rubric here as an appendix.The process of developing a rubric helps to limit bias by encouraging discussion.Discussing the contributors to each category, assigning weight more evenly between the categories, and using a spreadsheet rather than overall "gut feeling" to generate an overall score and rank the candidates by performance in different key categories can help search committee members recognize and overcome their implicit biases.A rubric can help to ensure that evaluate all candidates are valued similarly based on their contribution to research, teaching, service, and diversity.Subcategories may be added that recognize an applicant's collaborative potential with other research groups on campus, funding history, mentoring skills, etc.In our School, the Equity Advisor facilitates this process by providing template rubrics used by previous searches to share ideas and strategies across departments.
While having clearly defined evaluation criteria helps reduce bias, committees should keep in mind that many traditional metrics, such as publications, grant funding, and citations may perpetuate biases and create additional hurdles for women and URM applicants.Having multiple scoring categories that separate these potentially biased metrics from other indications of fit, collegiality, or excellence may be informative if they allow rankings to be performed based on different categories or rebalancing the emphasis that is placed on these categories.The committee should be reminded to focus on evidence rather than "gut feeling" or "personal experience" to arrive at evaluation/ratings.Including a section for notes on the scoring spreadsheet can aid discussion when the committee meets to discuss their scores and select the top candidates.
One of the key tenets of an equitable search is that all applicants are treated in the same manner.It is difficult to maintain a level playing field if the search committee uses internet searches to gather additional information about the candidates who have already applied.Some candidates might gain an unfair advantage because of their positive presence on the web; others might be disadvantaged by incorrect information.Internet searches might also reveal personal details, such as marital status or age, which should not be considered by the search committee members.Because it is difficult to disregard this kind of information once it enters the review process, it is best to avoid it.That said, the committee should decide what role, if any, internet searches are to play in the selection process, and should ensure that the same standard is applied to all candidates.In addition, if internet searches are used, candidates should be provided an opportunity to respond to any information, particularly negative information, if it is to be considered by the committee.
Talking to colleagues at other institutions, or even at your own, to learn more about a candidate than is in the application through "back channels" is similarly problematic.This information may not be accurate, and the candidate is unable to provide an explanation or response to any concerns that may arise.Rumors about which candidates are interviewing or being considered at other universities should not be part of search committee deliberations.This information may not be accurate, and the candidate's preference for one institution over another may make even the fact of job offers elsewhere irrelevant to whether they should be interviewed at your institution.It is possible to change candidate preferences and their biases about your institution with a well-thought-out visit plan that demonstrates your School's authentic commitment to inclusive excellence, effective mentoring, and faculty wellness.
To ensure appropriate consideration of contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion, the committee could consider a rubric-based process.The University of California, Berkeley has developed a rubric (https://ofew.berkeley.edu/recru itmen t/contr ibuti ons-diver sity/rubri c-asses sing-candi date-contr ibuti ons-diver sity-equity), which has been adopted by many other institutions including UC Irvine.It assesses three categories: knowledge about DEI, track record in advancing DEI, and plans for advancing DEI once hired.Each category is judged on a total of 5 points with scores of 1-2 indicating lack of awareness, significant contributions, or plans and scores of 4-5 indicating strong contributions.The DEI screening should conclude by providing a priority rating for each candidate based on their scores in these three areas.
The search committee should conduct a holistic rubric-based evaluation of research, teaching, service, as well as DEI contributions.An example is the University of California, Berkeley's Candidate Evaluation Tool which assesses track record of potential in research areas (curricular fit, productivity, plans), teaching (teaching activities, mentoring), service (campus, professional community), and contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion (knowledge, track record, plans).The committee should develop a way to note evidence of persistence in the face of challenges which may be a strong predictor of success in navigating emotionally and cognitively challenging events like advancing to tenure. 34Where there is a large discrepancy in scores across search committee members, a discussion to achieve consensus is needed.Each candidate should be evaluated by at least two committee members and the Chair so that discrepancies can be identified and resolved.
