Equity, Diversity and Inclusion: A Best Practices Guide for Recruitment, Hiring and Retention


Summary of changes (September 2018):

  • the term Aboriginal Peoples (Constitution, 1982) has been changed to Indigenous peoples;
  • best practices that consider Indigenous peoples have been added; and
  • a section has been added on equity, diversity and inclusion action plans.

Introduction

The Tri-agency Institutional Programs Secretariat (TIPS) manages the Canada Research Chairs Program (CRCP), the Research Support Fund, the Canada Excellence Research Chairs Program, the Canada First Research Excellence Fund and the Canada 150 Research Chairs Program. TIPS is strongly committed to increased equity, diversity and inclusion in all these programs. It defines equity as the removal of systemic barriers and biases, to enact the practice of inclusion so that all individuals have equal access to and can benefit from the programs.

To achieve this, institutions must embrace diversity, defined as differences in race, colour, place of origin, religion, immigrant and newcomer status, ethnic origin, ability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and age. Recognizing and valuing diversity and equity must be accompanied by concerted efforts to ensure the inclusion of diverse and underrepresented populations, meaning that individuals must be and feel valued, respected and equally supported.

The institution must strive to put in place the right conditions for each individual—including those from underrepresented groups and the four designated groups: women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities—to reach their full potential, unimpeded by inequitable practices or research environments.

This guide is provided as a tool for institutions to use as they determine how best to address areas for improvement identified when assessing their work environment, and to develop their equity, diversity and inclusion action plans. For the program’s specific nomination and recruitment requirements, refer to the Requirements for recruiting and nominating Canada Research Chairs.

The guide will be updated periodically (last update July 2018). If you have additions and/or changes to suggest, please contact us at edi-edi@chairs-chaires.gc.ca.


A. Organizational allocation and planning
B. Job postings
C. Search for candidates
D. Hiring committee
E. Interview
F. Hiring decisions
G. Canada Research Chair nomination
H. Retention and promotion
I. Self-identification
J. Environment
K. Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan


A. Organizational allocation and planning

  • Consider equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) when assessing organizational needs, goals and risks. Include inclusive practices to increase the participation of underrepresented groups as part of a strategic plan. Ask questions such as:
    • Are there members of underrepresented groups in senior leadership and research roles?
    • Are there members of underrepresented groups serving as role models for underrepresented members of the institution’s community?
    • Are there members of underrepresented groups acting as mentors for faculty and students?
    • How does the organization determine how it gives out its leadership awards and celebrates and recognizes EDI achievements?
  • Create a leadership position with responsibilities that include:
    • providing advice to senior management on how best to take EDI into account in planning and procedures;
    • ensuring there is education and outreach to promote and sustain an inclusive and diverse environment on the campus at large;
    • creating resources and offering EDI training on the needs and realities of members of underrepresented groups;
    • promoting the value of EDI, especially as it relates to fostering excellent research; and
    • organizing events to celebrate and promote EDI.
  • Communicate EDI objectives to all faculty, administrators, students and student associations.
  • Evaluate the performance of deans and vice-presidents, in part, on how well they implement EDI principles and best practices in their work. Include actions to promote EDI in performance plans for middle-management.
  • Review current policies, practices and procedures through an EDI lens, to identify potential gaps, areas for improvement and areas of strength in the recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups. Ensure there are members of underrepresented groups and/or equity experts on the review panel. Consider EDI (e.g., issues of concern to members of underrepresented groups) when identifying and creating research programs.
  • Retain documentation about the merit basis of all candidates and appointments and hiring decisions, and include similar evidence in public communications about appointments. Communications will strengthen messaging that members of underrepresented groups have earned their chair appointments by scholarly merit.

