Do Rubrics Live up to Their Promise? Examining How Rubrics Mitigate Bias in Faculty Hiring

Do Rubrics Live up to Their Promise? Examining How Rubrics Mitigate Bias in Faculty Hiring
复制标题

评分标准是否兑现了他们的承诺?

DOI:
10.1080/00221546.2023.2168411
复制
发表时间:
2023
期刊:
The Journal of Higher Education
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
Anderson, Julia
Anderson, Julia
中科院分区:
--
文献类型:
--
作者:
Culpepper, Dawn;White-Lewis, Damani;O’Meara, KerryAnn;Templeton, Lindsey;Anderson, Julia

文献摘要

参考文献

被引文献

相似文献

许多学院和大学现在要求教师搜索委员会在评估教师职位候选人时使用规则,因为支持者认为这些“决策支持工具”可以减少候选人评估中的偏见的影响。也就是说,规则的目的是确保更公平地评价候选人,从而有助于更多地聘用来自少数群体的候选人。然而,支持这一说法的证据很少,甚至是相互矛盾的。本研究采用多案例研究方法,探讨如何五个教师搜索委员会使用的候选人评估的标题,在何种程度上使用标题似乎延续或减轻委员会决策的偏见。研究结果表明,使用规则可以通过澄清标准、鼓励在评估中使用标准、校准标准对证据的应用,以及在某些情况下将多样性、公平性和包容性工作(DEI)纳入考虑,来改善搜索。然而,搜索委员会也创建和实施的方式,似乎延续偏见,破坏有效性,并可能有助于雇用少数族裔候选人。最后,我们为利益相关者提供了实用的建议,在教师招聘中使用规则和实现DEI。
Many colleges and universities now require faculty search committees to use rubrics when evaluating faculty job candidates, as proponents believe these “decision-support tools” can reduce the impact of bias in candidate evaluation. That is, rubrics are intended to ensure that candidates are evaluated more fairly, which is then thought to contribute to the enhanced hiring of candidates from minoritized groups. However, there is scant — and even contradictory — evidence to support this claim. This study used a multiple case study methodology to explore how five faculty search committees used rubrics in candidate evaluation, and the extent to which using a rubric seemed to perpetuate or mitigate bias in committee decision-making. Results showed that the use of rubrics can improve searches by clarifying criteria, encouraging criteria use in evaluation, calibrating the application of criteria to evidence, and in some cases, bringing diversity, equity, and inclusion work (DEI) into consideration. However, search committees also created and implemented rubrics in ways that seem to perpetuate bias, undermine effectiveness, and potentially contribute to the hiring of fewer minoritized candidates. We conclude by providing stakeholders with practical recommendations on using rubrics and actualizing DEI in faculty hiring.
筛选两次,剪切一次:评估申请人选择工具的预测有效性
DOI: --
发表时间: 2017
影响因子: 2.1
作者:
Dan Goldhaber;Cyrus Grout;Nick Huntington
通讯作者: Nick Huntington
DOI: 10.1080/13571510903227064
发表时间: 2009-10
影响因子: 1.2
作者:
R. Sugden
通讯作者: R. Sugden
从机制到美德:评估助推理论
DOI: --
发表时间: 2015
期刊:
影响因子: --
作者:
M. Kosters;J. van der Heijden
通讯作者: J. van der Heijden
卡斯·桑斯坦和行为经济分析法理论
DOI: --
发表时间: 2010
期刊: 日本公共政策学会2010年度研究大会報告論文集
影响因子: --
作者:
Ido;Masanobu;山下清海・小木裕文・松村公明・張貴民・杜国慶;石井知章;末近浩太;藤谷武史;松本克美;柳瀬昇
通讯作者: 柳瀬昇
教师多样性:消除障碍
DOI: --
发表时间: 2011
期刊:
影响因子: --
作者:
JoAnn Moody
通讯作者: JoAnn Moody