The search committee can then meet to select the top candidates who have high priority in DEI contributions as well as high rankings in research, teaching, and service to be on the short list.The committee then narrows down the short list to a smaller list of finalists who would be invited to virtual or in-person interviews.The committee should be prepared to explain their reasons for including or excluding each candidate based on the evaluated criteria.Before beginning an open discussion of candidates, the Search Committee chair should remind the group about protected categories and information that should not be discussed (e.g., sex, race, gender, age, marital status, family, and children, etc.).It is very likely that some strong candidates will be perceived to have significant weaknesses based on the materials available for committee review.One valuable way to resolve issues that may lead to polarized rankings by different search committee members is offering short, virtual interviews to a larger pool of candidates than can be accommodated with campus visits.
Virtual interviews were a necessity during the height of the pandemic but remain a very useful tool in the interview process.In our experience, committee members who may be lukewarm on some applicants with very strong diversity statements walk away from short, virtual interviews energized about these candidates.Similarly, some candidates who have mediocre but above-threshold diversity statements yet appear highly qualified using traditional metrics like high-impact publications and prestigious pedigrees drop in the rankings after a virtual interview.Interviewing twice as many candidates virtually as you wish to invite to campus extends the short list and can help the committee reach a consensus on candidates where opinions differ.In our experience, virtual interviews conducted with inclusive practices are likely to increase the diversity of the pool of applicants invited for in-person interviews.

| Challenging assumptions, bias, and stereotypes
Search committees should be aware of conscious and unconscious biases, assumptions, and stereotypes that can influence all stages of the evaluation process.We often judge people based exclusively on our own experience and we tend to favor people who look like us or have experiences matching our own.Below are some illuminating examples of common biases and stereotypes against women and persons of color.
Job applicants with white-sounding names received 50% more callbacks than did equally qualified applicants with Black-sounding names. 35The team found that a white-sounding name was equivalent to 8 years of experience, which has practical significance.Another study found that, when asked to choose counselors from a group of equally competent applicants, students chose white candidates more often than Black candidates, indicating their willingness to give members of the majority group the benefit of the doubt. 36Yet another study showed that when rating the quality of verbal skills, as indicated by vocabulary definitions, evaluators rated the skills lower if they were told an African American provided the definitions than if they were told that a white person provided them. 37Overall, these studies demonstrate a strong performance bias against Black and African American individuals, in which they are judged as less capable than their white counterparts, when accounting for all other sources of variability.
Next, we turn to gender bias and stereotypes.In one study, researchers randomly assigned a male or a female name to CVs for academic positions.Both male and female evaluators gave the male applicant better evaluations and were more likely to hire the male than the female applicant. 38A study of over 300 recommendation letters found that letters written for women were shorter, raised more doubts, portrayed women as students and teachers while portraying men as researchers and professionals, used fewer superlative adjectives, and more frequently mentioned women's personal lives. 39There is a linear relationship between objectively measured total impact scores (using number of publications, number of first author publications, and impact factors of the journals in which they published) and reviewers' assessments of competency only in males but not in females.Extrapolating from these data, researchers concluded that a woman needed to be more than twice as productive as a man to receive the same competency rating as a male counterpart. 40inally, evaluators assessing pairs of equally qualified job applicants judged mothers to be less committed to their careers and less competent than non-mothers and recommended substantially more non-mothers [84%] than mothers [47%] for hire. 41s further evidence of gender bias, women are frequently described as kind, nice, and sympathetic, while expectations for leaders are that they are commanding, aggressive, competitive, and ambitious, roles that are assumed to be masculine.Substantial research has shown that the incongruity between our perceptions of female gender roles and leadership roles can influence our opinions of women as leaders and can cause evaluators to assume that women will be less competent as leaders.3][44][45] This well-documented competency/likeability tradeoff can pose major challenges for women in academia.