B. Job postings

  • Ensure an EDI expert reviews and approves the job posting before it is posted.
  • Post all job postings publicly for a minimum of 30 days.
  • Use encompassing, clear, flexible criteria for assessing excellence that fully document, recognize and reward the scholarship of teaching, professional service, community service, outreach, mentoring and research training, and account for nontraditional areas of research and/or research outputs.
  • Post only the qualifications and skills necessary for the job.
  • Use inclusive, unbiased, ungendered language. Be inclusive of all genders: e.g., use the phrase “all genders” rather than stipulate “women and men,” and use the pronoun “them” instead of “him” and/or “her.” Avoid stereotyping, and avoid prioritizing those traits and descriptions traditionally viewed as masculine.
  • In the job posting, include information about the department and provide web links, if available. Showcase the diversity of the students and the city.
  • Require, as part of the job criteria, a track record related to EDI. Encourage applicants to identify their strengths and experiences in increasing EDI in their previous institutional environment, and in curriculum, and in supporting diverse students.
  • Use commitment-to-equity statements effectively:
    • Develop an equity statement that is meaningful and applies a wide lens in defining diversity. Avoid using very general statements that the institution or program support equity or support applications from underrepresented members. Apply language that is consistent with the principles of EDI.
    • Limit using the adjective “qualified” in the equity statement, as all candidates must be qualified.
    • Provide information about the institution, community assets and resources, EDI policies and action plan, accommodation policies, and family resources that would serve a diverse group and attract them to the institution.
  • Avoid creating unnecessary barriers. For example, posting internally or having limited external distribution of the job posting inherently values seniority and those who are “in the know.” Work-related assessment criteria should also apply to comparable experience in non-academic fields (e.g., government or community-based research). Do not focus solely on a strong publication record, as many academics have strong research output in oral or community-based forums and have considerable community service (this is especially true of some Indigenous scholars who may be doing research based in Indigenous ways of knowing).
  • Turn to colleagues and other faculties to promote the position. Consider using social media, job portals and electronic mailing lists to promote the position.

C. Search for candidates

  • Advertise widely, including internationally and to professional and discipline- and industry-specific associations and conferences of underrepresented groups (e.g., Canadian Coalition of Women in Engineering, Science, Trades and Technology; Pride at Work Canada) and relevant industry and research organizations (e.g., Aboriginal Professional Association of Canada, Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women—these organizations are provided as examples only).
  • Mandate proactive, targeted outreach to attract members of underrepresented groups.
  • Keep track of promising students and postdoctoral researchers as they progress through their career to ensure they are aware of opportunities related to TIPS-managed programs.
  • Compensate hiring committee members by giving them relief from other committee assignments; this will let them devote more time and resources to the hiring process, and will underscore that senior management believe conducting an open and transparent search that takes EDI into consideration is important.
  • Accept a full CV, ensuring that career interruptions due to parental leave, family care, extended illness, or community responsibilities do not negatively impact the assessment of a candidate’s research productivity. It is important that applicants know these will be taken into consideration when candidates are assessed.
  • Search for candidates through social media and at conferences, gatherings, or other events, especially those with a topic of interest to underrepresented groups.
  • Collect data regarding applicants who identify as members of underrepresented groups. Provide a clear privacy notice that indicates this data is collected to better assess how to attract applicants from underrepresented groups. Apply the self-identification best practices identified below.
  • Encourage the academic community and stakeholders to approach members of underrepresented groups and encourage them to apply.
  • If the pool of applicants to the posting is not large or diverse enough, extend the application deadline, or review the ad more critically for potential barriers and re-post it.
  • Ensure that candidates who are not shortlisted in the process are treated with courtesy and respect by providing responses as swiftly as possible.

D. Hiring committee

  • Ensure a diverse search committee, including an EDI expert whose role is to ensure EDI is considered in all aspects of the committee’s work; ideally, this member would be the chair of the hiring committee. Alternatively, the chair can be given explicit instructions to ensure that EDI concerns are raised during discussions. If it is not possible to have a hiring committee member with EDI expertise, ensure the committee has an EDI advisor as an ex-officio member.
  • Ensure conflict of interest is managed accordingly throughout the entire process.
  • Provide mandatory EDI training for all committee members that includes instruction on how to recognize and combat unconscious, implicit, overt, prejudicial and any other kinds of bias (e.g., the “dirty dozen” as explained in The Equity Myth). Other potential EDI training includes ally training, inclusive communications and workplaces, reconciliation, intercultural competence, accessibility and accommodations, and champions for change.
  • Identify potential biases, stereotypes and micro-aggressions revealed during discussions, and support the committee members as they work through them.
  • Provide a toolkit for search committees that includes:
    • a copy of this guide;
    • a detailed methodology for creating job descriptions that accurately identify the necessary skills, abilities, experience and qualities;
    • advice on how to evaluate applications that include nontraditional components (e.g., community-based or focused research), and a list of internal contacts at the institution who can provide further advice;
    • the institution’s equity and diversity targets and gaps, EDI commitment, and action plan;
    • a list of suggested effective interview questions (as well as a list of impermissible questions);
    • accommodation considerations; and
    • key steps for making the decision-making process open and transparent.

