The Four Myths of
Failed Recruitment
The Leaky Pipeline
• Diverse candidates are lost to the academy
before they can become recruits resulting in a
‘limited pool’
• ‘…we have to keep going back to the still really
unfortunate problem of the fact that only 2% of
the Ph.D.s in the United States […] awarded
annually are to African Americans, and that’s just
a tiny number of people’ (Former president of
Harvard, Neil Rudenstine).
The Leaky Pipeline
• Olivas (1994) – low graduation rates still
provide a pool over time which is capable
of altering current representation.
• Trower & Chait (2002) – even in
disciplines with a higher number of visible
minority and women scholars (e.g.
education & psychology), faculties
continue to be predominantly white and
male.
Bidding Wars
(High Demand/Low Supply)
• ‘Although a concerted effort has been
made, small candidate pools and intense
competition between top universities has
made growth in faculty numbers extremely
difficult […] In disciplines such as
engineering, mathematics and many hard
sciences, the number of qualified
candidates is extremely limited’ (Smith et
al, 1996: 1)
Bidding Wars
(High Demand/Low Supply)
• Smith et al (1996) – 393 recipients of Ford,
Mellon and Spencer Fellowships
• 6 mini-myths:– Myth: Scarcity causes competition
– Reality: Only 11% of these scholars were
‘sought after’, the rest encountered difficulties
and limitations in the job market
– Myth: Scarcity in science causes high
demand
– Reality: Majority of scientists not pursued for
jobs. Many concerned about finding jobs or
had left academia because of an inability to
find an academic job.
Bidding Wars
(High Demand/Low Supply)
• Six mini-myths con’t.
– Myth: Only go to prestigious institutions
– Reality: A range of preferences affected
decisions about institutions including
geography, mobility & professional goals
– Myth: Revolving door recruitment
– Reality: Reasons for change focused on
institutional difficulties, dual-career choices &
appropriate fit rather than financial packages
and prestige.
Bidding Wars
(High Demand/Low Supply)
• Six myths con’t.
– Myth: Heterosexual white males have no
chance
– Reality: Experiences for white men varied,
20% underutilised, 24% had good experience.
White men who had expertise related to
diversity had a significant advantage in the job
market.
Meritocracy
• Meritocracy – objective standards of merit.
• Caplan (1992) – traditional notions of excellence
do not recognise diversity
• Trower (2003) – ‘…quite simply, the academic
playing field is not level. The “game” was
invented before women and minorities were
even allowed to play; they weren’t considered
when those who ruled made the rules. And
those rules, barely tweaked over the last
century, are now so deeply entrenched in the
culture of the academy as to be orthodoxy’ (p.
1).
Meritocracy
• Trower (2003), academic culture that:• ‘does not necessarily suit the needs, values, and
beliefs of a new generation of scholars, women
and men, majority and minority, and
• advantages white males while it disadvantages
women and persons of color, thereby making
what appear to be “choices” made by women
and minorities not really choices at all.’
Meritocracy
• Sonnert & Holton (1996) research on NSF postdoc fellowships:– Men published 2.8 papers per year while women
published 2.3.
– Women’s articles were cited more frequently (24.4
versus 14.4)
– Women’s writing more noteworthy?
• Wenneras & Wold (1997) research on post-doc
fellowship applicants found that women had to
publish approximately twice as much as men to
achieve same success rate.
Meritocracy
• ‘The general principle, that diversity is a stronger basis
for the advance of scientific knowledge than
homogeneity, is supported by strong academic as well
as social, arguments. To keep pace with the complexity
of modern science and rapid discipline transfer of
concepts, academic research groups must incorporate
as wide as possible a range of problem solving and
thinking styles. In order to teach effectively to potential
scientists as well as to non-specialists, academic
departments must welcome a range of communication
styles and evaluation approaches. […] We have a
responsibility, in the decade to come, to respond to these
needs in the Canadian university system.’ Signed by the
five NSERC Industrial Chairs for Women in Science and
Engineering.
Lesser Qualifications
• Candidates from under-represented
groups are ‘less qualified’ than others.
• Smith et al (2004) examined doctoral
granting institutions of visible minority
faculty members
• Used Carnegie classifications – Research
I, Research II, Doctoral I, Doctoral II
• No differences apparent.
Lesser Qualifications
Doctoral Granting Institutions of Visible Minority Faculty (Smith et al,
2004).
Research Research Doctoral
University University University
II
I
I
African
American
94%
Latino
75%
American
Indian
67%
Asian
American
90%
1%
White
89%
1%
Doctoral
University
II
Non-US
Degree
Other
Final
Degree
4%
7%
7%
6%
7%
33%
1%
2%
6%
1%
1%
7%
1%
Lesser Qualifications
Faculty Hire by Rank (Smith et al, 2004).
Professor
Associate
Professor
Assistant
Professor
African
American
23%
14%
64%
Latino
27%
12%
61%
American Indian
17%
17%
67%
Asian American
14%
11%
75%
White
23%
11%
64%