Overall, these studies show that we often apply generalizations that may not be valid in the context of the evaluation of faculty candidates.They also demonstrate that unconscious assumptions about the competence of women and members of URM groups, expectations about social roles, and common attitudes about personality can and do influence evaluation of job applicants.There are clear lessons to learn from this literature that are highly relevant to faculty searches.Women and URMs may be subject to higher expectations in areas such as quantity and quality of publications, name recognition, or personal acquaintance with a committee member.The work, ideas, and scholarship of women or URMs may be undervalued or unfairly attributed to a research director or collaborators.The competence and ability of women and URMs to run a research group, secure grant funding, and supervise students and staff may be underestimated.Assumptions about possible family responsibilities and their effect on the candidate's career path may negatively influence evaluation of merit, despite evidence of productivity.Other possible biases, assumptions, or unwritten criteria such as holding a degree from a prestigious research institution, recognizing the names of the candidates, or the names of the reference letter writers can introduce biases that influence evaluation and serve to disadvantage other highly qualified candidates, especially candidates from diverse backgrounds.

| A note on "blind" searches
While blind searches do have some merits, we do not generally recommend using them.Blind searches can reduce the impact of implicit bias and unfair judgment so that everyone is treated more equally.However, equality is not sufficient especially given systemic inequities that have stifled the ability of women and racial/ethnic minorities from thriving in the academy.In the context of these inequities, blind searches can serve to further perpetuate systemic biases and not allow for full and thorough consideration of the experiences of the individual applicant.It can also give a false sense of security that the search is proceeding equitably.A holistic review of the applicant without blinding to any aspect of their identity by a welltrained search committee that maintains fair and equitable practices should deliver the desired outcomes in terms of inclusive excellence.

| Before the visit
Before interviews, all candidates should receive the same information about their campus visit.Information should be provided in writing.Best practices include informing all applicants that arrangements can be made if a caregiver needs to accompany the applicant to assist with young children, that lactation rooms can be reserved, and that the Chair will ensure that persons with disabilities are provided with reasonable accommodations.For virtual interviews, providing the questions that will be asked in advance allows candidates to consider their responses and provide the clearest and most accurate answers.Making anticipating what questions will be asked part of the interview is a form of selection bias, favoring those from dominant groups who are most familiar with "the system." It is helpful for the search committee and Equity Advisor to discuss ways to avoid subjecting job candidates to inadvertent micro-or macroaggressions and how to ensure that all candidates understand the criteria by which they will be reviewed.Chalk talks can be particularly ambiguous and there are likely different expectations at each institution, thus guidelines about what to present and how it should be presented are essential.Communicating information about the campus' family-friendly policies and inclusive excellence efforts to each candidate before their visit can signal a welcoming environment.
We have found that an email from the Equity Advisor to each candidate 7-10 days before their interview works well to share links to campus and community websites related to equity, diversity, and work-life harmony.The Equity Advisor might also offer to meet with the candidate, making it clear that such a meeting would be confidential.Every candidate should receive an identical email.Communication with the candidate should also include links to department websites or core facilities relevant to the candidate's research to help them identify faculty and key personnel that they may wish to speak with during their visits.Every attempt should be made to honor these meeting requests.Each candidate should be provided with a detailed itinerary, including names of interviewers, contact information including cell phone of the host, travel arrangements to and from the university, information about reimbursement procedures, directions to the campus and a campus map, contacts the candidate can use if they need accommodations for a disability, and general information about the department, school, and campus.
Prior to each candidate's visit, departmental faculty and students should receive and be encouraged to read the candidate's CV, statements, and samples of scholarly work.Some searches require candidates to have a group meeting with the search committee and others require candidates to meet with individual faculty interviewers.Regardless of format, ensuring that the candidate is well informed in advance of the format and expectations, including appropriate attire (e.g., business casual) and which individuals on the schedule will have input into the hiring decision, is crucial.The search committee as well as all interviewing faculty and students should be very familiar with the types of questions that are not permissible during interviews, such as inquiries about age, marital status, children, sex, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, disability, religion, political affiliation, or personal finances.

