Appendix D
Considerations for Enhancing Equity and Fairness in Title 42 Recruitment

After reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Title 42 Operations Manual, the committee explored how to build on the agency’s recruitment strategies. The agency’s recruitment efforts begin with the position announcement and candidate search, and proceed with its review of and interviews with candidates. This appendix outlines best practices for enhancing equity and fairness during these phases of the recruitment process.

CANDIDATE SEARCH

The position announcement is a formal presentation to the outside world that the agency is seeking to hire in a particular field. Effective announcements describe the responsibilities of the position; the area or subarea of research and academic qualifications; and any other criteria by which applicants will be evaluated. Narrowly defined search areas in most disciplines limit the breadth and demographics of the applicant pool. By contrast, broad area searches and searches with interdisciplinary foci have been shown to increase the likelihood of hiring a diverse professional workforce (UCS, 2023).

Using inclusive language in the position announcement is an important aspect of equitable searches (Collier and Zhang, 2016). Neutral words and inclusive language (e.g., commitment, supportive, collaborative, team-oriented, excellence, demonstrated success, dedicated, respected) will encourage a broader diversity of applicants than will words associated with gender stereotypes, dominant language, and extreme modifiers (e.g., world-class, high-powered, dominant leader). It may be worthwhile to consider software tools for analyzing the inclusivity of position announcement vocabulary, and to have someone with expertise in diversity and inclusion review the position announcement and provide critical feedback (Smith et al., 2004).

While posting the position to the public is valuable, active recruitment efforts can prove beneficial. The agency may form a search committee for the recruitment and evaluation of candidates for an open position with the goal of building equity and fairness into its processes. At a minimum, search committees can consult broadly within their disciplines to identify and invite applications from promising scientists across a wide range of backgrounds. In addition, committees (possibly along with recruitment specialists) could:

• Advertise in disciplinary journals, organizations, and websites.

• Review the literature, proceedings of professional meetings and societies, and conference presentations to identify potential applicants.
• Search applicant databases and lists of diversity postdoctoral programs around the country for possible candidates and invite those candidates to apply.
• Solicit nominations from chairs of departments at institutions that are top producers of historically minoritized and/or women Ph.Ds.
• Review recent relevant publications and conference presentations to become aware of the current work of potential applicants in the field of the search.

During recruitment and throughout the search, it is general practice to compare the demographic summaries of the applicant pool against national availability pool data in the appropriate discipline(s). The availability pool describes the composition of possible applicants to an open position at either the early-career or senior level. Notably, these sources are limited to scientists working in institutions of higher education and may not reflect the broader pool of available scientists working outside of colleges and universities.

REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS

Implicit bias in decision-making processes impedes the hiring of women and underrepresented minorities in scientific and technical fields (NASEM, 2020). Studies have also shown that certain process interventions have improved results in search outcomes for women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) disciplines (Bloodhart et al., 2018; CSST, 2021; Sáinz, 2022; UCS, 2023). Before reading applications, the search committee chair can explicitly state the expectation that each member be aware of implicit bias and of the interventions known to counter its adverse impact when evaluating applicants and possible candidates. Additionally, special consideration can be made in forming a diverse search committee and ensuring that at least one search committee member holds strong expertise in diversity and inclusion, encouraging them to raise concerns about bias anytime during the search process (Smith et al., 2004).

Addressing Implicit Bias

Committee members could consider adopting one or more of the following practices to minimize implicit bias:

• Take the Implicit Association Test (IAT)¹ as an initial step to recognizing the convergence of bias, cognitive shortcuts, and quick decision-making processes.

___________________

¹ See Harvard’s website for its Implicit Association Test for more information: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html (accessed February 13, 2024).

