This narrative and integrative literature review synthesizes the literature on when, where, and how the faculty hiring process used in most American higher education settings operates with implicit and cognitive bias. The literature review analyzes the “four phases” of the faculty hiring process, drawing on theories from behavioral economics and social psychology. The results show that although much research establishes the presence of bias in hiring, relatively few studies examine interventions or “nudges” that might be used to mitigate bias and encourage the recruitment and hiring of faculty identified as women and/or faculty identified as being from an underrepresented minority group. This article subsequently makes recommendations for historical, quasi-experimental, and randomized studies to test hiring interventions with larger databases and more controlled conditions than have previously been used, with the goal of establishing evidence-based practices that contribute to a more inclusive hiring process and a more diverse faculty.

Background and Context Little research has focused on how legitimacy is understood and conveyed through interactions between faculty colleagues, despite its importance to faculty careers. Not all faculty experience an even playing field in trying to access professional legitimacy. This is especially true for women, underrepresented minority (URM), and nontenure-track (NTT) faculty. These groups experience common dilemmas in their pursuit of professional legitimacy in research university environments, though each group also faces distinct challenges of its own. An ideal place to understand experiences of faculty trying to earn professional legitimacy are faculty learning communities. Purpose The purpose of this study was to analyze how women, URM, and NTT faculty understand and describe professional legitimacy in one research university. We sought to understand the challenges these groups experienced in trying to obtain legitimacy from colleagues that they attributed to their gender, race, or appointment type. Through this study, we hope to provide an understanding of and recommendations for creating inclusive academic work environments for all three groups. Setting The study took place at Land Grant University (LGU), a research-intensive institution. LGU received a National Science Foundation ADVANCE grant to focus on issues of equity in the retention and advancement of women and URM faculty. Out of recognition that the institution faced challenges in retaining and/or advancing women, URM, and NTT faculty, LGU's ADVANCE program created faculty learning communities. Research Design A qualitative case study approach was used to understand how women, URM, and NTT faculty interpreted institutional scripts of legitimacy within their academic departments. Data Collection and Analysis Data were collected using semistructured participant observations of five faculty learning communities, which were formed to support the retention and advancement of women, URM, and NTT faculty over five years. Findings/Results Women, URM, and NTT faculty participating in faculty learning communities understood professional legitimacy as associated with belonging, merit, autonomy, and voice in decision making. Participants described multiple ways in which they felt their gender, race, and/or appointment type constrained their ability to achieve legitimacy. Conclusions and Recommendations In this study, we used our findings to “mark” how inequality is maintained through professional interactions with colleagues. Implicit bias influenced several of the inequalities and barriers to earning legitimacy noted in the study. One recommendation, therefore, is to raise awareness of implicit bias and provide department-wide trainings on how to address it. This study also supports the use of faculty learning communities as a place of restoration for faculty seeking professional legitimacy and as a tool to create inclusive academic environments.

The fact that overloaded plates and stress are common in mid‐career is well known. Likewise, we know that the unequal distribution of faculty workload is one of the most important, yet least talked about, inequities that shape the experiences of faculty members within colleges and universities. In particular, women and racially minoritized mid‐career faculty face unusually high service, teaching, and mentoring workloads. Often we place the onus for aligning time and priorities, and “saying no” on mid‐career faculty members themselves. In this chapter, the author(s) take a different approach, drawing on five years of action research with academic departments. They share key conditions that department leaders can create, and practices they can put in place to scaffold equity and agency in mid‐career faculty workloads and rewards.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the role faculty learning communities (FLCs), a common ADVANCE intervention, play in retention and advancement; and the ways in which FLC spaces foster professional interactions that are transformative and support the careers of women, underrepresented minority (URM) and non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty in research universities. Design/methodology/approach The authors employed a mixed methods case study approach set at a large, research-intensive institution, which had received an NSF ADVANCE grant to focus on issues of gender equity in the retention and advancement of STEM faculty. Land Grant University implemented retention and advancement efforts campus-wide rather than only in STEM areas, including five FLCs for women, URM faculty and NTT faculty. The primary sources of data were retention and promotion data of all faculty at the institution (including the FLC participants) and participant observations of the five FLCs for five years. Findings The analysis of retention and advancement data showed that participation in FLCs positively impacted retention and promotion of participants. The analysis of participant observations allowed the authors to gain insights into what was happening in FLCs that differed from faculty’s experiences in home departments. The authors found that FLCs created third spaces that allowed individuals to face and transgress the most damaging aspects of organizational culture and dwell, at least for some time, in a space of different possibilities. Research limitations/implications The authors suggest additional studies be conducted on FLCs and their success in improving retention and advancement among women, URM and NTT faculty. While the authors believe there is a clear professional growth and satisfaction benefit to FLCs regardless of their effect on retention and advancement, NSF and NIH programs focused on increasing the diversity of faculty need to know they are getting the return they seek on their investment and this line of research can provide such evidence as well as enhance the rigor of such programs by improving program elements. Practical implications FLCs offer higher education institutions a unique opportunity to critically reflect and understand organizational conditions that are not inclusive for groups of faculty. Professional interactions among colleagues are a critical place where academic and cultural capital is built and exchanged. The authors know from the authors’ own research here, and from much previous social science research that women, URM and NTT faculty often experience exclusionary and isolating professional interactions. FLCs should be created and maintained alongside other more structural and cultural interventions to improve equity for all faculty. Originality/value The study’s contribution to the literature is unique, as only a few studies have tracked the subsequent success of participants in mentoring or networking programs. Furthermore, the study reveals benefits of FLCs across different career stages, identity groups and position types (women, URM and NTT) and suggests the investment that many NSF-funded ADVANCE programs have made in funding FLCs has the potential to produce a positive return (e.g. more women and URM faculty retained).

No abstract