| Campus interviews
All candidates invited for an interview should be offered an opportunity to meet with the Equity Advisor and/or the unit or School's chief diversity officer.If a meeting is requested, search committees should make sure it is accommodated within the candidate's schedule.All candidates should have an equal opportunity to interact with a diverse group of faculty and students and to learn about resources on campus.While formats for interviews may vary across searches, below are suggested components to ensure a productive visit that provides a multi-level evaluation of the candidate but that also gives the candidate the chance to thoroughly explore the campus and the opportunity.
Search committees should conduct a formal interview with the candidate using a set of standardized performance-based questions either framed historically, e.g., "Tell us about a time when a specific weakness caused problems for you professionally and then discuss how you handled the situation" or hypothetically, e.g., "Pretend for a moment you're in your fourth year on the tenure track and for whatever reason your current research trajectory has hit a brick wall.Maybe funding dried up or your research area has fallen into disfavor or something else has happened.You only have two years before your tenure review.What do you do?"These questions are far more effective at evaluating candidates than stock interview questions such as "what is your greatest weakness?"Questions should be distributed among search committee members such that each member asks the same question of all candidates, and the same order is followed for each interview to ensure equity.The best information is likely to be elicited by offering the questions to candidates in advance so they have time to think about their answers.
In addition to meeting with the search committee, several meetings with faculty members in the candidate's research area can also be planned, ensuring that the candidate's input is taken into consideration.These meetings are intended to familiarize the candidate with different research topics in the department as well as give faculty colleagues an opportunity to explore/imagine collaboration possibilities with the candidate.As university websites can be difficult to navigate, it is helpful to provide the candidate with links to departments or groups that may include faculty with research programs of interest to the candidate to help them identify faculty with whom they would like to meet.Arranging a meeting with a small group of recently hired assistant professors over lunch or coffee will provide the candidate with an understanding of how they would be mentored and supported were they to join your School.The candidate should meet with graduate students and postdocs.This can be a lunch or an afternoon coffee and is intended to provide trainees an opportunity to interact with and evaluate the candidate's mentoring philosophy and skills.It also gives the candidate a feel for the quality and the interests of students in the program as well as their reflections on the program and their well-being.Finally, meetings with administrative leaders including the department chair, the dean, the unit's or campus' chief diversity officer and/or the Equity Advisor should also be considered either during the visit or later if scheduling proves difficult.
The candidate should have the opportunity to deliver a public lecture on their past work and current research.For teaching faculty, the candidate could be asked to discuss their teaching philosophy or pedagogy research and/ or to teach a lecture in an introductory course to evaluate teaching style and competencies.In addition, the candidate should be asked to deliver a "chalk talk" to a smaller audience of department faculty including search committee members, focusing on future research plans.Guidance should be provided in advance to the candidate as to whether they would be able to use slides, provide attendees with a handout, or simply make use of the white/ blackboard.Similarly, it should be stated during the introduction to these talks what the expectations are regarding interruptions.These talks are a crucial part of the evaluation as they provide additional insight into the candidate's work and future promise.To accurately evaluate and compare candidates, it is essential that the objectives of the session and the criteria for evaluation are clearly communicated to both the presenters and audience members.
Other activities to consider during the visit include a guided campus tour, independent exploration time, meals with faculty colleagues, and other types of casual social interactions.Informal mixers at the homes of current faculty members can be an effective way to promote casual interactions and showcase collegiality among department members.Budgeting adequate time for exploration of the campus, and community, and for interactions with other early career faculty can communicate the campus commitment to community and belonging.During the visit, the department chair, search committee chair, or Equity Advisor should provide information on quality of life as a faculty member including housing, career partner programs, childcare resources, the public school system, local sustainability/green initiatives, walking and biking to and around campus, charging stations for electric vehicles, closeness of recreational activities, and overall quality of life.This information should be provided uniformly to all candidates.If a candidate expresses an interest in a particular type of cuisine, recreational activity, or local organization, search committee members with helpful insights can offer recommendations that the candidate might wish to explore during their free time.However, anticipating these special interests without a request from the candidate may lead to micro/macroaggressions.
