For 20+ years, I have heard "research potential" cited as an excuse not to grow a more diverse faculty at many conferences.
Usually, the conversation goes as follows:
Jason: You are hiring this year?
Professor: yes, we are looking to hire a woman or minority (sic). Our Dean wants us to become diverse.
Jason: That's great. How is it going?
Professor: Terrible. We can't find anyone with enough potential "A" hits to hire.
Jason: Oh. Have you thought about looking at XYZ?
Professor: They applied. But, they aren't from good enough a school or study the wrong topic.
Jason: Oh? But aren't you hiring someone to teach this?
Professor: Yes, but we can't hire someone we are not confident will publish enough to tenure.
Usually, we uncomfortably retreat to separate corners of the conference.
Often, I feel guilty as hell for not pressing the issue. The Professor looks guilty as hell, too, knowing the talk about diversity is a sham.
Later, I learn of a bright young new hire (with an elite pedigree & scant expertise relevant to the espoused teaching requirement). That hire is rarely a woman or from a disadvantaged community.
I suspect "research potential" has become a codeword used to exclude diverse candidates.
Why?
Because research potential is impossible to quantify.
When hiring, you don't know whether a candidate will publish - particularly without their advisor.
At best, you are making an educated guess that someone will publish well & publish independently.
If we are guessing, then why are so many candidates who are women or from disadvantaged communities excluded? You connect the dots.
Moreover, once excluded, candidates who are #women or from #disadvantagedcommunities go to schools with less munificent resources. As a result, they miss out on chances to pursue research.
Beyond that, not every candidate wants to chase a socially constructed "A" list. They chase impact through teaching or service.
Meanwhile, that #Professor who turned them down looks back & says, "See, they couldn't do it."
Such nonsense.
What to do?
First, reframe how we hire. Why don't we ask how this person will impact the institution?
Impact goes beyond "A" hits. It includes teaching, service, and outreach.
If you consider impact, who is acceptable will change.
Second, prioritize ideas. Many boring #papers appear in "A" #journals. (Note: I've written some of them).
If you consider ideas, not "A" papers, we will see #academic hiring change.
Third, stop using degree-granting schools as a proxy for research ability. I took my Ph.D. at a big state school. I've done fine.
I'm sure many with my profile have done just as well as academic bluebloods.
If we go beyond "research potential" and consider the whole person, we can build an #equitable, #diverse, #inclusive academy - we need to - the world demands it.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jason-thatcher-0329764_women-disadvantagedcommunities-professor-activity-6927013228589805568-tgPh?utm_source=linkedin_share&utm_medium=member_desktop_web
Comments