Specific practices for international recruitment:

  • If appropriate, engage a search firm with international reach and expertise in finding diverse candidates; however, ensure that recruitment includes a multi-pronged approach (e.g., in addition to using a head-hunting firm, circulate postings widely and ensure all networks for communicating the post are used).
  • Ensure that there is sufficient time to identify an optimally diverse pool of candidates.
  • Encourage strategic thinking regarding how to attract international scholars who may not be looking for a new position.
  • Consider including international representation on the search and selection committees.

E. Interview

  • Rank selection criteria prior to screening the applications, to ensure an unbiased, consistent and transparent selection process. Establish clear expectations with committee members before the interviews begin. Use an evaluation matrix.
  • Ensure that the same assessment process is applied to all candidates.
  • Ensure all parts of the process are accessible. When inviting the candidate to the interview, clearly state that the institution will respect and adhere to any accommodation needs.
  • Prepare the candidate for the interview in advance with information, such as how long the interview will be, who the panel members will be and the types of questions that will be asked.
  • Consider providing the interview questions 15 to 30 minutes in advance for the candidate to review beforehand.
  • Account for differences in communication and presentation styles by using a variety of evaluation formats (e.g., a lecture or evaluation of scholarly works could complement an interview).
  • Be explicit that career breaks for family or medical needs or community responsibilities will not negatively impact the hiring decision.
  • Be explicit that career breaks for family or medical needs or community responsibilities will not negatively impact the hiring decision.
  • Use the visit to promote the institution and community. Provide candidates with a chance to have a confidential discussion with staff and/or faculty members not directly involved in the search who can provide information about schools, housing, childcare, places of worship, or any other types of information a candidate might need to envision themselves moving to the community.
  • Personalize the candidate’s visit as much as possible. Introduce the candidate to faculty with similar research interests. Consider what kinds of information and contacts would be beneficial for the candidate to know (e.g., are there faculty associations or employee resource groups composed of members of underrepresented faculty/staff or focused on EDI issues? Is there an elder or senator who works with the institution?). Ensure all candidates receive the same tailoring of visits and that the principles of equity, fairness and transparency underlie all aspects of the recruitment and nomination.
  • Ensure the method of assessing candidates is equitable. Review through the lens of EDI principles by:
    • challenging the notion of rewarding or overvaluing the familiar;
    • considering diversity of thought, method and experience; and
    • valuating the candidates’ demonstrated commitments to EDI.

F. Hiring decisions

  • Be mindful that the best-qualified candidates may not have the most years of experience, greatest number of publications, or largest number of academic accomplishments. For example, an applicant who took time away from work or studies for family-related matters may not have as many publications, but the substance and quality of that applicant’s work may render them best qualified. As well, many Indigenous applicants will often have articles published in non-peer reviewed journals on important Indigenous issues. Many of these applicants are producing research work to meet community needs for the next seven generations of Indigenous peoples. As well, many advances an Indigenous scholar makes in academia and their community service will have an impact on the next generations.
  • Provide a written report to senior management on the process that led to the selection of the successful candidate, and the rationale when a member of a targeted group is unsuccessful. The committee member who is an expert in EDI should approve this rationale. The report should be available to unsuccessful candidates.
  • Avoid using a candidate’s “fit” as a means to discriminate or indulge personal biases. Employment and Social Development Canada allows employers to consider “fit” when evaluating candidates, but this should be used sparingly, and only as a justification for not hiring someone when the grounds are objective and reasonable (e.g., the fact that a candidate is introverted or extroverted should not be considered when assessing their suitability for the position).
  • Consider strategic hiring (where aligned with provincial human rights commission policy, as applicable) when two candidates are approximately equal, meaning there are two equally qualified candidates and one is from an underrepresented group.
  • Avoid undervaluing scholarship or research that is nontraditional or unconventional, outside the mainstream of the discipline, or focused on issues of gender and race. Search committees can acquire the help of experts to assess fields with which they are unfamiliar.
  • Explicitly remind committees that the need for accommodation cannot be used as a negative against a candidate in the assessment process.
  • Avoid averaging productive periods across nonproductive periods, such as those required for parental, family or medical leave. For example, some immigrants may have taken longer to attain senior degrees due to the difficulties of relocating and adapting to a new country and language. In addition, many Indigenous scholars are completing their senior degrees later in life and can take longer to complete them due to familial, socio-economic or other reasons.
  • Be aware of limitations the field of study may have on publishing in top-tier, mainstream platforms and attracting research funding. If the market for the research conducted is smaller, the candidate’s “numbers” may not be comparable to those for more traditional research areas.