The campus visit is an important opportunity for the department to communicate interest in the candidate's scholarly credentials and work, as well as other evidence of their excellence and creativity, and to convey the message that the institution is a great place to work and thrive, with top-notch talent, intellectual livelihood, and humane, family-friendly policies.How these messages are communicated can make a critical difference in recruiting diverse talent to campus.These messages should be communicated with equal clarity to all candidates without bias.However, they are especially important in recruiting women and URM candidates to departments in which they will be vastly outnumbered by male or majority colleagues.
It is crucial to avoid tokenization during the interview process and beyond.Search committees and interviewing faculty should clearly and consistently convey the message that they are interested in the candidate's scholarship and skills rather than their demographic characteristics.It is not helpful to make a point with candidates that the department is eager to hire women and URM faculty.It is counterproductive to tell the candidate that they have an excellent chance because they are a "diversity hire" or to discuss campus hiring incentives designed to promote diversity with the candidates.It is also important to consider how the department will represent the university as a place in which women and URM faculty can thrive.This may be difficult for departments that have few or no women and URM faculty members.Some things that may help make the department more attractive include having clear and transparent policies on merit and promotions, as well as mentoring resources for early career faculty.Pre-tenure faculty have critical insights into campus opportunities and climate as it relates to new hires.How an institution has supported recently hired faculty provides a barometer for how likely the candidate is to be adequately supported should they be offered and accept a position.
After the visit is complete, the candidate should have clear and prompt follow-up communication from the search committee chair as to the next steps in the process and the timeline for hearing back about a decision.Everyone who interacted with the candidate, except for any confidential meetings, should be asked to complete a postvisit candidate evaluation to inform the search committee's decisions.These forms should be carefully designed to elicit evidence-based feedback and to reduce the impact of implicit bias.Each candidate should be evaluated immediately after their visit.

| Final candidate selection
After all campus interviews are completed and the postvisit candidate evaluations are aggregated and summarized, the search committee should meet to review the applicants and develop a strategy for presenting the top candidates to the departmental faculty.In some departments, search committees may recommend a prioritized list of candidates to the faculty while in others, there may be more involvement of faculty not on the search committee in selecting the top applicants.It is useful to review the position criteria and the evaluation matrix the committee developed at the beginning of the search prior to any discussion.It is also important to discuss how to limit the impact of implicit bias by supporting evaluative statements with evidence and reminding faculty that it is illegal to discuss protected categories (race, gender, age, disabilities, whether the candidate has children or a spouse/partner) as a part of making hiring decisions.
It may be most productive to solicit departmental feedback on a prioritized list of candidates prior to this open meeting to avoid inappropriate discussions and address issues in advance of this meeting.It is also likely that only search committee members will have evaluated each of the interviewed candidates to an equivalent extent.It may be helpful for the chair to publicly thank the committee members for their hard work and diligence to remind departmental faculty that the opinions of the search committee reflect their in-depth evaluation of all candidates and significant deliberation.After all, it is this group of individuals to which the department delegated the responsibility for the search.

| Documenting the search
Systematic tracking and documentation of the search process as well as the committee's interaction with applicants are not only helpful to the committee during the search, but the resulting records may be useful in the future for evaluating searches.The search committee should develop a standard form that summarizes each candidate's progress during the search process (e.g., nominated, applied, reviewed, failed to meet minimum qualifications, shortlisted, interviewed, eliminated, etc.).Consistency of evaluations, interviews, and reference checks should be ensured by developing standard forms and standard questions for these activities.A physical and/or electronic file should be created for each candidate who meets the objective criteria established by the committee to hold their materials, recommendations, interview notes, and records of communications.These files should be stored in a secure password-protected location to ensure confidentiality.Proper documentation here ensures that there is highquality data available for later evaluations of the process.