• Familiarize oneself with selected research on unconscious bias in hiring.
• Instead of starting the review of each file by reading the redacted resume or curriculum vitae (CV) of the applicant, start with an applicant’s research proposal (which will need to be submitted as part of the application). The redacted CV or resume could be read subsequently so that information found on it—such as Ph.D. institution; dissertation advisor; and clues about age, country of origin, background, and family life—does not spark implicit biases.
• Similarly, letters of recommendation can be reviewed among the final stages of evaluation (e.g., long or short list), recognizing even at this stage that research has shown that letters of recommendation often reflect implicit biases (Go and Sachdev, 2021).
• Allocate sufficient time to read each file. The shortcuts associated with implicit bias are likely to occur when there is a need to perform cognitively in a quick or rushed fashion. Some guidelines recommend spending 20 minutes on each file in the first round of evaluations (Aronson et al., 1998; Burroughs, 2017; Whysall, 2018).
• Discuss challenges in recruiting women and underrepresented minorities in the discipline and the incentives that are in place to address them.
• Recognize that women and men are often characterized differently in letters of recommendation, typically in alignment with traditional gender roles in society, and are perceived to be differently competent (Hentschel et al., 2019).
• Be aware of proxy and common-knowledge forms of bias, by which one unconsciously overrates applicants from peer or familiar institutions or those recommended by colleagues, and unconsciously underrate applicants from less familiar institutions or departments. Apply criteria consistently to all applicants.
• Recognize that the location and environment of the applicant’s previous or current institution(s) have an impact on productivity. Use quality of work as the indicator instead of assuming that gaps indicate a lack of promise.

Establishing Review and Selection Criteria

Committees establish evaluation and decision-making processes to ensure equity. Before starting to read files, the committee can develop an agreed-upon review process (e.g., who will read which files) and a set of criteria according to which all applicants will be evaluated. For example, every application can be reviewed by at least two committee members to reduce the potential for implicit biases to impact the selection process. With this considered, the National Academies committee appreciates EPA’s utilization of diverse hiring panels and standardized scoring sheets.

Before using the criteria, the committee can calibrate itself by reviewing one or two applications and then having each committee member speak to how they rated the applicant on each criterion and why. By having all committee members engage in this exercise, a shared understanding of the criteria and how to apply them is developed. The committee may decide to modify the criteria mid-process, if necessary, without compromising the integrity of the process regarding files already reviewed or shifting standards. While not all members of the committee must read every application, it is strongly encouraged that all committee members consider the following practices:

• All members read all files of applicants who pass the first round of review.
• Any applicants who are dropped out of the pool after the first round may be brought up for discussion at the request of a committee member.
• Committee members can evaluate at any stage of the process whether the criteria exclude certain groups from further consideration, such as when long and short lists disproportionately include members of one group when compared with the overall pool. Evaluate the criteria and modify them as needed to address this potential effect.
• Include a double check at each decision stage, where one or two committee members review files of those set aside and compare them with those moving forward to see whether any of equal caliber were overlooked.

Long and Short Lists

Typically, after evaluating applications, a first cut is made and a long list is developed, followed by a short list. Candidates on the short list are invited to an interview by EPA’s interview or review panel. The panels could pay attention to the representation of women and underrepresented minorities in the search pool in comparison to the overall representation in the discipline and to the composition of the long and short lists. If there is a significant drop in the representation of women and/or underrepresented minorities as the evaluation proceeds and the short list develops, the committee chair could consult with a supervisor or EPA’s Office of Human Resources personnel before proceeding further.

INTERVIEWS

The search committees may decide to do preliminary or first-round interviews to winnow down the long or short list either virtually (via Zoom or other teleconferencing means) or in person. The interviews can be a standardized set of questions that are structured and scored. With this considered, the National Acad-

emies committee acknowledges EPA’s use of candidate evaluation metrics to ensure a standardized process. Several other measures can be implemented additionally to ensure an equitable experience:

• Provide all interviewees with a similar experience, including guaranteeing that each applicant receives roughly the same amount of time for the interview.
• Be clear on the goal behind preliminary/first-round interviews.
• Be willing to share information about the search (e.g., how the area of the search fits into the direction of the agency, expectations related to research).
• Consider making the interview questions available ahead of time to interviewees.
• Ensure that a quorum of the committee is present for each interview.
• Recognize that some technology is difficult or outright inaccessible to some applicants. Ask the applicants up front at the time that the interview is scheduled whether they wish to have any accommodations related to a virtual interview and be clear that such requests have no impact on how they are being evaluated.

REFERENCES