G. Canada Research Chair nomination

  • Review the nominee’s proposal for gendered language. Be aware research has shown that women and Indigenous peoples are less likely to describe individual accomplishments.
  • Provide guidelines on how to limit the effects of letter writer bias. Research has shown that assessors are more likely to use “grindstone adjectives” (e.g., “hardworking,” “diligent,” “conscientious”) to describe women, and to reference these candidates’ personal lives, while they are more likely to use “stand-out” adjectives (e.g., “outstanding,” “superb,” “excellent”) to describe men, and to reference their CV, publications or patents. This can reinforce unconscious biases and negatively impact the career progression of women.
  • Make sure career interruptions are clearly described, and that, for the CRCP, CV extension provisions are taken advantage of where possible.
  • Minimize potential bias within the research program by adhering to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Sex, Gender and Health Research Guide: A Tool for CIHR Applicants, the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada, and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council’s Indigenous Research Statement of Principles, where applicable.
  • Ensure a strong level of institutional support is provided to all chairholders to ensure their success (e.g., mentoring, release from certain teaching or administrative duties, additional research funds, office space, administrative support, hiring of other faculty members).
  • Review the level of support being provided to individuals from underrepresented groups, to ensure they are not disadvantaged compared to other chairholders. For example, with Indigenous chairholders the institution will need to be supportive and sensitive to familial issues, community responsibilities and Indigenous values, traditions, cultural norms, ceremonies and practices, such as cultural and bereavement leave.
  • Consider dual career issues. One barrier to recruiting and retaining in academia is a candidate considering their partner’s career. Institutions should consider what they are prepared to offer should the candidate have a partner who also needs employment (e.g., a position in the institution, paying fees for a human resources company to assist the partner in finding a job, etc.).
  • Institutional leadership should put in place measures to ensure that candidates from underrepresented groups receive offers just as generous as those that other candidates receive.
  • Take into account different negotiating styles. It is important to review the different negotiating styles employed by men, women, and persons with different cultural backgrounds to ensure that these do not lead to inequities.
  • Ensure salary and startup packages, as well as research support, is comparable across chairs (taking into account disciplinary differences).

H. Retention and promotion

  • Ensure EDI guidelines for faculty evaluation and promotion are established and reviewed by groups responsible for EDI oversight at the institution.
  • Develop and implement an enhanced mentoring program that includes incentives for faculty members to serve as mentors, provides training for both mentors and mentees on how to optimize the experience, and allows for cross-departmental mentoring and emeritus faculty mentors.
  • Systematically collect self-identification data at all levels of faculty. Monitor and analyze this data to identify any potential systemic barriers to advancement. Measure and report publicly on progress (e.g., set targets for the representation of the underrepresented groups; set stretch targets or ultimate objectives for representation).
  • Conduct an environmental scan. Ask faculty, staff and students of every background and ability about the institution’s collegiality and climate and how well it is doing in its equity, diversity and inclusion work. Use the findings to gauge the institution’s effectiveness in retaining and advancing faculty members from underrepresented groups. Publicly define what the institution’s definition is of a healthy campus climate. Ensure the institution has made a long-term and sustainable commitment to assessing, responding to and addressing policies, programs and structural realities that affect the climate and potentially prevent inclusion of underrepresented faculty members.
  • Hold information sessions about promotion, including on how panels assess promotions, and how best to prepare a CV for the process.
  • Promote the benefits of diversity to the institution. Be explicit that a variety of perspectives and identities at the institution and among faculty leads to a more academically rigorous, culturally sensitive and innovative community. The visibility of individuals from underrepresented groups in prominent roles also positively influences students, who see a variety of role models conducting research in all disciplines.
  • Consider promotion of equity, diversity and inclusion principles in an individual’s work as criteria in the deliberations for faculty awards and/or nominations.
  • Put a candidate’s teaching evaluations in context. For example, student evaluations are subjective and could be influenced by unconscious or other biases. Gender, disability and culture could affect teaching style or the students’ perceptions of the instructor. Research shows this is especially the case for women instructors in male-dominated fields, such as engineering.
  • Identify someone at the institution who can help chairholders resolve any challenges they may face in the early years of their term.