The search committee chair should maintain and share official minutes of committee meetings, which should document general criteria established by the committee and their decision-making process.Documentation should provide rationales for search committee decisions and recommendations.This can be as extensive as notes to the candidate files, or as brief as a line in committee minutes (e.g., "The committee decided to limit interviews to those candidates having more than ten years of teaching experience").Notes should indicate specific job-related reasons for selection or non-selection.Copies of all letters, ads, communications, and any specific efforts made to recruit women and URM candidates should also be recorded.

| Making the offer and negotiations
The short list of candidates should be kept up to date on the status of the search but should not be told that they will only receive an offer if another candidate does not accept the department's offer.Even if they are eventually hired, a candidate is unlikely to forget that they were the department's second choice, which can contribute to imposter syndrome and negatively affect their sense of belonging.If two candidates from the same search are offered the position simultaneously with the possibility that both could be hired, it may be valuable to introduce these candidates to their potential colleagues.If a candidate has been eliminated with no possibility of being reconsidered, the search committee chair or department chair can let them know with a personal letter or phone call that includes appreciation of their qualifications and their interest in the position.
The way an offer is negotiated can have a huge impact not only on the immediate hiring outcome but also on a newly hired faculty member's future career.Candidates who feel that university representatives (committee chairs, department chairs, deans, etc.) conduct negotiations honestly and openly, and aim to create circumstances in which they will thrive, are more satisfied in their positions and more likely to stay at the recruiting institution than are those who feel that a department or chair has deliberately withheld information, resources, or opportunities from them.Initial equity in both the negotiated conditions and in the department's follow-through on the commitments it makes to the new faculty it hires are important factors in retention as well as recruitment.
Some candidates may have received less mentoring at previous career stages than their counterparts and may therefore be at a disadvantage in knowing what they can legitimately request in negotiations.In addition, there is some evidence that women are less inclined to negotiate for themselves than men are and that when they do, they are viewed differently.To ensure equity, the candidate should be empowered to advocate on their own behalf by providing all candidates with a complete list of things it would be possible for them to discuss during negotiations.This list will vary by position but should include those items that will maximize the likelihood of candidate success in that field.Examples include compensation packages, benefits, teaching release, shared equipment, lab space, renovation costs, graduate student support, clerical and staff support, travel funds, relocation expenses, career partner programs, and other specific issues of concern to the candidate.A negotiation facilitator (which could be the search committee chair) may be appointed to help the candidate throughout the negotiation process.This person should be specifically charged with assisting the candidate in articulating their needs and desires to the chair or dean, and providing information about the university context, not with negotiating the offer.We have found that appointing a non-tenured faculty member who has been at the institution for 2-3 years as a near-peer mentor to help during the hiring and relocation process can also be helpful.

| EVALUATING THE SEARCH
After the search is concluded, the search committee should meet briefly to consider all the factors that contributed to its outcome.If the applicant pool was not as large, as qualified, or as diverse as was anticipated, several follow-up questions may be asked.Could the job description have been constructed in a way that would have brought in a broader pool of candidates?Could the committee have recruited more actively and engaged in broader outreach?Were there criteria for this position that were consistently not met by women or URM candidates?Were they relevant to the job description?Were all criteria consistently applied across all candidates?If women and/or URM candidates were offered positions that they chose not to accept, what reasons did they offer?Are there things that the department could do to make itself more attractive to such candidates in the future?Insights from this evaluation process should be shared with departmental and institutional decision-makers to enhance the quality of future searches.