I. Self-identification

  • When performing a survey or census, provide a definition of each designated group and then ask if the respondent self-identifies as a member of that group. Options should be inclusive (e.g., male, female, gender neutral and/or non-binary) and each question should provide the option to not respond.
  • Collect disaggregated data for all groups to ensure any systemic barriers within policies and processes can be identified.
  • Explain the purposes of the questionnaire, how the data will be used, privacy considerations, and the importance of self-identification for an accurate understanding of equity representation.
  • Be respectful of the reasons why someone may choose not to self-identify; self-identification is a choice.
  • Explicitly state a privacy policy alongside the methods of protection and planned uses of any information collected.
  • Ensure senior management understand and can communicate the institution’s equity and diversity data and objectives.
  • Send an accompanying letter from the president or the vice-president of research with the equity questionnaire.
  • Consider creating a video on employee diversity and self-identification. Ask designated management and staff of diverse backgrounds to participate as champions, to explain the importance of self-identification and encourage respondents to self-identify. Consider having a periodic self-identification campaign.
  • Designate one or more staff members to encourage respondents to self-identify; send a series of reminders.
  • Include information on rank and seniority level to be able to collect data that would indicate if there are systemic barriers to members of underrepresented groups being promoted to senior academic positions.
  • Never guess the gender, race, or other characteristics of a nominee. This is a violation of the individual’s right to privacy and is open to error/misrepresentation.
  • Avoid general, blanket equity statements such as, “This institution celebrates diversity and believes in creating an equal-opportunity environment.” Instead, use the statement to strongly emphasize the institution’s commitment to equity, and back this up with examples and/or a plan to follow through, e.g., “This institution is an advocate for equity and is committed to ensuring representation in its community. We welcome applications from members of visible minorities, women, Indigenous peoples, persons with disabilities, persons of minority sexual orientations and gender identities, and others with the skills and knowledge to productively engage with diverse communities. The institution seeks to maintain its commitment to excellence and recognizes that increasing the diversity of its faculty supports this objective.”
  • Suppress data counts of less than five when sharing or publishing data. The ability for others to identify individuals is increased when the number of chairs/individuals is less than five.
  • Include non-identification rates when presenting the data, so the margin of error and reliability of the data are transparent.

J. Environment

  • Make hiring diverse candidates an institutional priority.
  • Communicate a shared responsibility for EDI efforts across the institution.
  • Set benchmarks and indicators for diversity and inclusion. Consider using the Global Diversity & Inclusion Benchmarks or the Intercultural Development Inventory to get a good sense of the diversity and inclusivity of the institution’s community and where the institution should be directing improvement efforts.
  • Establish an EDI advisory committee—with staff members from a variety of areas, and with underrepresented groups—that determines issues to tackle, designs realistic approaches to issues, and promotes faculty, management and staff commitment to equity. The committee should report directly to senior management.
  • Hold public lectures by members of underrepresented groups and on topics of concern to those groups (e.g., Women in Science lectures, Indigenous approaches to research).
  • Create a safe space for people who are not always seen and heard to feel comfortable participating in conversations. For example, an institution may want to have interactive seminars on EDI topics held during lunch times to ensure faculty, staff and students participate.
  • Assess the institution’s communications strategy and its impact on EDI efforts (e.g., incorporate images of people from diverse backgrounds in promotional tools such as websites, pamphlets, photos and presentations).
  • Institute a network of approved elders, traditional knowledge keepers, traditional healers, and Indigenous-focused facilities, to support those who desire these services.
  • Acknowledge the traditional Indigenous land on which the institution is located, and integrate the use of Indigenous language at events, ceremonies and meetings.
  • Ensure that Indigenous culture and elder / Métis senator involvement is visible and viable across all aspects of the institution, not compartmentalized as an equity office or human resources initiative.
  • Develop the institution’s response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action by conducting extensive consultations to implement specific plans and initiatives.
  • Maintain a list of staff and community contacts who support members of underrepresented groups, such as immigration consultants, Indigenous organizations on and off reserve, accessibility services, disability management specialists, human rights advisors, faculty relations advisors, and human resource partners.
  • Provide easily accessible and appropriate resources for staff, such as onsite childcare with nursing rooms; multi-faith prayer and meditation rooms; accommodations for students, faculty and staff fasting during Ramadan; and flexibility for taking paid leave for religious obligations, rituals, celebrations and ceremonies.
  • Ensure strong and visible commitment to EDI by the institution’s leadership. Consider prominently posting a statement of commitment by the institution’s president on a diversity web page; distribute diversity messages; disseminate public statements on diversity; and post video clips from campus leaders discussing diversity on the institution’s website.
  • Recognize efforts to advance equity and diversity in the campus community through diversity awards. These awards should be given by the institution’s president, to underscore the importance of advancing equity and diversity.
  • Monitor annual reports to identify EDI concerns.
  • Share best practices with other Canadian institutions.

K. Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Action Plan

  • Draft an equity, diversity and inclusion action plan in consultation with members of the institution, particularly members of the four designated groups and other underrepresented groups. Ensure the consultation and engagement is meaningful (e.g., set up a committee to draft the action plan with members from underrepresented groups; ensure this committee does further consultation with the institution’s community members as appropriate).
  • Identify specific barriers through an environmental scan, employment systems review and a comparative review of the level of institutional support—by gender, designated group and field of research. It is important that the action plans are based on a thorough understanding of the institution’s own environment and challenges for it to be effective at increasing EDI.
  • Ensure the action plans are based on a study of intersectional EDI data for all designated groups (e.g., look at data for women who also identify as Indigenous or members of visible minorities; an underrepresented person who also identifies as a person with a disability, etc.). For instance, it may seem at an aggregate level that the representation of visible minorities is proportionate to the number of visible minority faculty; however, disaggregated data may indicate that there are systemic barriers that certain underrepresented groups face that others groups do not (e.g., Indigenous women will face a number of different barriers than Indigenous men).
  • Develop specific actions based on the needs of each group that is underrepresented and/or faces systemic barriers at the institution.
  • Develop S.M.A.R.T. objectives (specific, measurable, aligned with the wanted outcome, realistic and timely.)
  • Ensure that progress can be measured with quantifiable metrics and indicators. This will allow the institution to know if its action plan is working; to course correct, if necessary; and to communicate the clear advantages to bolstered EDI to its community. Ensure the plan explains how the core values/principles of EDI are integrated or will be integrated into the institutional culture and research environment.
  • Provide information on how EDI principles and best practices are built into processes and policies at all levels, from recruitment to retention to promotion.
  • Ensure there are mechanisms in place to address any resistance to the action plan. At their core, EDI action plans are about change management and a culture shift. For the action plans to be effective, there must be a strategy for dealing with pushback and creating “buy-in” from the community.
  • Ensure the institution’s community knows why the action plan is being implemented, what the expected outcomes are and who is responsible for implementing the various measures outlined in the action plan.
  • Identify who has ultimate accountability for the action plan. It should be someone who has considerable influence over the institution (e.g., the president and/or vice-president of research).
  • Make the action plan public, provide yearly updates on the progress in implementing the plan and address the challenges and systemic tensions to create better collaboration toward EDI goals.

Acknowledgements

The practices included in this guide have been gathered from subject matter experts, institutions’ equity offices, and the policies and published practices of international funding organizations.

TIPS would like to sincerely thank the following individuals for volunteering their time and expertise in contributing to this guide:

  • Claudia Alves de Jesus-Rydin, senior program officer, European Research Council (ERC) Executive Agency, and member, ERC’s Gender Balance Working Group;
  • Wafa El-Adhami, PhD, executive director, Science in Australia Gender Equity;
  • Uta Frith, PhD, emeritus professor of cognitive development, University College London, and chair, British Royal Society’s Diversity Committee; and
  • Tracey King, MEd, Aboriginal human resources lead and consultant, Ryerson University

Resources

Best Practices for Hiring with a Focus on Equity and Diversity (University of Lethbridge, October 2007).

Bias in Peer Review (Canada Research Chairs Program, September 11, 2017).

Cole, N., and K. Nesbeth, “Why Do International Assignments Fail? Expatriate Families Speak,” International Studies of Management & Organization 44(3) (2014): 66-79

Cuker, B. E., et al., “How a Scientific Society Built Multicultural Diversity: A 25-Year-Long Journey,” BioScience 66(3) (2016): 238-244.