THOUGHTS
There are several limitations to the recommendations provided here.First, we describe a comprehensive approach to diversifying faculty recruitment that necessarily involves multiple efforts and initiatives, both at the local and at the institutional levels.Interactions among these factors are likely to have had a notable impact on our outcomes.It would be advantageous to determine which of these efforts and initiatives are the key drivers of change and should be prioritized for adoption.However, it is likely that these initiatives and programs are synergistic and that their effectiveness may vary in different contexts and climates.Moreover, an attempt to separately assess the impact of individual factors would work against the acute need to improve hiring practices and outcomes.While rigorously evaluating the impact of individual factors would have value, we suggest that a holistic approach grounded in established best practices and that takes into account the climate and context at different institutions when prioritizing practices for adoption is most likely to yield positive outcomes in the near term.
We have chosen to assess our hiring outcomes over two periods where ~25 faculty were hired.Variability in yearto-year hiring given the changing availability of funds, departmental strategic hiring plans, central resources, and the launch of specific incentive hiring initiatives complicates the analysis of outcomes.The latter period, 2019-2022, was chosen because a large number of faculty were hired during this interval and improved hiring practices that were gradually put in place after 2016 had been largely implemented by 2019.Of course, overall culture shifts that occurred nationally in this same time frame are confounding.Figure 2 makes it obvious that different searches run by different groups of faculty in different scientific areas will have variable outcomes.Notably, large-scale institutional initiatives to diversify hiring, such as the UC-PPFP and the IESP, were in place well before 2019.However, they cannot operate in a vacuum.We believe that these initiatives are crucial, but they are not sufficient to change institutional culture in ways that foster a sense of belonging among underrepresented groups.To avoid tokenization and marginalization, we need to ensure that search and hiring processes across all hiring mechanisms are equitable and inclusive.Combining the recruitment and hiring strategies discussed here with programs and initiatives focused on advancing faculty diversity such as the UC-PPFP and the IESP is likely to significantly enhance overall outcomes.Continued evaluation of hiring practices and outcomes at our institution and in other contexts will be critical to support the value of adopting the strategies outlined here.
Although we cannot state with certainty which practices or strategies are most effective, it is our opinion that institutional commitment to diversity initiatives, "ground level" support from faculty in the school for these initiatives, and a collegial climate at UC Irvine were key factors contributing to our improved outcomes.While a clearly articulated commitment to inclusive excellence goals at the campus and school levels has obvious value, statements by leadership are not sufficient.Philosophical buy-in from school faculty is essential to create a climate where underrepresented faculty feel valued and supported.Creating positions like an Equity Advisor and an Associate Dean for DEI can help institutions facilitate difficult conversations (e.g., around the Me Too and Black Lives Matter movements) and build a team of allies that, in turn, create more allies.Critical to this process of creating allies is the acknowledgment that mistakes will be made and the focus should be on building a strong community rather than pointing fingers.An authentic commitment to diversity and inclusion synergized with a culture of collegiality at UC Irvine.A recent recruit asked why she chose UCI from among her other offers replied that a deciding factor was her observation during her interview that everyone she met obviously liked each other.
In conclusion, for the faculty of our universities to accurately reflect the diversity of our citizenry, hiring practices must be continuously evaluated and improved.Intentional changes in how we advertise positions, select candidates, and conduct virtual and campus interviews can significantly impact both who applies for and who accepts faculty positions.Iterative cycles of improvement will generate positive outcomes that justify the additional efforts of search committees, the hiring department, and institution by improving the quality of our research and teaching and moving toward a campus climate where all faculty, staff, and students can thrive.

F I G U R E 1
Characteristics of faculty hired.Similar numbers of faculty were hired in the UC Irvine School of Biological Sciences from 2014 to 2019 (25 faculty) and from 2019 to 2022 (24 faculty) due to an increased number of searches in the latter period in line with a campuswide hiring initiative and enhanced utilization of the Inclusive Excellence Supplement Program that allows two faculty to be hired from one search.