Dowdeswell, E., S. Fortier and I Samarasekera, Report to the Minister of Industry of the Ad Hoc Panel on CERC Gender Issues (2011).

Dunstone, M., and B. Williamson, Gender Equity: Current Issues, Best Practices and New Ideas (Australian Academy of Science, March 8, 2013).

Employment Equity Guide (Western University, June 2014).

Equity and Inclusions in Hiring: Best practices for faculty and professional staff searches (Western Washington University, August 2016).

Faculty Recruitment Guide, Faculty Relations, The University of British Columbia.

Flaherty, C., “Bias against female instructors: New analysis offers more evidence against the reliability of student evaluations of teaching, at least for use in personnel decisions,” Inside Higher Ed (January 11, 2016).

Fine, E. and J. Handelsman, Searching for Excellence and Diversity: A Guide for Search Committee Chairs, Women in Science & Engineering Leadership (University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2005).

Foo, K., and N. Fong, Best Practices in Equity and Diversity: A Survey of Selected Universities (The University of British Columbia, February 2009).

Gaucher, D., J. Friesen and A.C. Kay, 2011, “Evidence That Gendered Wording in Job Advertisements Exists and Sustains Gender Inequality,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1) (2011): 109-128, doi:10.1037/a0022530.

Gender strategy toolkit, Workplace Gender Equality Agency.

Guidelines for Fair Assessment in a Diverse Workplace: Removing Barriers to Members of Visible Minorities and Aboriginal Peoples (Public Service Commission of Canada, April 1, 2011).

Hawley, C. E., et al., “College Graduation to Employment in STEM Careers: The Experience of New Graduates at the Intersection of Underrepresented Racial/Ethnic Minority Status and Disability,” Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education 28(3) (2014): 183-199.

Henry, F., et al., The Equity Myth (The University of British Columbia, June 2017).

Indigenous Education Protocol for Colleges and Institutes (Colleges and Institutes Canada, 2014).

Introduction to Gender-based Analysis Plus (Status of Women Canada, May 14, 2015)

Lai, C.K., et al., Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions (Social Science Research Network, 2014).

Lee, H. and E. Pollitzer, Gender in science and innovation as component of socioeconomic growth, Gender Summit: Quality Research and Innovation through Equality (London: Portia Ltd, 2016).

McMurtrie, B., “How to do a better job of searching for diversity,” The Chronicle of Higher Education (September 11, 2016).

McNulty, Y., “‘Being dumped in to sink or swim’: an empirical study of organizational support for the trailing spouse,” Human Resource Development International 15(4) (2012): 417-434.

Moody, J., Rising above cognitive errors: Improving searches, evaluations, and decision-making, resources for medical, law, & business schools and colleges & universities (Middletown: Publisher not identified, 2010).

Moody, J., Faculty diversity: Removing the barriers (New York: Routledge. 2012).

New Principles on Indigenous Education (Universities Canada, June 2015).

Ong, M., et al., “Inside the Double Bind: A Synthesis of Empirical Research on Undergraduate and Graduate Women of Color in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics,” Harvard Educational Review 81(2) (2011): 172-208,389-390.

Pathways to Broadening Participation in Response to the CEOSE 2011-2012 Recommendation (National Science Foundation Broadening Participation Working Group, November 2014).

Recruitment of Persons with Disabilities: A Literature Review (Public Service Commission of Canada, May 2011).

Report of the Trustee Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity (Princeton University, September 2013).

Smith, J.W. and T. Calasanti, “The influences of gender, race and ethnicity on workplace experiences of institutional and social isolation: An exploratory study of university faculty,” Sociological Spectrum, 25(3) (2005): 307-334.

Son Holoien, D., Do Differences Make a Difference? The Effects of Diversity on Learning, Intergroup Outcomes, and Civic Engagement (Princeton University, September 2013).

Uhlmann, E. and G. Cohen, “Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination,” Psychological Science. 16(6) (2005):474-480.

Van der Lee, R. and N. Ellemers, “Gender contributes to personal research funding success in the Netherlands,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 112(40) (2015): 12349-12353.

Williams, D.A. and K.W. Golden, The Chief Diversity Officer: strategy, structure and change management (Sterling: Stylus, 2013).

Williams, J. C., et al., Double Jeopardy? Gender Bias Against Women of Color in Science (San Francisco: UC Hastings College of the Law, 2014).